Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Stefan Weckbach: on 10/1/12 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote a minor change to what i said above: instead "Only via finding logical...

Stefan Weckbach: on 10/1/12 at 6:29am UTC, wrote Dear Janko, thank you ver much for your high appreciation of my essays, i...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 2:54am UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of...

Janko Kokosar: on 9/30/12 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan I gave you 10 points for your essay, maybe a week ago. You can...

Stefan Weckbach: on 9/29/12 at 14:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Frederico, a non-PEM is defined - by me - as a system in which our...

Frederico Pfrimer: on 9/28/12 at 18:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan I’m not sure I could understand what is the non-PEM or its...

Stefan Weckbach: on 9/28/12 at 14:56pm UTC, wrote Hi Frederico, thanks for reading my essay and for evaluating it as some...

Frederico Pfrimer: on 9/28/12 at 14:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan, Very nice essay with many challenging ideas. I think “The...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Trick of the Light by Stefan Weckbach [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay provides an alternative interpretation for the counter-intuitive behaviour of quantum mechanical “particles”. It gives an explanation, why physical space and time are not fundamental and why this can be infered at all. It further demonstrates that some popular interpretations of quantum mechanics fall short in explaining the parts that logic, uncertainty and metaphysics play in the field of quantum physics.

Author Bio

The author's main scientific interests are mathematical undecidability, algorithmic information theory, questions concerning consciousness, human free will and logics. Additionally he is interested in various interpretational questions about quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Great to see you again at FQXi!

I enjoyed your essay, especially the metaphorical finish, and agree that you focus on a major problem of assumptions and the logic of them. You and I are in agreement on so many things, so please forgive me if I disagree with some of your points.

Your focus is appropriately on logic, and the current state of quantum mechanics, exemplified by Bell's theorem, is related to d'Espagnat's contention that physics is based on realism, deductive logic, and locality. The Bell'ists have, in general, decided to keep logic at the expense of local realism. I suspect that we really should keep local realism and question logic. A number of essays here point out contradictions *between* GR and QM and contradictions *within* GR and QM and I contend that the brain's logical maps are not absolutely holistic but instead, as you say,

"personal beliefs and ... emotions can trigger us to believe obviously inconsistent things."

I agree with you, and see the logical maps that we use to 'cover' the world as partially overlapping in places and almost orthogonal in other places. From Joy Christian to Anton Zeilinger and all points in between there is confusion, contradiction, and incompleteness [at least as seen by others]. Given this state of illogic, I choose to retain my belief in local realism at the expense of a belief that anyone has a completely logical interpretation that contradicts local realism. For my picture of how quantum theory is based on particle AND wave, please read my essay

The Nature of the Wave Function

I would appreciate your comments on it. [I yesterday added a very brief synopsis/comment as to how particles arise in my theory.]

Of course, as you say,

"subjective certainty [which I have] for the existence of something is not the same as the presence of logical necessity [which I have not] for the existence of something." Nevertheless, I find many reasons to assume that the particle AND wave exist. If instead, one considers the Copenhagen interpretation of particle OR wave, then, as you point out, to ask 'when' the "thing" decided to be particle or wave is to logically conclude (in 'delayed choice' experiments) that the 'thing' "knows in advance which information you want to squeeze out of it."

You then treat the logic that follows.

Begin with "quantum mechanics tells us that particles can be in many different states and locations at the same time." But we only and always find them in only ONE state and ONE position at the same time, so we might question this. I offer an alternative interpretation in my essay. I consider that the 'solutions' to Schrodinger's equation typically describe the allowed energy states for given boundary conditions, and any such solution is a possible permitted state. Which solution actually occurs [lacking a noise-free environment] is probabilistic and is also a function of energy, since the greater the energy the less likely the state will occur. If the equation depends on time, then the probability varies with time. It's not deterministic. So I disagree that belief in particles AND waves is contradictory, as I show in my essay.

Having concluded that there *is* a contradiction, you do a yeoman's job of resolving the problem, and I admire your logic and your writing, and I especially like your metaphorical finish. And despite the above points, I still believe that you and I agree upon more things than we disagree on.

All the best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Edwin,

thanks for your warm welcome here at FQXI.

This forum is for exchanging different points of view, so let me answer some of them in this post. But i also appreciate our agreement on other points - how could it be more pretty!

I never understood the "Copenhagen interpretation" as an indefeasable dogma. For me, it merely says that we cannot decide with certainty what is going on in detail at the quantum level. This is surely not absolutely correct, because we today have much more insights into the quantum realm than the founding fathers of the Copenhagen interpretation. For example due to the decoherence theory that has stood its first tests recently. But nonetheless i think we are fare away from being able to know with certainty what is the right interpretation of QM at the end of the day.

Some find attractive indicators that the "thing" that governs QM is a real wave, as for example you do. Though not in ordinary 3D-space, but in a well-defined special geometric space, like for example Joy Christian's approach. For me, all the attempts to consider the wave function as a real entity must at least pay some price for that. For example, the geometric space of Joy's framework - at least for me - doesn't conform anymore to the classical space the founding fathers of QM thought about. Moreover, the wave function isn't defined in space - only in time. Somehow or other - i think - we have to pay a price for every consistent interpretation of QM and in *all* existing interpretations so far, the common element is that the Newtonian/Classical framework reaveals its incompleteness.

So you really don't have to give up logic! Besides, if we give up logics (be it a logics of the tertium non datur or its opposite), all our lines of reasoning here must be considered as potentially ill-defined. This is not what I believe in.

I read your essay and your lines of reasoning are indeed interesting and i realize that you deeply confronted with your field of investigation. What I really missed in your essay was an illuminating point of view within your framework on Heisenberg's uncertainty relations (time/energy, momentum/position).

Well, it is funny how one can arrive at the maximum opposite with different assumptions! You claim superpositions and collapse of wave functions to be wrong, i claim these features of reality are misunderstood due to the use of a wrong framework, namely classical physics. The same is true for your terms of non-locality and non-reality.

Despite these differences, i agree with your statement that "You and I agree upon more things than we disagree on", and that makes science so fantastic for me.

All the best also to you for your work and the course of this contest,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:09 GMT
Well, i thought i was logged-in... The previous post was from me!

Bookmark and Share



ABRAHAM wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 01:11 GMT
Stefan,

One of the better analysis's of Wave~Particle duality that I've read in quite some time.

May I offer the following to assist with your search for an answer:

The understanding (and unification) of Physics requires a very precise definition of EM mass [waves] and Matter [Particles] with the former being 2D divergent EM mass-Energies and the latter having 3D standing-wave charged geometries

From that my attached illustration shows that much of the confusion surrounding W~Pd comes from a poor definition of these terms [even Einstein lumped them all together in the Stress Energy tensor].

It then becomes readily apparent that much of the reported particle measurements of W~Pd are in fact wave measurements [reducing the mystery of W~Pd to a quantum-scale version of a boat with its associated soliton wave passing through 1 or 2 locks].

It is the measurement of the wave that produces the interference pattern not the particle.

Of course this can be extended further to the transverse [Bosons] and longitudinal [Photons] mass-Energy waveform measurements of EM waves themselves giving us a much clearer picture of the geometry behind Em wave-functions and probability distributions etc. [see 2nd attachment].

You will also note that I define Energy as equilateral in geometry and deterministic against Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle [but that's why its a principle and Tetryonics works in explaining these QED mysteries]

I trust this may be of use to you and your work.

attachments: 1_Figure_39.10__Double_slit_experiment_800x600.jpg, 2_Figure_38.10__WaveParticle_Probabilities_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:36 GMT
Dear Abraham,

thank you for your kind words concerning my essay.

For a well-founded understanding or even a comment on your work, i would need some more time (you wrote you developed it over some 4 years!).

What surely is interesting for me, is if you assume non-locality at least as partly an objective feature of reality and if not, how do you explain for example the double-double-slit-experiments. I would be happy to hear again from you!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share


ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT
Stefan,

In Tetryonics the 2D [planar] radiant EM field of mass-Energies provide the foundation for classical terms such as 'action-at-a-distance etc. and in fact much of my QED videos on YouTube goes into explaining the geometry behind the non-local interactions.

Suffice to say it can be summed up with the illustration attached on charge field interactions [note the momenta orientations - they form longitudinal 'momenta rods' facilitating the near instantaneous propagation of motion along them]

Particular attention is given in my QED to highlight the difference between Transverse [Hertzian/Maxwellian] EM wave propagation and that of Longitudinal [Teslian] waves.

Both propagate at c but LWs form rigid energy-momenta 'chains' along their direction of propagation - so that once formed the transfer of momenta from one object to the other is almost instantaneous.

The KEM fields of EM standing-wave particle geometries [Matter] radiate outwards from their source and form the non-local fields of interaction whose coupling strength is determined by their Energy content [E] and equilateral geometry [Alpha] as illustrated.

attachments: Figure_14.02__Coulomb_800x600.jpg, 1_Figure_40.15__Coupling_Constants_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

ABRAHAM replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT
Re: the Double Slit experiment - ALL Matter in motion produces an associated Kinetic ElectroMagnetic wave [KEM] comprised of its KE and Magnetic moment which has a nett divergent equilateral geometry [whose Energy content follows E=mv^2] - Matter itself is Lorentz invariant.

In the SSE & DSE it the measurement of the KEM wave that produces the interference patterns observed not the Matter [it can contribute to the pattern but does not spread out like the KEM wave does].

The KEM wave itself is a radiant EM wave that possesses a larger geometry [than the Matter producing it] and passes through what ever number of slits are available to it, producing multiple wavelets in the process and interfering with itself to produce the observed interference patterns.

Imagine if you will a speed boat [particle] with its associated bow wake [soliton wave] passing through either a single or double gate lock. [If the boat passes with the wake no real diff to the wake pattern produced but is boat hits the lock and stops there the bow wave still passes through and creates an interference pattern].

DeBroglie wavelengths and Compton frequency remain part of the inherent properties of Matter itself [but they are invariant as Matter is a EM standing wave that propagates at c all the time] while the KEM wave is Lorentz variant in accordance with the the velocity of the particle creating the field.

Many of the current 'problems' in Wave~ Particle duality stem from the very poor [and inconsistent] definition of 2D EM mass-ENERGY and 3D Matter in physics [an important point you'll see me repeat constantly throughout Tetryonics].

I trust this gives you food for thought on the geometric foundations of these processes.

If you have any other questions feel free.....

attachments: Figure_39.08__Single_slit_experiment_800x600.jpg, 2_Figure_39.10__Double_slit_experiment_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
Hello Stefan,

It is good to see you among the participants. I read about two thirds of your paper so far, and have enjoyed it greatly, but I need to wake early so I'm signing off. I wish you luck in the contest.

all the best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:41 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

i am happy you enjoyed my first two thirds of my essay! I now will read yours and leave a comment on your page!

Wish you also good luck in the contest.

With best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Hello again Stefan,

I read the rest of it, and I must say it was enjoyable, innovative, and fun. Plus; who else but you could build an edifice of ideas like that from only the thoughts in your own mind, without any references but your own essay from last year?

Well done! I liked it very much. Well reasoned and playful, thought-provoking, and once again fun.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 06:44 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

thank you so much for your appreciation! This motivates me to continue my thoughts as well as search for probable inconsistencies in my whole work. The next step for me is to think about some experiments that could validate my framework. Besides, i think i already found such an experiment, already executed by Zeilinger et al. I will try to discuss this amongst others and will start the discussion today in the evening Eastern Time.

So long,

with best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 07:51 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Reading your essay I was struck how there were some of the same ideas that I also used in my essay, but which were implemented in a completely different way.

Like you, I believe that Quantum behavior is a manifestation of incomplete information associated with a system; like you I believe that our frame of reference has something to do with it; and like you, I think that our classical binary conceptualization of existence is challenged by QM.

However, I put these ideas together totally differently. It is interesting for me to see how the building blocks of a framework (i.e. its concepts) can be put together in different ways to create diverse theories. I found the way you put your ideas together quite original and enjoyed the humorous style of some of the passages, such as found in the beginning of section 6 i

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Armin,

thanks so much for having read my essay and for your appreciation!

I will read your essay as soon as possible and will leave a comment on it on your page!

Thanks again for evaluating my lines of reasoning, i am looking forward to explore your thoughts about our issues!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Dear readers of my essay-page,

i now wrote down the above announced experiment of Zeilinger et al.

Comments and suggestions are welcome!

The experiment:

There is a "particle" source, such, that it produces two particles at a time which always propagate in exactly opposite directions (but can due to the following setup only be detected one of the particles diagonally to the lower left side, the other particle diagonally to the upper right side or vice versa). At some distant point at the right side of the source, there is a double-slit aperture positioned with an upper and a lower slit. With the help of a coincidence counter plus four detectors for observing each the final localisations for the two particles behind the slit(s), we determine that - due to the property of the source sending those particles always in exactly the opposite directions - :

if the left upper detector fires, the right lower detector does fire AND the left lower detector does not fire AND the right upper detector does not fire.

Vice versa it is also an observable fact:

If the left lower detector fires, the right upper detector also fires and the left upper detector doesn't fire and the right lower detector doesn't fire.

Here it seems that we can deduce the particles' wich-way-path through the double-slit by analizing its twin-particle propagating towards the opposite direction and being detected at either of the two detectors, each in diagonal line with each of the slits. These two control-detectors are for now not situated behind a double-slit.

No interference pattern will build up at the screen behind the double-slit aperture on the right side of the setup - even if we DON'T extract the which-way information by using detectors at the slits. The screen only shows a homogeneous grey, but no black and white stripes/fringes etc.

Now insert a second double-slit aperture at the LEFT side of the setup in front of the two detectors. Take one detector behind each of the two double-slit apertures out of the setup and use the two remaining detectors to sample the patterns behind the apertures. The detector at the left side is fixed while with the detector at the right side behind the double slit samples the interference pattern by being continously moved at the axis orthogonal to the slits. We can do this surely vice vera to. Fixing the detector at the right side and sample the interference pattern at the left side. The patterns will again be interference patterns. The crucial point here is, that without inserting the second double-slit at the left side, we don’t receive an interference pattern at the right side and vice versa. So inserting locally a double-slit aperture affects the locations the particles hit at a locally separated device.

Can anybody explain this in pure classical terms? I would be happy about many different or similar ideas!

Best wishes to all readers and contest participants,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share


Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT
I forgot to insert the references to this experiment.

References:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.
tb12449.x/abstract;jsessionid=CDA764C3755620AD75B273323974B1
24.d03t01


www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1985-03.pdf

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/i21/p2495_1

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 00:16 GMT
Interesting,

The question is still relevant, Stefan, but these experiments might not reveal important subtleties. A very recent experiment by Menzel et al. on Wave-Particle dualism, takes things to the next level, in trying to test for both particle and wave-like properties at once. I have attached a copy of the paper in PDF form, but the article can also be accessed at:

Wave-particle dualism and complementarity unraveled by a different mode

Using a laser that emits two different frequencies that are also coherent beams and use one as signal and the other as an idler, so knowledge about the position at the slot can be obtained by measuring the non-signal photon, which allows the wave interference pattern to be maintained. At least that's how I remember it. Edwin Eugene should get the credit for bringing this to my attention.

Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: WaveParticledualism.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 08:29 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

"a source...produces two particles at a time which always propagate in exactly opposite directions". This is how I calculate the spherical wave emitted from a dipole.

I am collecting notorious mistakes. You might be interested in my success to make obvious in my Fig. 5 why the Michelson Morley experiment was flawed.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

thank you for your hint regarding Menzel et al.

I have analysed there lines of reasoning in another's essay blog, but copy my opinion about this experiment into my essay site:

"Edwin and Robert, you both are right by determining that there is much confusion in the attempts to explain/interpret the QM behaviour. Let me just give an example recently made by Menzel et al.

In their paper ("Wave-particle dualism and complementarity

unraveled by a different mode", Ralf Menzela,1, Dirk Puhlmanna, Axel Heuera, and Wolfgang P. Schleichb) they write:

"The precise knowledge of one of two complementary experimental

outcomes prevents us from obtaining complete information

about the other one. This formulation of Niels Bohr’s principle of

complementarity when applied to the paradigm of wave-particle

dualism—that is, to Young’s double-slit experiment—implies that

the information about the slit through which a quantum particle

has passed erases interference. In the present paper we report a

double-slit experiment using two photons created by spontaneous

parametric down-conversion where we observe interference in

the signal photon despite the fact that we have located it in one

of the slits due to its entanglement with the idler photon. This surprising

aspect of complementarity comes to light by our special

choice of the TEM01 pump mode. According to quantum field theory

the signal photon is then in a coherent superposition of two

distinct wave vectors giving rise to interference fringes analogous

to two mechanical slits."

Their experimental results are interpreted as outsmarting the classical "dictum" of complementary between interference and which-way information. But there are some differences here to state. First of all, the "thing" that comes from the source is in a "superposition". Secondly, if we believe in superpositions, due to this superposition the down-converted thing going through the double-slit aperture cannot be thought of as being attributed in the sense "the lower maxima goes through the lower slit, the upper maximum goes through the upper slit". Despite the fact that the two maxima are macroscopically distinct, if we want to speak meaningfully about A PATH it went/will go through, we must take into account that due to the superposition of the maxima it is undecidable which path the thing went. Despite the fact that in this experiment the idler detector was fixed to a certain maximum of the down-converted control-beam, the 1 to 1 assignment of a "collapsed" superposition at the idler detector and the fact that interference occurs at the signal detector isn't possible. The reason for this is, that the state of the signal-beam was entangled with the double-slit until the signal-detector measured it. After this, the superposition of position at the slits "collapsed" but the superposition of the original beam is still there and produces the interference pattern in the far field.

So, D1 and D2 don't "speak" about the same "thing"." END of quote

In my opinion, the subtleties in all cases i came across were due to an improper analysis of the experiments.

Greetings,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 19:31 GMT
Thanks Stefan,

Due to hidden responses, I had missed the links above, and have now downloaded the paper from Ellerman, the photon quantum mechanics paper from the Colgate folks, and the Mach-Zehnder paper. I thank you for your forbearance, and will comment further after a little time to digest.

But at first glance, it looks like two of those papers caution against an assumption made by Menzel and his team, and that you point this issue out in the comment above.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I enjoyed your essay. A couple of points stand out.

1. I agree with you that space and time cannot be fundamental. (I have my own ideas about what the "more fundamental" structure is, but I won't try to expound on that in your thread; you may look at my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics if you are interested). I will offer a couple of thoughts on entanglement, nonlocality, etc., since you wrote about this in some detail. First, it's at least worth considering that we ought to define locality not in terms of the "spacetime metric," since we have good reason to doubt that manifold spacetime is fundamental, but in terms of causality; in other words, A and B are local if A directly influences B or vice versa. From this point of view, nonlocal phenomena at small scales (i.e. the quantum level) would be viewed as evidence that the manifold structure is only a large-scale approximation. I think that entanglement itself has more to do with superposition, but both ideas are worth thinking about, in my opinion.

2. I like your allegory involving the Genesis account. If I weren't too busy doing math, I could steal this idea and make a lot of money writing conspiracy-theory books claiming that the Bible is the work of ancient aliens who were trying to teach us quantum theory.

Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 00:50 GMT
Haha cute. If you ever get bored of both math and thinking, then you could write a book on the many-worlds interpretation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:37 GMT
Dear Ben,

thank you very much for your comment.

I will read your essay and leave a comment on your page at the weekend, when i have some more time to carefully consider the essays i promised to read.

As to your point with the bible, i am happy that you like my allegory. I hope nobody misunderstands this as a conspiracy theory, but as a hint that there could be a metaphysical level involved in QM at the very beginning of our physical universe (whatever the beginning was/is).

I really don't hope anybody steals my ideas at all!

Thanks again and best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 22:36 GMT
Dear Stefan

I enjoyed your essay.

You write that information cannot be transmitted with infinite speed. I deeply agree with this. This was also my thought. In my essay I added that the foundations of physics are also dimensionless masses of elementary particles and of black holes. They include speed of light, and they are base of space-time. In the opposite case they would communicate with infinite speed.

(I claim additionally that what is possible to calculate precisely ahead, always the same, is like that it does not exist, or it cannot live. So free will and quantum randomness create, something what is live.)

You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time. It is an interesting idea. (But I am not sure. How it is with weak measurement? You wrote about backwards-causality, so you know this?)

I get also one strange idea about your presentation of Heisenberg Microscope. : what if aperture is linear combination of big and small...

You main idea is that existence and nonexistence is not possible at the same time. This is idea about which I need to think about correctness and I need to connect it with the next idea:

1. Space-time is stretched by path of light. (This is given by general relativity)

2. Three space dimensions are stretched by three dimensions of light. (This is my idea.)

3. Path of light exists where it is possible to notice it. If it is not noticed, it cannot be known, if it was there or if it was not there. (If light can go through two apertures, it goes through the both, because we cannot know where it was not present.)

4. The point three has similar motivation as points 1 and 2, thus in is a hint for quantum gravity. I believe that space or space-time is emergent and maybe quantum mechanics on very small scales show how it is with this.

5. Let us say that space is emergent, thus that only measurements uncover and create it. In that case a particle exists everywhere if it is not measured. Thus this is not in contradiction with simultaneous existence and nonexistence.

Another example of nonexistence and existence at the same moment is superposition of spin -1/2 and 1/2. It does not need inclusion of space.

Best regards

p.s.

One grammar correction: ''are are''.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear Janko,

thanks for enjoying my essay!

You raise many questions and i try to answer them step by step. But before i do so, i want to say that i read your essay and i enjoyed it too. Very differenciated lines of reasoning, well-grounded on experimental and theoretical facts. And last but not least, you do differentiate between assumptions and proven facts. well-done!

As for the Libet-experiments, i must say that my point of view is, that the experimental framework does produce the measured signals in the brains such that before the experiment begins, the tested person has incorporated *what to do*! This then leads - in my opinion - to the measured signal of his/her brain. The information of the experimental setup is simply stored in the brains short memory and executed/triggered. As in QM, here one cannot logically infer that the mentioned brain signal does "cause" the will of the tested person, because the will of the tested person has incorporated the experimental needs before the experiment got even started ("initial conditions"). So, the brain signal is only a *result* of this, not a *cause* of the person's actual behaviour.

But now to your questions.

In my lines of reasoning i assume QM to have the non-local feature that is usually called "entanglement". Yes, i do believe that the information-transfer due to "entanglement" does happen instantaneously (as far as no experimental counter-examples exist up to date). The question is, what is an infinite speed? In my previous essays i have always argued that the very concept of "infinity" is void of any physical meaning. I think the same is true for the term "infinite speed". Infinity for me is just another term for "not defined", means "not sufficiently defined". That's why in my framework QM-weirdness is due to information-deficits in the physical network of measurements - there are void placeholders, call them infinite structures or call them transcendent structures as you like, for me that does not make a difference in the epistemological view of the information-deficit i mentioned. Non-locality is just "not defined" in our classical einsteinian/newtonian framework and i think that's one reason why QM and GR are so hard to reconcile.

"You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time."

Do you refer to the double-double-slit-experiment i described in some post above or to some statements in my current essay?

Unfortunately i do not know much about weak measurements, but i assume that the interpretation of "backwards causality" due to the results achieved there, is due to the "continous" function of "complementarity" (or maybe just due to the Heisenberg uncertainty). You can measure a little piece of a complementary value and gain another little piece of the corresponding complementary value. Doing this in a specific sequence, may leave the impression of backwards-causality, but that's only a wild guess from my side.

"I get also one strange idea about your presentation of Heisenberg Microscope. : what if aperture is linear combination of big and small..."

Yes, one never knows... until one designs an experiment to find indicators that the lens itself is in a superposition. I would guess again that this could be possible, but only for the price of destroying the superposition of the entangled electron... and therefore compensating the whole argument ad absurdum...

"You main idea is that existence and nonexistence is not possible at the same time."

No. I wrote this only to demonstrate how our everyday-logic works. In the microcosm of QM i think existence follows some kind of continuum. Its just another continuum similar to that of position/momentum in HU. The more "existence" from our point of view, the higher the QM probabilities are and vice versa. From the view of "QM", "existence" seems to be an interdependent feature of the constituent parts of a system. In other words: Existence is somewhat a wholistic thing (as you rightly state in your own essay by mentioning that spacetime would vanish if we erase all of the matter out from it).

"1. Space-time is stretched by path of light. (This is given by general relativity)".

I am not sure if this would be consistent. Because light is to be considered without rest mass, how can it influence some void "space" that posesses also no rest mass? It would depend on a classical explantation of how "light" does interact with empty space (surely space, due to QM, cannot be empty at all and this could be a way to introduce some interaction between light and the space it occupies).

"2. Three space dimensions are stretched by three dimensions of light. (This is my idea.)".

Maybe this makes sense due to our concept of spin/momentum defined in three space dimensions separately.

"3. Path of light exists where it is possible to notice it. If it is not noticed, it cannot be known, if it was there or if it was not there. (If light can go through two apertures, it goes through the both, because we cannot know where it was not present.)".

Yes, if we notice light, we conclude that it must have travelled to hit our senses/devices. We have no other "proof" than this to conclude that the microcosmic realm does behave as classical as the macrocosmic realm. But if the macrocosm emerges from QM, then i would doubt that QM itself can be described classically (and i am a believer in the emergence of spacetime out of QM-dynamics - whatever it is).

"5. Let us say that space is emergent, thus that only measurements uncover and create it. In that case a particle exists everywhere if it is not measured. Thus this is not in contradiction with simultaneous existence and nonexistence."

I would say, that the particle "exists" everywhere is somewhat a circular argument, because this "everywhere" can be understood as classical space and classical space is considered to be emergent due to particles "existing everywhere". But if - and i think you would have it interpreted as follows - "everywhere" is ment to be a non-physical realm that causes non-local connections, i would say yes, it exists "everywhere" where it is interdependent to other particles.

"Another example of nonexistence and existence at the same moment is superposition of spin -1/2 and 1/2. It does not need inclusion of space."

Yes! For the definition of existence, it is not neccessary to preclude some space or some time - otherwise we would arrive again at our "non-emergent" classical spacetime!

I would be happy if you would post me your point of view about the things i wrote here!

Best wishes and thanks for reading my essay,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 13:11 GMT
Correction:

Instead: "...it is not neccessary to preclude..."

please read: "...it is not neccessary to assume..."

Bookmark and Share



Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 13:10 GMT
Correction:

Instead: "...it is not neccessary to preclude..."

please read: "...it is not neccessary to assume..."

Bookmark and Share



Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Please:

I read your essay. I could not understand your resolution to the double slit paradox. However, after you see my work, you may see consistency between what you and I are saying. Concerning the double slit experiment, you wrote: "Note that it was never observed that a particle could be detected at both detectors at the same time." That WAS true. However, I have experimental evidence here in the essay contest that resolves mysteries in a straightforward way. It is not a double slit experiment, it is a beam-split experiment. However, it addresses the crucial issue of detecting a particle-like event (not a particle) at both paths at once. I detect both paths at once, but it requires gamma-rays to see through the noise and illusion of past experiments. The resolution to the paradox is called the loading theory (LT), something almost everyone gave up on long ago. LT was given up for poor reasons and I explain its history. In LT the wave goes both ways, the particle-like effects are due to loading to a threshold that responds with a quantized emission, and absorption is continuous. Matter can take on either a contained wave or a spreading wave state. Light is classical but is quantized at only the instant of emission. A similar experiment was performed with matter-waves. The wave-particle paradox Was for both matter and light, and both are addressed. Our key experiments of past all seem capable of being reinterpreted successfully by LT. However, there are some experiments by others that I show must be re-done more carefully. Please see A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory. Also, Ragazas' theory essay supports LT. I am also supported by Vladimir Tamari's essay.

Thank you, Eric Reiter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Eric,

thanks for your comment, i will surely read your essay carefully.

Hope you have chosen some suitable referees for your essay, so, if it is true what you claim, they will give you credit.

By the way: how do you interpret "entanglement" in your reinterpretation?

Best wishes for your work,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Stefan, here are some answers:

-----------

Weckbach: "Libet experiment...the tested person has incorporated *what to do*!"

Kokosar: It is possible also that your explanation is true.

--------------

Weckbach: "Yes, i do believe that the information-transfer due to "entanglement" does happen instantaneously"

Kokosar: So this is counter-motivation against mentioned in your essay? Are you maybe motivated with para-phenomena? However, This resulted from five assumptions:

1. The basis of physics are dimensionless masses of elementary particles, and they implicitly comprise speed of light.

2. If transfer of information happens momentarily, this is not information transfer. (This is your sentence).

3. Let us imagine c as some resistivity of vacuum, this means if virtual particles did not exist, interactions would be momentarily.

4. According to the model of Markopoulou I suspect that points, which are closer together, have only larger number of connections. Thus fast connections exists also between distant particles. Like some wormholes.

5. I suppose that it exists upgrading of quantum randomness into quantum panpsychism, where quantum randomness can be explained with conscious decisions. Thus randomness, which forbids transfer of information in EPR paradox, is maybe violated.

Thus the above points deny and confirm instantaneous moving of information. however, the simplest ones above deny it.

-------------

Kokosar Old: "You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time."

Weckbach: Do you refer to the double-double-slit-experiment i described in some post above or to some statements in my current essay? Unfortunately i do not now much about weak measurements,

Kokosar: I mentioned the newest your essay. It is an important thought, but it also needs to be confirmed in light of weak measurement. This is also described in an article of Aharonov http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224 and other articles of him.

---------------

"Kokosar old : 1. Space-time is stretched by path of light. (This is given by general relativity)".

Weckbach: I am not sure if this would be consistent. Because light is to be considered without rest mass, how can it influence some void "space" that posesses also no rest mass??

This is a claim without use of quantum world, where space-time emerges. Although my claim is consequence of diffeomorphism, which gives clue that space-time is emergent, general relativity also gives that straight line is defined where photon is moving. Thus it is not yet necessary to exclude space-time.

--------------

Kokosar old: "2. Three space dimensions are stretched by three dimensions of light. (This is my idea.)".

Weckbach: Maybe this makes sense due to our concept of spin/momentum defined in three space dimensions separately.?

Kokosar: As I wrote, I claim that Weizsacker's idea of three Pauli matrices is the essence of arising of three dimensions. My idea is only an additional aspect.

-------------

Kokosar old: "3. Path of light exists where it is possible to notice it. If it is not noticed, it cannot be known, if it was there or if it was not there. (If light can go through two apertures, it goes through the both, because we cannot know where it was not present.)".

Weckbach: Yes, if we notice light, we conclude that it must have travelled to hit our senses/devices. We have no other "proof" than this to conclude that the microcosmic realm does behave as classical as the macrocosmic realm. But if the macrocosm emerges from QM, then i would doubt that QM itself can be described classically (and i am a believer in the emergence of spacetime out of QM-dynamics - whatever it is).

Kokosar: I also believe in emergence of space-time, but I think that this explanation is possible at quantum world. Emergence is at lower level. But, this is a first hint of emergence of space.

------------------

Weckbach:

I would say, that the particle "exists" everywhere is somewhat a circular argument, because this "everywhere" can be understood as classical space and classical space is considered to be emergent due to particles "existing everywhere". But if - and i think you would have it interpreted as follows - "everywhere" is ment to be a non-physical realm that causes non-local connections, i would say yes, it exists "everywhere" where it is interdependent to other particles.?

Kokosar: The same answer: I also believe in emergence of space-time, but I think that this explanation is possible at quantum world. Emergence is at lower level. But, this is a first hint of emergence of space.

But I admit, your claim demands more precise answer, and I do not conceive it at the moment. I believe in my claim, but I am not sure about my answer to you. :)

-----------------

Thank you also for reading of essay. It is a problem with new theories of amateurs that rarely one read them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Janko,

thanks for your reply and for dig deeper due to my - maybe ambivalent answers. I will answer your questions again step by step.

"So this is counter-motivation against mentioned in your essay"

In my essay, i take the "speed of light" for granted. But i do not make any statements about what "light" "really" and ontologically is. I assume that the "speed" C is only another formulation for the fact that one can gain some sensual information (via eyes, detectors etc.) from a "spacetime" separated event only after a certain *time* has elapsed (-> namely the speed of light).

For me, this does not neccessarily or logically imply that there has been a propagation of "something". Because if one looks at the whole procedure from an informational point of view, the informational content of the procedure of "something travelling a well-defined trajectory through space and time" has only a substantiated/objectifying meaning if a measurement takes place (even if no conscious observer does make the measurement). With measurement i mean the *interaction* of two or more quantum states - thought as space-like separated trajectories - that interact at their cutting point in "spacetime".

If we propose that entanglement is a real feature of the emergent spacetime, then at the point in the already emergent time the two or more quantum states meet, there is an instantanious information transfer. But this information is not accessible via logics of opposites because, for example, you can code 2 bits (one bit for every of the two "particles" that "travel" through "spacetime" and "interact" at a certain spacetime point) either separately to each one of the particles, or you can code the two-particle system as a whole with two bits to encode a certain information that is *shared* by both "particles".

"Are you maybe motivated with para-phenomena?"

I do not exclude para-phenomena from being possible. But most literature on this is exaggerated and not really scientific. I do believe in the reality of near-death-experiences and in the reliability of the information they deliver to the experiencer. In this sense i really believe in some kind of para-phenomenon and panpsychism. I outlined this point of view in my very first essay here at fqxi, maybe you want to take a look at this piece of paper (i think it was 2009?).

"1. The basis of physics are dimensionless masses of elementary particles, and they implicitly comprise speed of light."

I think the basis of physics is informational, it is a realm of coherent and consistent relational information that is structured interdependent and dynamically and is able to evolve towards new and extended structures of sense, meaning, consistence and interconnectedness. This is the reason for me why spacetime must be emergent.

"2. If transfer of information happens momentarily, this is not information transfer. (This is your sentence)."

No, the other way round. What is carried by the speed of light is no information except the information *when* the instantanious information transfer "inside" an entangled state must happen. Namely exactly at the point the entangled state "decoheres", or is "decoupled". Entanglement and decoupling need time due to the information-deficit in our world. More precise: Decoupling of entangled states (irregardless of the components that in the course of this procedure again get entangled with new components and so on) is an expression, a result of a world that consists of some more or less separated parts. Separation only makes sense if the one part is not fully dependent from the other part. QM realizes this by being not fully deterministic, but by offering a huge variation of possibilities for interaction results (measurement results).

"3. Let us imagine c as some resistivity of vacuum, this means if virtual particles did not exist, interactions would be momentarily."

I am not so firm with vacuum physics, but i think this would be maybe a viable way to imagine the propagation of "light".

"4. According to the model of Markopoulou I suspect that points, which are closer together, have only larger number of connections. Thus fast connections exists also between distant particles. Like some wormholes."

Unfortunately i cannot comment on this, because i don't know the work of Markopoulou very well. But i will study again yours own essay and will leave a comment on your essay page, Janko.

"5. I suppose that it exists upgrading of quantum randomness into quantum panpsychism, where quantum randomness can be explained with conscious decisions. Thus randomness, which forbids transfer of information in EPR paradox, is maybe violated."

Yes, this is similar to what i wrote in my first essay here on fqxi. An indirect proof of this could be found in the results of near-death-research. Only one of those near-death experiences that could be verified (and for me this has been done long ago) would indicate that you are right ("right" insofar if the information that has been achieved by the experiencer is quantum physical in its nature).

"You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time."

O.k., i understand, you mean the classical double-slit experiment. In my essay i wrote "Note that it was never observed that a particle could be detected at both detectors at the same time." I think this is true up to date as long as there are no counter-examples that could be verified by the physics community.

I nonetheless will read the articles of Aharonov and look for more information about weak measurements - i promise!

"

Weckbach: I am not sure if this would be consistent. Because light is to be considered without rest mass, how can it influence some void "space" that posesses also no rest mass??

You: "This is a claim without use of quantum world, where space-time emerges."

Yes, you are right! Thank you for remarking this - it fits well into your assumption how the vacuum could come into play!

"This is a claim without use of quantum world, where space-time emerges. Although my claim is consequence of diffeomorphism, which gives clue that space-time is emergent, general relativity also gives that straight line is defined where photon is moving. Thus it is not yet necessary to exclude space-time."

Yes again!

"Kokosar: As I wrote, I claim that Weizsacker's idea of three Pauli matrices is the essence of arising of three dimensions"

I have to take a closer look what Weizäcker wrote about this.

"Kokosar: I also believe in emergence of space-time, but I think that this explanation is possible at quantum world. Emergence is at lower level. But, this is a first hint of emergence of space."

Yes, i absolutely agree. QM, from my point of view, does really "force" us to think about spacetime as an emergent "thing". Let's see how the physics community (professionals *and* non-professionals) can further work out this hint. Personally i am convinced that this year there are so much very interesting and intelligent essays here that i would bet that out of some of them there could arise new and insightfull paths.

"But I admit, your claim demands more precise answer, and I do not conceive it at the moment."

I am not sure which of my claims you refer to. I hope my answers could be helpfull for you and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. After i have read your essay one more time, i will leave a comment on your page.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Very nice essay with many challenging ideas. I think “The trick of logic” or “The trick o language” would be also good titles that reveal the content of the essay. In many senses you have shown how our logic and language lead us to paradoxes or misunderstandings in relation to quantum theory; that quantum mechanics contradicts a lot of our reasoning and expectations....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
Hi Frederico,

thanks for reading my essay and for evaluating it as some positive piece of work.

I hope you didn't have misunderstood me, because my point of view is that beyond the PEM there is IT'S OPPOSITE, namely the non-PEM.

"When you say that every particle has defined properties, and so defined position and momentum you are saying that the PEM holds for every particle."

I only "say" this to illustrate the mainstream oppinion of a "particle". I outlined the alternative of a "particle" as a "messenger", the message is always carried within the limit of the lightspeed, but as soon as light interacts with some new matter, a non-local interaction with the former matter the light originated from does take place. In both cases i do not assume that there is real "particle" on its way with definite properties and so on.

I will definitely read your arxiv-paper this weekend and post my thoughts on your essay-website!

Again much thanks for your appreachiation!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Stefan

I’m not sure I could understand what is the non-PEM or its opposite. I understood you were only saying the common sense about particles, and my point is really against that common sense. I hope you will read my paper and we could discuss it out of the scope of this contest. Then we can share ideas and even get into hard discussions without the idea that I might be judging your work.

Best Regards

Frederico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Dear Frederico,

a non-PEM is defined - by me - as a system in which our "classical" opposites no more do exclude each other. For example the opposites "existent" and "non-existent" in the non-PEM framework built a continuum, not a digital unit of either-or.

I assume the same is true for the quest of free will. In my opinion there could be a continuum of more or less freedom. Starting with determinism and ending with "free will" (whatever we define it in human terms which are restricted to our restricted ability to execute a really *free* will).

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Stefan

I gave you 10 points for your essay, maybe a week ago. You can decipher if you sort by community rating.

Reason for such mark is because we have similar ideas about consciousness, maybe also a similar approaches to physics. I like also your other FQXi essays.

Theory of Aharonov is not physically very confirmed, but probably there exist other theories. Weak measurement means that at the same time we measure particle and wave properties at double slit experiment. Maybe someone knows if it is possible to measure electron at two slits at the same time? Your supposition that this is not yet measured is good and it is worth to check it.

I found article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

It said that speed od information is not larger than c and not infinite. Have you known this?

I hope that we will exchange some information also after this contests. Are you work with fundamental physics only in free time?

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Janko,

thank you ver much for your high appreciation of my essays, i am happy that we share the point of view that consciousness is important in physics and cannot be neglected anymore. This is already true for the propositions ones consciousness makes about the physical world. But it is surely also true for the propositions one make about the very nature of consciousness and its role for finding a coherent and consistent explanation of some outstanding physical questions.

That there is a huge intersection between the feature of human logic and the behaviour of nature is - in my opinion - a hint to take consciousness more serious. We should stop thinking of physics as if there is no observer incorporated within it. Erasing the observer from physics to make it as objective as possible leads to the opposite, namely to make it a very subjective thing loaded with many undetected and unproven assumptions.

Janko, you wrote

"Weak measurement means that at the same time we measure particle and wave properties at double slit experiment."

I think this could be only the case if we get some which-path information that is not 100 percent reliable and some weak interference-pattern?

"Maybe someone knows if it is possible to measure electron at two slits at the same time?"

As far as i know, this has not been observed yet - and surely would contradict the predictions of QM.

Janko, the question of free will relating to QM is very interesting and i have wrote about this in some previous essay.

The free-will questions is important, because, on a logical level, this could be a loophole in EPR-like experiments. If measurement results are predetermined (by whatever you think of - for example by some "intitial" conditions at the big bang or by something else), it is predetermined that they mimic just the non-local correlations we observe. But if predetermined, there's no non-local instantaneous influence between two or more entangled "particles", the observed correlations simply have their roots in a mysterious predetermined universe. So, the whole argument to eliminate free will is to avoid a real feature of nature called non-locality. With the argument of pre-determinism you can state that the measurement outcomes are always local and realistic, as Einstein for example wished it to be.

But the whole framework of pre-determined interaction-results is in my opinion a logical contradiction. If pre-determinism is true, it determines my thoughts about nature, my lines of reasoning, my assumptions and my whole worldview. Independent of the truth or even the consistency of the contents of my thoughts. So, if pre-determinism is true, it could be that what i think as some consistent thoughts - and even about the issue of pre-determinism! - appears to me only - mysteriously or randomly due to some initial conditions - as consistent and has *nothing to do with the real physical circumstances*. Surely, this pre-determinism makes no sense at all, because i can never know if my thoughts have some meaningfull connection to the whole framework of pre-determinism.

this all is another reason why i reject the many-worlds interpretation. As you know, in this interpretation it is assumed that the Schroedinger equation is universal, strictly deterministic and does not collapse. This alone, in my opinion, induces pre-determinism and therefore the illusion of non-locality. But without non-locality, there aren't many worlds!

In my own framework the collapse of the wave-function isn't real, because we even don't know what we describe with this wave-function. We simple don't know for sure what propagates between emission and absorbtion and if there propagates something physical at all (this has to be examined further in the light of Zeilingers fullerene-experiments, maybe by monitoring the fullerenes with a heat-imaging camera). So, in my framework, the wave-function does - for practial reasons - fit some evolution of a system, but if there are contradictory facts at the end of such an experiment (for example in delayed-choice-experiments), nothing "collapses", but via entanglement the actual measurement gets rendered consistent with the previous measurement. This alone could explain the "collapse", because the former description via wave-function isn't no more consistent with the actual facts - in other words: It is of no more use to describe or interpret the actual situation.

"It said that speed od information is not larger than c and not infinite. Have you known this?"

Yes, i know the free will theorem. As you know, dependend on dropping and assumption and at the same time incorporating an assumption, you automatically come to new conclusions (assumptions). I think it can not be proven strictly that there's free will - because every proof - by definition - has to be deterministic and you *cannot* prove with deterministic procedures that determinism is false!

Maybe Conway and Kochen didn't make their theorem such deterministic in a mathematical sense, but i think the lines of reasoning are - due to the classical boolean logic - nonetheless deterministic. Only via finding logical contradictions it is possible to falsify the claim of pre-determinism!

"I hope that we will exchange some information also after this contests. Are you work with fundamental physics only in free time?"

We can do this. I also want to exchange information with Frederico Pfrimer and i think it is fruitfull for my own work to more exchange points of view. Yes i work on those topics only in my free time, i am not a professional, but have a regular job.

Thanks again Janko for your appreciation and i hope my statements above could be of some help for you.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
a minor change to what i said above:

instead "Only via finding logical contradictions it is possible to falsify the claim of pre-determinism"

it is more understandable to say

"Only via finding logical contradictions it is possible to leave ad absurdum the claim of pre-determinism"

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.