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.

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.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 7/4/14 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Han, "the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities."...

**Han Geurdes**: *on* 7/4/14 at 7:12am UTC, wrote Dear all, Suppose, [equation] . Then, [equation] . Hence, [equation]...

**DR. EDWARD SIEGEL**: *on* 11/6/13 at 20:02pm UTC, wrote MUCH-HYPED TRENDY "QUANTUM-COMPUTING" IS ALIVE AND WELL AND IN ANN AI HAS...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 9/19/13 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Bob, I've just re-read this excellent piece (or strictly 'read' it) and...

**amrit**: *on* 7/13/13 at 9:33am UTC, wrote 3D universal space is a medium of quantum entanglement. 4D space-time...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 6/11/13 at 16:50pm UTC, wrote doug, Thanks, the sensational advance the essay describes does again seem...

**doug**: *on* 6/11/13 at 11:57am UTC, wrote Peter, I read with interest your essay and Edwin's, though both I would...

**doug**: *on* 6/6/13 at 12:15pm UTC, wrote Peter, Yes - most all of of it. I shall find your essay & Edwin's & read...

FQXi FORUM

May 21, 2022

Why *not* quantum discord instead of entanglement (Vedral's information based program)? It seems strange to me that Vedral in an article here a few months ago bet on the survival of quantum entanglement as a physical principle, IIRC.

As with classical ether a hundred years ago, physicists seem reluctant to give up quantum entanglement because of what they think they know about it, and particularly -- the necessity for it. Stripped of all pretense to objective knowledge, however, entanglement remains a placeholder for what we don't understand about about local realism.

It isn't quite true, as the article claims, that Einstein was troubled " ... because the outcome of different measurements should be random and unconnected." Einstein objected to probabilistic measurement altogether; the claim that "all physics is local" bounds the measurement domain definitely. Relativistic correlations, therefore, are co-dependent on boundary conditions, as contrasted to putatively entangled particles where nonlocality is assumed to be a physical fact.

It remains to be seen that quantum discord is compatible with relativity. Quantum entanglement is not.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

As with classical ether a hundred years ago, physicists seem reluctant to give up quantum entanglement because of what they think they know about it, and particularly -- the necessity for it. Stripped of all pretense to objective knowledge, however, entanglement remains a placeholder for what we don't understand about about local realism.

It isn't quite true, as the article claims, that Einstein was troubled " ... because the outcome of different measurements should be random and unconnected." Einstein objected to probabilistic measurement altogether; the claim that "all physics is local" bounds the measurement domain definitely. Relativistic correlations, therefore, are co-dependent on boundary conditions, as contrasted to putatively entangled particles where nonlocality is assumed to be a physical fact.

It remains to be seen that quantum discord is compatible with relativity. Quantum entanglement is not.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Reagrding the : multiplicity of states simultaneously:

Think matter to its spatial eqivalency here [as it travels at rate %"c" of course (www.CIGTheory.com) so it can atain its spatial eqivalency]. The "multiplicity of states simultaneously" may be viwed according to that "new space" resultant from the traveling mass.

Regarding "The mere act of measurement forces...

view entire post

Reagrding the : multiplicity of states simultaneously:

Think matter to its spatial eqivalency here [as it travels at rate %"c" of course (www.CIGTheory.com) so it can atain its spatial eqivalency]. The "multiplicity of states simultaneously" may be viwed according to that "new space" resultant from the traveling mass.

Regarding "The mere act of measurement forces...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Isn't it strange that quantum mechanics (nature) has proven to be ethereal and ghostly after all? Only when we look by taking a measurement does nature act classically, with particles. The Higgs field itself is this mysterious ubiquitous field that is justified by the scarcely detected Higgs boson. So it is with ghosts, haunts and spirits that visit upon the young and naive, but seem to vanish (collapse?) when we learn to think classically and logically. Since nature acts this way, spiritism and spiritualism are justified by nature and quantum mechanics.

Hey, it's not my fault that the quantum hydrogen atom has a ghostly (see through) appearance.

report post as inappropriate

Hey, it's not my fault that the quantum hydrogen atom has a ghostly (see through) appearance.

report post as inappropriate

Peter (I hope you'll show up sooner or later)(and I think you know my theory - maybe better than I do):

FROM WIKI regarding quantum tunneling:

Quantum tunneling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount.

Hence, the probability of a given particle's existence on the opposite side of an...

view entire post

FROM WIKI regarding quantum tunneling:

Quantum tunneling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount.

Hence, the probability of a given particle's existence on the opposite side of an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

doug, "Peter (I hope you'll show up sooner or later)" Was that a call in cyber space I heard? Good to hear from you.

Essay posted, I hope this ones a winner! Yes I agree ALL possibilities are non zero. No time now but will get back to you, and look forward to your essay.

P

report post as inappropriate

Essay posted, I hope this ones a winner! Yes I agree ALL possibilities are non zero. No time now but will get back to you, and look forward to your essay.

P

report post as inappropriate

doug,

Yes, I've found the problem with Nature is "Physics". I then seem to be in a different existence, as here the problem with physics is considered as "Nature".

When a coherent entity (perhaps psi or a photon) is 'measured' it means it's met or 'interacted with' another coherent entity (i.e. lens particle) which has a channel to a processor to analyse the change so caused.

Now why is that mechanism not considered the case in "Physics" in this existence? What is it that's so wrong with the analysis? I suppose there is an easy answer. The fact that the processor uses the wrong datum propagation frame for the signal in the channel (;the 'approach' frame!!?) shows a processor upgrade is overdue. The 'comprehension issue' will probably then also be fixed. Do you have any idea how to do the upgrades? I thought my essay may help, but it's been trolled with 1's and 2's. A measure of the intellect of the processors to prove my point I suggest.

I also agree; "Rate x Time does not equal Distance in an expanding Universe. It only gets us from A to B while B is now C!" It's a moving target. Redshift derivation algorithms are pretty complex but also use the wrong assumptions so also need a processor upgrade.

I also also agree that motion propagates more 'space' in the frame of the motion. Edwin's essay says the same in different words.

If you manage to focus on and follow my essay, and tell me why it's so invisible to most, then I'll have aanother go at CIG for you. Have you entered one yet? If not a short one focussed on just the key salient points would be fine. Make it consistent with Edwin's and mine and you can't go wrong!

Was any of that coherent?

peter

report post as inappropriate

Yes, I've found the problem with Nature is "Physics". I then seem to be in a different existence, as here the problem with physics is considered as "Nature".

When a coherent entity (perhaps psi or a photon) is 'measured' it means it's met or 'interacted with' another coherent entity (i.e. lens particle) which has a channel to a processor to analyse the change so caused.

Now why is that mechanism not considered the case in "Physics" in this existence? What is it that's so wrong with the analysis? I suppose there is an easy answer. The fact that the processor uses the wrong datum propagation frame for the signal in the channel (;the 'approach' frame!!?) shows a processor upgrade is overdue. The 'comprehension issue' will probably then also be fixed. Do you have any idea how to do the upgrades? I thought my essay may help, but it's been trolled with 1's and 2's. A measure of the intellect of the processors to prove my point I suggest.

I also agree; "Rate x Time does not equal Distance in an expanding Universe. It only gets us from A to B while B is now C!" It's a moving target. Redshift derivation algorithms are pretty complex but also use the wrong assumptions so also need a processor upgrade.

I also also agree that motion propagates more 'space' in the frame of the motion. Edwin's essay says the same in different words.

If you manage to focus on and follow my essay, and tell me why it's so invisible to most, then I'll have aanother go at CIG for you. Have you entered one yet? If not a short one focussed on just the key salient points would be fine. Make it consistent with Edwin's and mine and you can't go wrong!

Was any of that coherent?

peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Yes - most all of of it.

I shall find your essay & Edwin's & read this weekend. They must be there somewhere. I shall then attempt a response, hopefully this weekend.

As an added bonus, I'm going to add the MTS interplay with time equivalency of high gravitational fields and acceleration (elevator) [will hopefully make sense later]

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Yes - most all of of it.

I shall find your essay & Edwin's & read this weekend. They must be there somewhere. I shall then attempt a response, hopefully this weekend.

As an added bonus, I'm going to add the MTS interplay with time equivalency of high gravitational fields and acceleration (elevator) [will hopefully make sense later]

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

I read with interest your essay and Edwin's, though both I would like to re-read. The terminology needs to be learned at times, since I've no formal training. But It from bit I inquire bit from what?

Offtrack a little here:

MTS (Cig Equation and where T is forward /reverse vector time). And, coming from relativity, where time slows at or near light speed and its elevator experiment equivalence, black hole gravitational fields (at or near).

So, what I'm seeing is that time slows since in its forward vector (high speed) manifestation, it is used up (i.e. there is no faster rate and any given piece of matter cannot travel any more [it has all turned to space]) So, in effect time slows (none left).

Similarly, reverse vector time (black hole & the M side of the equation), mass (or its equivalent space) cannot go slower, it has stopped and all reverse vector time has been used up. It is again all matter (space to matter).

So, within the MTS equation, viewing T: on the M side it is used up, on the S side it is used up (pure matter, pure space at the extremes). This represents the physical reality of the relativity equivalence of why one views the symetrical aspect of Einstein's equivalency of gravity to acceleration. Its all there in the MTS equation.

The above is why the equivalency exists as a reality.

www.CIGTheory.com

This is a quantum discord article. Please keep.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

I read with interest your essay and Edwin's, though both I would like to re-read. The terminology needs to be learned at times, since I've no formal training. But It from bit I inquire bit from what?

Offtrack a little here:

MTS (Cig Equation and where T is forward /reverse vector time). And, coming from relativity, where time slows at or near light speed and its elevator experiment equivalence, black hole gravitational fields (at or near).

So, what I'm seeing is that time slows since in its forward vector (high speed) manifestation, it is used up (i.e. there is no faster rate and any given piece of matter cannot travel any more [it has all turned to space]) So, in effect time slows (none left).

Similarly, reverse vector time (black hole & the M side of the equation), mass (or its equivalent space) cannot go slower, it has stopped and all reverse vector time has been used up. It is again all matter (space to matter).

So, within the MTS equation, viewing T: on the M side it is used up, on the S side it is used up (pure matter, pure space at the extremes). This represents the physical reality of the relativity equivalence of why one views the symetrical aspect of Einstein's equivalency of gravity to acceleration. Its all there in the MTS equation.

The above is why the equivalency exists as a reality.

www.CIGTheory.com

This is a quantum discord article. Please keep.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

doug,

Thanks, the sensational advance the essay describes does again seem to be largely invisible to speed reading!, so I hope it emerges and hit's you on your second read.

Your description above isn't quite as I recall the old Coney Island. Has it been rebuilt or upgraded since the hurricane? They're turning 'Dreamland' (Margate) into a 'heritage theme park'. Not sure it'll work, but it does give me a long term plan for 20th century physics!

I'm really not yet convinced by your argument on time as it's not overtly observer dependent. if it was it would work fine. i.e. If a clock recedes from you at 0.99c you's see the time signals it emits arriving at a very slow rate. Similarly if you receded from the stationary clock at the same speed. Everything to do with the signals is relative. All movers and shakers will see a different "APPARENT" rate of time.

The key is to remember that no clock gives a damn about how fast anyone else is moving ANYWHERE, it always ticks at the same rate. But once it emits it's signals it really doesn't care about the evidence. The evidence (light signals) can be tampered with by the moving media at will, that tampering DOES NOT CHANGE 'TIME'! (either at the clock that emitted them OR at your rest frame).

I thought you'd kinda got that last year, as you don't need to adjust much, but I must admit it does slip away if you don't rehearse it as it's nothing like the farce currently playing.

Are you submitting an essay? I hope you do, even a short one. I'm looking forward to an update.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks, the sensational advance the essay describes does again seem to be largely invisible to speed reading!, so I hope it emerges and hit's you on your second read.

Your description above isn't quite as I recall the old Coney Island. Has it been rebuilt or upgraded since the hurricane? They're turning 'Dreamland' (Margate) into a 'heritage theme park'. Not sure it'll work, but it does give me a long term plan for 20th century physics!

I'm really not yet convinced by your argument on time as it's not overtly observer dependent. if it was it would work fine. i.e. If a clock recedes from you at 0.99c you's see the time signals it emits arriving at a very slow rate. Similarly if you receded from the stationary clock at the same speed. Everything to do with the signals is relative. All movers and shakers will see a different "APPARENT" rate of time.

The key is to remember that no clock gives a damn about how fast anyone else is moving ANYWHERE, it always ticks at the same rate. But once it emits it's signals it really doesn't care about the evidence. The evidence (light signals) can be tampered with by the moving media at will, that tampering DOES NOT CHANGE 'TIME'! (either at the clock that emitted them OR at your rest frame).

I thought you'd kinda got that last year, as you don't need to adjust much, but I must admit it does slip away if you don't rehearse it as it's nothing like the farce currently playing.

Are you submitting an essay? I hope you do, even a short one. I'm looking forward to an update.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

3D universal space is a medium of quantum entanglement.

4D space-time can not explain and describe immediate information transfer between quanta

attachments: 3D_space_as_a_medium_of_quantum_entanglement.pdf

report post as inappropriate

4D space-time can not explain and describe immediate information transfer between quanta

attachments: 3D_space_as_a_medium_of_quantum_entanglement.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Bob,

I've just re-read this excellent piece (or strictly 'read' it) and realised 'Discord' has close links to my IQbit essay subject; The non-linear change giving the QM prediction linked by information held between 'entangled' particles. Entanglement would then be reduced to a short range (tractor beams, tomography etc effect, with discord always there doing it's stuff, but at long range it's shown that it's mainly discord implementing the correlation, so apparent spookyness.

I describe the solution geometrically in terms of particles WITH 'structure', essentially toroidal, giving OAM on a common axis. The interaction with another toroid with angle representing detector setting is then non-linear. The 'local' quantum correlation von Neumann proposed then proves to be correct. The 'discrete field' model I describe puts the whole picture together, with the potential for many more degrees of freedom than a Qbit. The model is powerfully predictive, predicting an orbital asymmetry in time corrected event comparisons, which I then found in Aspects (discarded) data.

I hope you're still keeping tabs on this blog (poorly supported as I think poorly understood) as I think a clear description of discord emerges with wider implications (discussed but elsewhere). I'm in no position to explore the quantum aspects as I'm rather buried in the others but think I can offer some useful insights.

Peter

The essay is at No 2 here; The Intelligent Bit 2013.

report post as inappropriate

I've just re-read this excellent piece (or strictly 'read' it) and realised 'Discord' has close links to my IQbit essay subject; The non-linear change giving the QM prediction linked by information held between 'entangled' particles. Entanglement would then be reduced to a short range (tractor beams, tomography etc effect, with discord always there doing it's stuff, but at long range it's shown that it's mainly discord implementing the correlation, so apparent spookyness.

I describe the solution geometrically in terms of particles WITH 'structure', essentially toroidal, giving OAM on a common axis. The interaction with another toroid with angle representing detector setting is then non-linear. The 'local' quantum correlation von Neumann proposed then proves to be correct. The 'discrete field' model I describe puts the whole picture together, with the potential for many more degrees of freedom than a Qbit. The model is powerfully predictive, predicting an orbital asymmetry in time corrected event comparisons, which I then found in Aspects (discarded) data.

I hope you're still keeping tabs on this blog (poorly supported as I think poorly understood) as I think a clear description of discord emerges with wider implications (discussed but elsewhere). I'm in no position to explore the quantum aspects as I'm rather buried in the others but think I can offer some useful insights.

Peter

The essay is at No 2 here; The Intelligent Bit 2013.

report post as inappropriate

MUCH-HYPED TRENDY "QUANTUM-COMPUTING" IS ALIVE AND WELL AND IN ANN AI HAS BEEN FOR SOME 34 YEARS NOW!!!

EDWARD SIEGEL(1980)WITH CHARLES ROSEN(RIP)CEO OF MACHINE-INTELLIGENCE(ATHERTON, CA)AND CALTECH CONSULTANT RICHARD FEYNMAN(RIP)AND VESKO MARINOV AND ADOLPH SMITH OF EXXON ENTERPRISES/A.I. AND H.P.'S IRWIN WUNDERMAN(RIP)[THE INVENTOR OF THE CALCULATOR]

(1) EUREKA: TRIVIALLY NOTICED THAT IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS(ANN) ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGNCE(A.I.) THE BY-ROTE ON-NODE SWITCHING SIGMOID-FUNCTION 1/[1 + e^(E/T)] IS A FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS(FDQS)

1/[1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[+ 1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[ e^(E/T) + 1] WHICH MEANS THAT THE PAULI-EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE AND HUND'D-RULE SPIN-PAIRING DOMINATE FORCING THE ANN AUTOMATICALLY INTO NON-OPTIMAL LOCAL-MINIMA, REQUIRING SPACE + TIME COSTLY-COMPUTING "BOLTZMANN-MACHINE" + "SIMULATED-ANNEALING", BUT ALSO THAT QUANTUM-TUNNELING IS POSSIBLE.

(2) "SHAZAM": BY QUANTUM-STATISTICS TRANSMUTATION/MORPHISM TO BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS(BEQS)

1/[1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[+ 1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[ e^(E/T) + 1] ---> 1/[ e^(E/T) - 1]

ADMITTING BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION(BEC) SIEGEL WAS ABLE TO OPTIMIZE OPTIMIZATION-PROBLEMS OPTIMALLY(OOPO)VIA A BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION (BEC)-"MACHINE"

attachments: FULL_PAPER_on_A-N-N_Bose.pdf, FULL_PAPER_on_A-N-N_BOSE-EINSTEIN_CONDENSATION__Barabasi_so_called_Complex-Networks_BEC1.doc

report post as inappropriate

EDWARD SIEGEL(1980)WITH CHARLES ROSEN(RIP)CEO OF MACHINE-INTELLIGENCE(ATHERTON, CA)AND CALTECH CONSULTANT RICHARD FEYNMAN(RIP)AND VESKO MARINOV AND ADOLPH SMITH OF EXXON ENTERPRISES/A.I. AND H.P.'S IRWIN WUNDERMAN(RIP)[THE INVENTOR OF THE CALCULATOR]

(1) EUREKA: TRIVIALLY NOTICED THAT IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS(ANN) ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGNCE(A.I.) THE BY-ROTE ON-NODE SWITCHING SIGMOID-FUNCTION 1/[1 + e^(E/T)] IS A FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS(FDQS)

1/[1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[+ 1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[ e^(E/T) + 1] WHICH MEANS THAT THE PAULI-EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE AND HUND'D-RULE SPIN-PAIRING DOMINATE FORCING THE ANN AUTOMATICALLY INTO NON-OPTIMAL LOCAL-MINIMA, REQUIRING SPACE + TIME COSTLY-COMPUTING "BOLTZMANN-MACHINE" + "SIMULATED-ANNEALING", BUT ALSO THAT QUANTUM-TUNNELING IS POSSIBLE.

(2) "SHAZAM": BY QUANTUM-STATISTICS TRANSMUTATION/MORPHISM TO BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS(BEQS)

1/[1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[+ 1 + e^(E/T)]= 1/[ e^(E/T) + 1] ---> 1/[ e^(E/T) - 1]

ADMITTING BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION(BEC) SIEGEL WAS ABLE TO OPTIMIZE OPTIMIZATION-PROBLEMS OPTIMALLY(OOPO)VIA A BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION (BEC)-"MACHINE"

attachments: FULL_PAPER_on_A-N-N_Bose.pdf, FULL_PAPER_on_A-N-N_BOSE-EINSTEIN_CONDENSATION__Barabasi_so_called_Complex-Networks_BEC1.doc

report post as inappropriate

Dear all,

Suppose, .

Then, .

Hence, .

Now, .

Hence, and so, we may define

and with

It can be demonstrated that there are such that and .

Hence, a Bell form,

has been found.

So LHV are not impossible when we consider that the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities.

Cheers

Han Geurdes

report post as inappropriate

Suppose, .

Then, .

Hence, .

Now, .

Hence, and so, we may define

and with

It can be demonstrated that there are such that and .

Hence, a Bell form,

has been found.

So LHV are not impossible when we consider that the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities.

Cheers

Han Geurdes

report post as inappropriate

Han,

"the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities." Or indeed the converse. I've agreed in my recent essay (see in 'Contests');

Do Bob and Alice have a future? which describes a way of deriving QM's predictions and nonlocality geometrically.

Good to see you here but your equations don't appear, and this has long been dead. Perhaps better to re-post on "Why Quantum..."

I'd also be glad for you to take a look at and comment on my 2 page summary paper. Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Have you any recent papers? Anything published?

Very Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

"the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities." Or indeed the converse. I've agreed in my recent essay (see in 'Contests');

Do Bob and Alice have a future? which describes a way of deriving QM's predictions and nonlocality geometrically.

Good to see you here but your equations don't appear, and this has long been dead. Perhaps better to re-post on "Why Quantum..."

I'd also be glad for you to take a look at and comment on my 2 page summary paper. Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Have you any recent papers? Anything published?

Very Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.