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

Anonymous: on 8/13/13 at 9:42am UTC, wrote Hi Peter, and thanks for the congratulations; with even more due to you!...

Peter Jackson: on 8/9/13 at 11:00am UTC, wrote Gordon, Did you know; you're IN the final group!!?? All those with 4.3...

Gordon Watson: on 8/9/13 at 10:33am UTC, wrote Dear Akinbo, Many thanks for your encouraging words, and especially your...

Akinbo Ojo: on 8/9/13 at 9:32am UTC, wrote Sorry I missed out the link in ' target='new'>this above.

Akinbo Ojo: on 8/9/13 at 9:28am UTC, wrote Dear Gordon, I was praying for your survival as there was a last minute...

Gordon Watson: on 8/9/13 at 0:43am UTC, wrote Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: The FIGURES for my Essay are located above at...

Gordon Watson: on 8/9/13 at 0:22am UTC, wrote Dear George, Thank you for the good rating. That will nicely help to...

Gordon Watson: on 8/8/13 at 11:56am UTC, wrote Dear Héctor, Thank you for bringing your essay to my attention. You have...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

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...


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: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Is this description of physical reality complete? by Gordon Watson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

To the question ‘It from Bit or Bit from It?’ this essay replies, ‘It from Bit AND Bit from It.' Bringing fun and substance to Wheeler's famous phrase, this wording and emphasis is backed by the creation of a new particle (the first It from Bit) and by the link that ends the EPR-Bell era (fusing EPR's missed Bit with Bell's missed It). Then, proving material objects more fundamental than information, a fresh big Bit from phantasmic It. That is, ‘collapse' - so-called, and problematic in QM - is but a short-cut in a new mechanics, wholistic mechanics, wm, with its commonsense philosophy of wholistic-local-realism (WLR) and its aversion to subjectivity (replacing probability with prevalence). WM delivers a whole new particle family, while WLR itself, claiming its EPR-Bell birthright - uniting local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively) - revives local causality in line with the early hopes of folks like Aspect, Bell, Clauser, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen. Among findings reported from analysis judged fit for well-taught highschool seniors: Naive realism is a doctrine of limited value, being false in spin-entangled contexts; EPR is vulnerable to a naive-realistic interpretation; Bell's theorems and inequalities are constrained by their basis in naive realism; correlated tests on correlated particles produce correlated results, absent nonlocality, spooky-actions, mystery; like other valued shortcuts, QM wavefunctions and their collapse are abstractions; eliminate collapse, farewell nonlocality, predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, for there exist elements of physical reality creating that quantity. Suggesting that WLR will feature in the future of physics, that wm will benefit from any and all comments and critiques, this essay invites us to join in the creative fun that goes with such research; and boldly requests: Please respond critically. In a word: Enjoy!

Author Bio

Gordon Watson: Age 11, loves Euclid, girls, a fair go for all; plays rugby, tops geometry, ponders God/Reality. Fitter-Machinist apprentice, maths the best logic, scholarship. UNSW, Mechanical Engineering, more rugby, BE(Hons). Hoffman's quantum classic; he'll study the quantum when It makes sense. Reads Mermin, sends note, that impossible's possible; essay published on EPR-Bell. Given his mother's words, "Gordon was born under the sign of Aries the Ram and has rammed his way through life ever since," it can now be asserted with reasonable confidence that Gordon does not work in a patent office. (PS: Thanks mum.)

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Gordon,

Had you informed me that you were an adult, I would have had no problem describing your essay as being adequately written for people fascinated by abstraction. The fact that you are only 11 leaves me speechless.

As I have gone to great pains to point out in my essay BITTERS, reality is unique. All descriptions of physical reality including yours are unrealistic as you will...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Joe,

Your enjoyable essay, BITTERS, was one of the first that I read here. (And I felt for you, given my perception of the title and its context). I was impressed by how close you had come, IMO, to developing an important insight: in so far as the nature of reality is concerned.

For that reason, please move beyond my Bio. (I was 11 when my wonderful 57 year-old maths teacher...

view entire post


attachments: 1_Axiom_.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Gordon,

Thank you for your gracious answer to my somewhat boorish comments. I did not wish to use the term “unrealistic” disparagingly. I know everything in the Universe is unique, once and I was merely trying to emphasize that as all abstractions are recurring, they cannot be unique and therefore, they can only be unrealistic. This must not be taken as me asserting that abstractions do...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT
Many thanks Joe; that nicely clarifies our differences somewhat. But I continue to wonder: Am I reading you correctly?

So, trusting that you'll excuse me here (maybe) pushing for another friendly opportunity to encourage you to move beyond your central theme -- everything in the Universe is unique -- how should I understand this, from you:

"Abstractions when recorded correctly ......

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
Dear Gordon,

If I understand correctly, you are saying that in 1989, when you were 11, you developed the approach in the essay and communicated with David Mermin, to no effect.

In remembrance of Ray Munroe, a number of us here believe that "Have Fun" is a good credo. However in the context of Bell's theorem I wonder if the lighthearted approach, such as your confusing bio, is well...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 05:26 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your welcome and well-structured response! I've copied it **below** and will insert what I trust will be helpful and clarifying responses -- R#. I'm delighted that you also follow the credo: "Where there's confusion, let there be questions."

**Dear Gordon,

If I understand correctly, you are saying that in 1989, when you were 11, you developed the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 05:47 GMT
Edwin; continuing:

**I am somewhat confused by your p(lambda_sub_n_plus_i) as the 'It Bell missed'. Are you seriously proposing a new particle? You seem to be: ("WM delivers a whole new particle family,") and ("backed by the creation of a new particle.") If so, it seems that you might have developed more physics of the new particle, rather than focusing on Bell's logic -- which does not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 06:15 GMT
Gordon,

Thank you for your reply. I will study your answer about the 'new' particle(s) and hope to end up slapping my head.

My remark about stumbling was based on the sheer number of equations to plow through and the number of key symbols in your glossary. Impossible to grasp in one reading. I plan to re-read it, perhaps several times.

Serious challenges to Bell are attacked,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 10:22 GMT
Hello Gordon,

The BIT I can say is that your essay is well organized. Because of the high mathematical content I may not be able to comment as much as I would have wanted unless you bring out the logic behind the math used.

Having said that, for completeness it is good for you to mention that the EPR paradox afflicts only the particle picture. The wave picture of light does not require superluminal signaling to know the direction of a second wave's polarization by measuring that of the first.

Then in your bio, you mentioned your fascination with Euclid. You may wish to check out my take on the relationship between his definitions and reality in my essay, 'On the road not taken'. Will appreciate your comments.

Wish you the best in the contest.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 06:22 GMT
To: Senior Counsel, Atomistic Enterprises Inc. Attention: Dr Akinbo Ojo

From: DOPE! Subject: Thou shalt not out-plateau Plato!

Sir: We object to your provocative communique and have this hour lodged an appeal to the Eternal Court of Arbitration. They are stuffed by our clients as you well-know, so prepare for overturn and defeat. As previously advised: It is not permitted anywhere at anytime to use non-conformist thinking against our aged Founder; nor his adherents.

Sincerely; Defenders of Platonists Everywhere!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Hello Akinbo, with a big welcoming wOJOw! WOW! Many thanks for bringing your delightful essay to my attention; it is a wonderful work and an inspiring read; in a word -- brilliant.

It also gives me confidence that you will have little trouble with my maths, except maybe a little rustiness for a while; for it is essentially the basic trigonometry of your highschool mates. So if you have a go at the maths, I will happily support your efforts with the accompanying logic.

I see your monads (maybe just slightly tweaked) situated between Euclid's wonderful points (beautiful and helpful abstractions) and the limits of Planck's constant of action (my focus area).

It is in this latter regard I'd welcome your clarification of this: "The wave picture of light does not require superluminal signaling to know the direction of a second wave's polarization by measuring that of the first." For it may reflect an underlying misunderstanding.

Note that the the photons are UN-polarized in their entangled state (Bell 2004:82). And as my essay shows: NO superluminal signalling is required anywhere.

PS: Indeed, Euclid remains a hero of mine with his clear axiomatic approach to analysis.

Looking forward to many more fruitful exchanges, please do not hesitate to question the maths, logic, etc; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 09:46 GMT
Hi Gordon,

Reading your essay a second time after refreshing myself on the EPR paradox, etc, All in all, I get the flavor of the message in your essay. I agree essentially with virtually all the conclusions you itemized, in particular that physics at the quantum level is understandable without too much mathematical maneuvering and renormalizations.

You say, 'The hopes of Einstein and Bell prevailing, wm does not conflict with Lorentz invariance'. Tread softly here, Lorentz invariance is a much dishonestly used term and there may be evidence for situations where it is violated, so depends what you take it to mean.

Then if 'the quantum is classical, Planck and Einstein were right', why cant things be as easy as when Alice measures her sock and finds it is for the Left foot, she can without any signalling infer that Bob has the Right foot'. Why is so much mathematical equation required to express this. Pardon my naivety.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Message to Gordon, ...come in Gordon,

What Akinbo said just now...

He's right you know that? (name that quote). His essay is good. Long live reality!

But back to this unequal war. I've got my flank well covered and I think I got a major hit with my new prototype spin bomb. With what looked like another big hit from your own secret weapon I think we've got them pinned down, but I don't really know how much damage mine can do yet. You may have a better view than me, can you do a recce, observe and report?

I'm couldn't read your codes and don't seem to have the right code book so I didn't get a complete view of your own hit, but I have to say it sounded bang on target and at least as effective as mine. It may be that together the force is irresistible? You'll have to give me a critical view of my own. I'm sure were probably looking at the very same thing from our very different local vantage points.

I've called on back up from another Aspect, but it's tricky to know which side some of those guys are really on. While the troglodytes outnumber us there's probably still a lot of relative uncertainty about. I've also sent a dispatch to Joy but no news yet. It's a bit spooky. I fear the worst.

I know Edwin has a good position across the other side so we can avoid action at a distance and have a complete ring with all the angles covered. I think if we keep up the momentum the core of the resistance may fade away. Let me know how good a hit you think mine was, and if looks like our weapons can be co-ordinated.

I think I feel a top score coming on from this side. Let me know how it looks from there.

Best of luck

Peter

PS. They seem to have got your Figures. No probs I have spare stash. Tell me which ones you like.

PPS. If there are any typo's above I apologise sincerley but I'm afraid I'm a Captain and certainly not a typist.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 21:45 GMT
PROJECT SNAKE: Report on way via 53. NO TWO DRAGONS.

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Again, welcome to FQXi. I would like to point out that an accepted use of the blogs associated with each essay is to expand upon the points of the essay which were constrained by the nine page limit. I always try to make good use of my comments in this fashion. [I'm starting a new thread for visibility.]

To kick this off I would suggest you expand upon the meaning of the hidden variable lambda in your equations 3 through 6, particularly your statement about the impossibility of Bell's treatment.

As I understand it the problem you point out is that, while invoking the third particle c, Bell uses the same hidden variable, lambda, as was used for the original pair of particles, (a,b), despite having already declared that "it is a matter of indifference... whether lambda denotes a single variable or a set, or even a set of functions, and whether the variables are discrete or continuous". Unless and until someone shows how a third particle can be produced, with exactly the same generalized, unconstrained hidden variable that applied to the pair a and b, then this is, as you say, unphysical, i.e., impossible. Consider, as an example only, that lambda is a 'phase angle' of the wave function common to the particles a and b. There may, of course exist an analogous phase angle in another entangled pair (a',c). But there is no way to measure these phase angles (except statistically via 'weak' measurement) and no grounds to assume that they are equal from a to a'. But this is implied by Bell's use of only one lambda in 14(a) and 14(b) while you clearly and correctly label these lambda_sub_i and lambda_sub_n_plus_i.

It's a forehead slapper all right.

Any fine points you'd like to comment on before I work further into your essay?

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 01:17 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks indeed for the welcome, the very helpful guidance,* and the hopeful news that your forehead-slapping is behind us; just one small uppercut needed now -- under the chin -- "small" given my appreciation of your own views and engagement on these matters.

For I think it not good to refer to any particle by the unit vector -- "invoking the third particle c" --...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 03:35 GMT
Edwin, continuing: Let's next talk about "any fine points" before returning to the central section of your response.

A - Fine points: The essay is intended to be error-free and typo-free so that any "puzzles" may be addressed confidently by the Reader -- with minimum fear that there's a bug in the system, so to speak. Consequently, to anyone, finding something that halts or niggles or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 05:44 GMT
Gordon,

You are correct, I shouldn't have called the settings particles, even though it is the fact that there are different particles that is the source of Bell's mistake. So I'll try to be very clear in my statements, and let's take it slow and easy. If you've reviewed Joy's blogs you know that the same equations gave rise to literally hundreds of comments. Very frustrating. Let's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 10:20 GMT
Gordon,

Act1

I rank your essay one of the best and thoughtful that I've read so far; surely a special commendation prize can be awarded for your Bio.

In response to your request for critical comments, I suspect your lengthy Abstract and your humorous Bio is putting off people reading your essay, but encouraging them to rank it anyway. You have now have 8 member ratings and 4 public ratings but only 5 (including me) that left comments, after they discovered the hidden quality of your essay - so what did the other eight rate?

It is admirable that you bring humour to research but the humour in your Bio is far more subtle than that in your correspondence with Peter. Yet I wonder how many will decode and see that no tWo draGons is replying in kind to ProJect snake.

Joking aside, Act 2 follows.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 10:23 GMT
Gordon,

Act 2:

You ask in your title: Is this description of physical reality complete?

Heisenberg, Bohr, et al defined the Copenhagen interpretation of QM by 1927. In 1931 Gödel presented his incompleteness theorems for mathematics. Thus, the 1935 EPR dream "If, without any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (ie, with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity)" can only be valid if our mathematics is complete, which it never can be.

With our incomplete knowledge of mathematics and physics, any description (present or future) of QM processes will always be incomplete - that is the stark reality of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 22:32 GMT
Anton; thanks for your warm greetings and very welcome comments and ranking. It's also nice to know that you've questioned "that subtle Bio" and are having some fun seeing the light!

PS: I'm planning to get into the detail of your own interesting essay over the next week.

With thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Anton; such a warm Act I. So why do I now anticipate a chilling new experience in Act II? That is: Am I about to lose my first ever game of chess? Let's see:

Your first 4 moves -- Heisenberg, Bohr, Copenhagen, EPR -- are anticipated and fairly well countered in the Essay. As to your 5th: Unfortunately, under the rules here, there was insufficient space to enter my reply in anticipation. So here it is in response:

5. AV - Gödel !? --- 5. GW - My theory is consistent!

6. AV - Your move. --- 6. GW - My move is sealed.

With the fondest regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 00:07 GMT
No no - shrewdest players know exactly the right time to call

6. AV - offer stalemate? --- 6. GW - ?

Regards Anton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
Hello Gordon,

I also prefer Euclid's work, which summarizes ancient Alexandrian mathematics. I am also an engineer, unfortunately on old one. I was 11 when I faced Soviet tanks in Eastern Berlin 60 years ago.

May I ask you to explain as concisely as possible what is the essence and benefit of the "wholistic mechanics" you are suggesting? A search engine did not yet know this expression.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 23:56 GMT
Hello Eckard, and thanks for letting me know that we have some good things in common.

As to the essence and benefit of wholistic mechanics: Concisely, its essence resides in its doubled abbreviation wm/WM, for therein lies its message of uniting the small/BIG in one unified theory. In this unifying sense, wm's essence is in the spirit of Planck, Einstein, and many others; even John...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 04:16 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I gave up wanting you to stay concise. Do you hope for persuading e.g. editors of journals like PNAS that your arguments are understandably and compellingly presented?

Good luck,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear Eckard, please accept my sincere apologies for that earlier improper response.

The essence and benefit of wholistic mechanics is this: It unifies quantum and classical mechanics in a wholly classical way. It is thus in the original spirit of Planck, Einstein, Bell.

Regarding PNAS, most of the padding can be stripped out, and not every step in every equation need be given. For this essay was written with a generalist audience in mind, hoping that critical comments would help me improve my case.

As for understanding, I can only defend by saying that each step is based on representing the physics with the aid of fundamental maths and logic; each result experimentally confirmed by others. As an engineer, I work hard to avoid mistakes; I know of none in the essay.

Thus I would very much welcome your comments on the essay; especially given the erudition displayed in your own essay.

As for a compelling presentation: As said above, I have much to learn on that front, and am always open to advice and guidance.

I would trust -- given claimed refutations of Bell's theorem and CHSH-style inequalities; reproducing the correct results for CRB, GHS, GHSZ; clarifying EPR -- that there are sound (if not compelling) reasons for referees to comment helpfully and meaningfully on necessary clarifications of the theory.

To that end, I would welcome ongoing discussions on each of our essays. I have made many notes from yours, but they are mainly for my own edification, for yours is a very good essay indeed ... as to whether "the number zero is positive or negative," I'm inclined to the view that it is non-negative.

Hoping that you will accept my apology in the spirit that it is offered, with best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


George Kirakosyan replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
Thank you Gordon,

Now I can say this only.

My position looks not so bad thanks of mutual support

some of adherents to ours line.

Regards,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 04:21 GMT
Dear Cordon!

I was happy find your article, that I have read now! I felt immediately that you are man who strived respect and care the reality, and not the authority opinions and adopted "indisputable truths" only. I will study your work slowly (I am not not so well with English!) I just ask you open my article and try read it! I hope you will find confirmation of your approach and we will continue talk.

Regards,

George

Article

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 21:17 GMT
Dear George,

I hope we will continue to talk because there is much in your Essay that I agree with: return to realistic principles, cause-effect explanations, critical interpretation of key facts. I found no problem with your English. Like many of us, you would be helped by a good editor. I will make more comments on your Blog.

As for the English in my Essay, let me know of any problems. I hope you find the mathematics is much easier? I have used many of the fundamental principles that you emphasise and support.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Gordon

Especially outstanding compared to your age.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Hai.Caohoàng,

Thank you for friendly greeting. I hope my age is not showing in Essay? Maybe you can help? I like criticism more than praise. So if Essay has things to fix, please tell me. I am happy to fix things.

Thank you again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



james r. akerlund wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Gordon,

I have two points with your submission. I do not know if the issues have been raised in the above posts, so maybe I am repeating what others have already raised. First issue; here is a quote of yours, "the discipline that should IMO dominate the space between epistemology and ontology ..." Drop the IMO text messaging english, its not good. On the whole, you also used lots of acronyms, those not used to them are confused. I was confused.

Second point, figures 1, 2, and 3 didn't show up in your submission. I don't think this was an issue with my PDF program display software. On the whole, for your submission, I still think Einstein was right concerning EPR and the quote you attibute to Bell in Bernstein was where Bell doesn't understand EPR. The resonable thing does work.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
Hi Jim, and thanks for being both critical and constructive; I appreciate that.

1. Yes; there are many acronyms, and I know first-hand how confusing that can be to any newcomer; yet how easy and convenient they are for old-hands. I live in hope that my list will become second-nature as newcomers become old-hands via engagement with my work.

2. With "IMO" (that one was in and out...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Gordon

To be able to deduct only the best for you, first I need to know: what is the purpose you want to mention in the essay?

Hải.Caohoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Hello again Hai.Caohoàng, and thank you for your good question.

1. The purpose of my Essay is to answer the FQXi 2013 question: "It from Bit or Bit from It?"

In that we are responding to the creative challenge issued by John Archibald Wheeler in 1986 -- for the question is his -- I give a creative reply.

2: To creatively demonstrate "the hard part" -- It from Bit -- I refute...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 06:54 GMT
Dear Hai.Caohoàng, here's that ADDENDUM: Another way to look at my Essay:

1. Read the carefully crafted Essay by Mark Feeley here -- http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1819 -- thinking of it as an INTRODUCTION to my Essay.

Then note Feeley's conclusion:

"... We must not believe in magic. We can be optimistic that a physical theory underlying quantum theory can be found --...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Hoang cao Hai replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Dear Gordon

Please send my sincerity comments to you :

1. The presentation of you are always abreast the topic but somewhat rambling - so it seems to make the sense is somewhat difficult to understand and very easy to cause controversy - from the use of the equations and formulas to argue.

2. Your conclusion is somewhat cumbersome, lack of concentration - if you do not more explain, I also really do not yet understand - which also is a common problem of people who do not English proficiency like my.

My rating would be a high score if you are 11 years old - which is why I've inadvertently - however, I have always supported the same point, so: 7 points for you.

Looks like you seem a bit lazy to look through the other essays?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:33 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear SNP, thanks for contacting me; I look forward to some good discussion. BUT let us first clarify your Essay, for it looks as though you have an ACCIDENTAL CONTRADICTION.

It appears that you have also misunderstood my Essay and have rated it incorrectly. For I think that we agree re the nature of IT and BIT. Let's see:

In your Abstract you write: ""Material objects are more fundamental" is being proposed in this paper; or in other words "IT from Bit" is true."

In your Essay you (similarly) conclude: "Hence we will conclude IT from Bit !!"

But you also have this powerful claim: "It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material."

So, to avoid a contradiction and maintain your claim, your Abstract and your Conclusion should read: "BIT from IT." For BIT = information, IT = material things.

Have I read your Essay correctly? With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Thank you very much for fast reply --a mere description of material properties does not produce material--. I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce material bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

Best wishes

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Sreenath BN,

Your enjoyable Essay, with its focus on information and reality in the context of physics, biology and maths, gives me much to think about. Indeed, I'm re-examining my own experience in the light of some of your ideas!

However, that examination also leads me to question some of your phrasing. Consider the following sentence of yours: "Thus Reality is mind dependent,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:01 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I will re-read your essay, particularly with your claim in the exchanges above with Hoang cao Hai that: "Bell's theorem and Bell-inequalities refuted; EPR corrected; the so-called boundary between classical and quantum mechanics eliminated..."

Then, in another exchange with SNP,...

"Material objects are more fundamental" is being proposed in this paper; or in other words "IT from Bit" is true.".

A few comments...

1. From your claim that the boundary is eliminated, do particles in the quantum world move like their classical counterparts? Do electrons have wave-like properties in addition to particle-like properties? If so, are you a wave or move as one?

2. If the universe had a beginning from nothing, would the first IT not have emerged without a Material object? Composite ITs are made from smaller Material ITs, not a fundamental IT. Here, I quote Leibniz, "...For the same reason, there is no way for a simple substance to •come into existence naturally, for that would involve its being put together, assembled, composed, and a simple substance couldn’t be formed in that way because it has no parts. So we can say that the only way to begin or end—to come into existence or go out of existence.."

Regards,

Akinbo

*I am still expecting you to challenge my case in court by bringing opposing evidence/ and exhibits! :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Starting with the * in your postscript, I suspect you've mistaken me for another. For I welcomed THAT court-case which, as I understood it, established the extension of material particles? Or am I mistaken?

Re my response to SNP, you appear to have missed the point that I was making: In normal terms, there was an accidental contradiction in SNP's essay. [SNP has since explained the use of the contest's terms (It, Bit) in a different (reversed) way.] So, referring to your #2, you and I might well hold some related views in common.

Re your #1, I'd welcome your engagement with the high-school maths and logic in my Essay. For it provides an elementary but important base from which to examine even deeper matters.

I also welcome further discussion (if you wish) when you have "re-read the Essay, particularly with the claim that: Bell's theorem and Bell-inequalities refuted; EPR corrected; the so-called boundary between classical and quantum mechanics eliminated..."

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:53 GMT
Hi Gordon,

This is a copy of my post on Don Limuti's blog.

Hello Don,

You have stimulated my interest in the Uncertainty principle, which I wish you luck in its modification or overthrow. I am not really keen in joining that desirable task but I may chip in my thoughts. The following are excerpts on the subject from Wikipedia:

"the uncertainty principle actually states...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Gordon,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 11:06 GMT
Jim,

I enjoyed your essay and its far horizons, though I baulked at this: "Utilizing scientific attributes of quantum entanglement for consciousness and putting it in a philosophical Neverland of quantum non-locality enables an otherworldly spiritual connection, including telepathy, and cosmic wisdom. These are directions mainstream reason-based science doesn't tend to go."

You'll see from my Essay that many physicists continue to go in the direction of non-locality. However, as my Essay shows: Non-locality is nonsense.

Moreover, that demonstration, pitched at the level of high-school maths and logic, is certainly within the reach of all good systems engineers. So, as one engineer to another (and noting your claim to be no mathematician), I'd be happy to help you follow the reasoning and results in the Essay.

When taking a break from your interesting writing, why not come on back to some hands-on (pen-and-paper) thinking? Elementary maths is still a sound logic.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
Gordon

OOPH! Really I can't prohibit myself to appreciate you for your style of presentation. I think its more than the context.

Best wishes.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 00:50 GMT
Hi Dipak,

Thanks for making contact and thanks for your best wishes.

I've read your Essay and am intrigued by the consequences that you develop from our digital nature. I trust that you will continue to successfully refine your ideas and your mathematics.

As you have seen, my own research has a very different focus. However, in its simplest form, it does derive from the digital nature of orientations in 3-space.

With best regards; and thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Gordon,

May be you will be less lazy than me when I look at your essay and you will be able to follow my line of reasoning

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

You are young but with an exceptional ability to think about one of the most puzzling problems ever given to the human understanding, so have a look at my approach.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 02:40 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you for making contact. I look forward to a good discussion here, bypassing any questions of your laziness or my age.

For it seems to me that the essence of one significant difference in our thinking relates to Bell's Theorem and your analysis of the CHSH inequality.

The beauty of this difference is that it can be discussed at the level of high-school maths and logic. Thus:

On page-5 of your Essay we find an unnumbered equation representing the TRUISM: C = ±2.

Since this is a TRUISM, we must wonder how it could ever be subverted by any experiment?

So let us expand the truism using Bell's ABCD notation:

B(A+C) - D(A-C) = ±2 = AB + BC - AD + CD. (GW-1)

Let us now recognise this FACT: Entangled photon-pairs are tested one pair at a time; with no two pairs the same.

So: Let the sets of pairs used in evaluating RHS of (GW-1) be identified as i, j, k, l respectively. (The pairs, of course, may be tested in any way -- and in any order -- that you wish.)

Then your experiments (as well as my theory) can yield:

[AB]i + [BC]j - [AD]k + [DC]l >2; (GW-2)

where [.] denotes an average.

What then has gone wrong with the truism that your Essay endorses? For, here, both theory and experiment refute it!

I suggest that your difficulty lies in (GW-1) -- that unnumbered equation of yours with C = ±2 -- where you employ each Bellian outcome twice: 2(ABCD).

For here's a major problem: How can you ensure that the B-result in AB is the same B-result in BC; etc?

Alas, you cannot. So the fault (I suggest) is not with the TRUISM but with naive-realism on which Bellian-Inequalities are based. Please see my Essay: Sections 4-5.

If you refer to my Essay: Equations (21) and (22), there's an even shorter refutation of CHSH and your TRUISM; along the same lines.

Looking forward to your response; with my thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
Dear Gordon,

My lazyness is only because I am so busy this week. As you answered, I will study more thoroughly your essay in the coming days.

Your point is extremely relevant: can we say something about unperformed measurements, this a counterfactual argument that is used in classical physics as well. If one accepts it, then we are led to the contextuality of quantum measuremnts. I like the book by Asher Peres about this, and also the papers by David Mermin.

It seems to me that we don't have any other choice than to accept counterfactual arguments in science. Doing it for the (multiple) qubit observables, one arrives at a beautiful mathematical structure as described in my essay, well in the spirit of Wheeler' viewpoint.

Best regrds,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thanks for taking my petite plaisanterie in good spirits. I took your supposed "laziness" as an invitation to bring some "youthful exuberance" into the discussion of our common interests.

I suspect that you are correct in anticipating that our differences may well be focussed on the nature of, and the problems with, counterfactuals.

For my part, I'm inclined to the view: "Impossible experiments have no outcomes!"

Given your fondness for Wheeler, I'm hoping that you can help me recall Wheeler's famous saying; the equivalent to this one from Max Born's Nobel Lecture: "The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road."

Looking forward to our discussions: especially re that hidden concept; with best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 08:39 GMT
Hi Gordon Watson,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

I enjoy reading it and gave it high rate

EPR is still mistery to me.......

my essay may interest you Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 06:41 GMT
Hello Xiong,

and thank you for your comments.

As for the EPR mystery, I believe any "mystery" there may be removed by studying that brief Section 7 in my Essay.

To put it even more briefly, it's my view that EPR does not allow for measurement-perturbation: though the fact that a "measurement" perturbs the "measured" system was known from the earliest days of quantum mechanics.

Recommending that you understand EPR correctly -- and remove the EPR "mystery" from those others that you consider in your own nice Essay -- I'm happy to discuss it further if you wish.

As for the interesting ideas in your own Essay, I'd like to mention this: In an EPR-Bohm or Bell-test set-up, when the Stern-Gerlach devices (SGDs) are displaced so that their symmetry is broken, MUCH NEW INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Especially the neat result in EPRB: [AB] = -a.b; where [.] denotes the expectation.

If the SGDs are independently displaced but their symmetry is maintained (say, accidentally), the symmetry of the particle-pairs again provides an outcome-correlation of +1 or -1: which is not very informative when compared to [AB] = -a.b.

So while my focus is on the study of correlations, I still ask the question that is presented in Footnote 2, page 2, of my Essay: "Isn't information all about correlations too?" For, if "information" does not correlate with facts, is it really information?

With thanks again; and wishing you the best of good luck: Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 09:45 GMT
Hello Gordon,

Nice essay and approach. I too found it and bit either equally as fundamental or learned more towards it.

Enjoyable read and certainly relevant to the contest. Please take a look at my essay if time permits.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi Antony,

with thanks for your very welcome comments.

And though I'm inclined to see the ITS as more fundamental, my Essay is certainly based on some interesting BITS and the important ITS that they lead us to.

I've read your own Essay several times and have enjoyed the lively discussion that you've generated. And while your subject ranges far afield from my own specialities, you are to be congratulated on the bold and forthright speculation that you deliver.

One thought: I note, in your discussion with Tejinder, that the subject of quantum superpositions arose in the context of your Fibonacci analysis.

In Sections 9 and 10 of my Essay you will find a local-realistic analysis that delivers the correct EPRB result without recourse to "quantum superpositions" or "collapse" -- which is certainly the way that I see the world -- such mathematical devices being convenient mathematical short-cuts.

So (to my thought): Your analysis might not need to address such entities?

With my thanks again, and wishing you every success in the contest and with the development of your theory; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Hi Gordon,

I'll read over sections 9 and 10 again. Yes my essay doesn't explain EPRB at all, but Tejinder's does.

I simply look at the converging pathways that limits information exchange when it energy falls into a Black Hole, such that the Fibonacci sequence from -3 to 3 emerges.

Best wishes to you too with the contest & nice to "meet" you! :o)

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 04:36 GMT
Thanks Antony,

It is nice to 'meet' this way; and I wish you every success here and with your future research.

Re Tejinder's Essay: I didn't find EPR addressed there; but I did find it to be an excellent article.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Very intriguing work. While I'm no fit judge, I do hope it makes its way through to those who are.

Best of luck,

Daryl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Daryl,

Many thanks for your comments, your definite modesty, and our shared hope!

Re the last: Given that my Essay contains repeated requests for critical comments, I'm truly surprised how many "1s" I've scored without one accompanying word of critique. So I do hold hope that some serious criticism may yet be delivered.

As for your own intriguing Essay, I truly am not fit to judge; but I can say this: What an interesting proposition, and so nicely presented!

And I'm certainly on your side re the following: Like you, I do not agree with this from Wheeler (as extracted from your Essay):

"Not until the observing sense, or observing device...has chosen the question to be asked, and by its registration has made a record long enough lived to produce internal or external action, has an elementary quantum phenomenon taken place that contributes to the formation of what we call reality. No other way do we know to build this reality. Existence? How else is it brought into being except through elementary quantum phenomena?"

For my Essay (eliminating QM's "collapse" mechanism), reveals the underlying "beables" in all EPRB-Bell-style experiments: "Beables" being Bell's word for things which exist INDEPENDENT of OBSERVATION.

So, while I oppose Bell's views in so far as his "theory" is concerned, I support him here (as opposed to Wheeler).

With my thanks again, and noting your success in last year's essay contest, I'll be supporting your Essay with a top rating.

PS: Let me add: I also appreciate your courage in taking a stand against something every bit as treasured in the Academy as Bell's Theorem! Though I suspect your target is better constructed, and more resistive, than that! For NO EXPERIMENT supports Bell's Theorem (and every such supports my local realism).

Cheers for now: Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:41 GMT
Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: 1 and 2 (i).

Figure 1. An attractive low-cost 3D model for understanding every variant of equation (9). [Originally constructed with a 10 mm polyurethane ball, three 200 mm knitting-needles and three annuli cut from coloured paper.] The 'a-b' plane is yellow; the 'a-lambda' plane is red; the 'b-lambda-prime' plane is blue. Using your cursor, the model may be activated and viewed from any angle.

Figure 2: (i) From Fig. 1, a representation of the arbitrary spherical triangle XYZ on a unit sphere; OX = 'a'; OY = 'b'; OZ = 'lambda'; ie, to be clear: orientation 'a' freely chosen by you/Alice; 'b' freely chosen by your partner/Bob;  'lambda' random.

attachments: Watson_2013_FIG._1.pdf, Watson_2013_FIG._2_i.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:45 GMT
Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: 2 (ii) and 2 (iii).

Figure 2: (ii) The unit sphere sectioned on the 'a-b' plane with 'lambda' in the background; showing the angle 'phi = (a; b)', etc.

Figure 2: (iii) The 'a-b plane' with 'lambda' (also 'lambda-prime') rotated into it, preserving the true angle between 'lambda' and orientation 'a'.

attachments: Watson_2013_FIG._2._ii.pdf, Watson_2013_FIG._2._iii.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 11:36 GMT
Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES: 2 (iv) and 3.

Figure 2: (iv) A tabular annotation of Fig. (iii), showing that the results, per (9), agree with the results from Fig. 1 and #19.5.

Figure 3: The causal dynamics and correlative relations in a complete wm specification of EPRB (Bell 1964); after Spekkens (2012:Fig. 1). Spekkens' S, T, X, Y and  are replaced by wm-Its (beables). WM-Bits (information = correlative relations) are shown via labeled dashed-lines. A complete wm specification of EPRB (Bell 1964) is thus provided. Consistent with WLR, the correlative relations void Spekkens' second (unnumbered) equation and many conclusions.

attachments: Watson_2013_FIG._2_iv.pdf, Watson_2013_FIG.3.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Watson,

I have no words to praise your valiant effort to rewrite whole of QM from your new mechanics called wholistic mechanics and its commonsense philosophy of wholistic-local-realism. I whole heartedly appreciate you if you succeed in reformulating QM from ‘classical point of view’ so that all weirdness of QM disappears and then it looks like ‘classical mechanics’. But the point is how you succeed in eliminating quantum weirdness and mystery in cases like double-slit experiment, quantum-entanglement (QE), quantum-tunneling, etc. to mention a few, on the basis of your WM.

I appreciate your attempt to falsify Bell’s theorem and explaining QE on the basis of your WM. I, too, have written a paper on QE and I view it from quite different perspective and in it also super luminal speed would not arise. But it is completely non-mathematical and I would like you to have a look at it and give a mathematical touch to it. I want your response regarding this. Your idea of describing QE in terms of “the law of linked correlations: correlated tests, interactions, disturbances on correlated things produce correlated results, without mystery”, is making me think about reconciling it with my interpretation of QE.

In your last sentence below conclusions, “Is wm’s description of EPRB complete? Please respond critically”, is making me think critically on QM as I am having my own version of QM (i.e. a theory on QM). If you want to have a look at it, I feel you should have, I will send it to you. Please post your comments in my thread so that I can respond to them immediately.

I wish you all the best in your endeavor to dethrone QM and establish your theory in that place. I am going to give your essay highest rating for its originality and elegance.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your kind words and thoughts.

To comment briefly on the "quantum weirdness" that you mention: Not many physicists seem to recognise that part of the mystery of the double-slit experiment arises from erroneous probabilistic analysis (Feynman's included).

As for QE, well I trust that my Essay goes some way to removing much mystery there. The correlations associated with the conservation of angular momentum (for example) are robust and tight.

Thus my inclination to repeatedly say: Much weirdness disappears from most "strange situations" when we get the maths and facts correct.

Indeed: Most magic/mystery is akin to that associated with crop-circles.

As for introducing maths to your analysis, I highly recommend such: Simply start with precise definitions of the entities that you seek to study or invoke. Personally, as an engineer, I tend to discount theories that are presented via words alone.

Wishing you every success with your work, and with best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:41 GMT
Hi Gordon

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 06:40 GMT
Hi Than,

and thanks for your comments; with my appreciation too for your interesting Essay.

However, as you will have seen from my Essay, I hold some very different views to those that you express in yours: especially re EPR and Bell's theorem. I trust that you understand our fundamental disagreement re the following (from your Essay):

"Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had devised a thought-experiment to show that quantum entanglement is inconsistent with his Special Theory of Relativity.

If wave-particle duality is the heart of quantum mechanics as Richard Feynman famously said, entanglement is its soul. But for Einstein, the soul of physics is objective reality, the very antithesis of what entanglement is all about.

Experimental validations of Bell's Theorem concerning the nature of quantum and local realistic theories has however shown that quantum particles have an extraordinary ability to communicate and affect each other in a manner contrary to dictates of Einstein's Relativity theory, which famously forbids that nothing travels faster than light."

As for Planck's constant, I take its positive value to indicate that particles are "extended objects" and not "mathematical points." A 'point' that Akinbo develops nicely in his 'extended' Essay.

But it is also my hope that you'll see that my ideas do support your own basic premise, tending to confirm the essential simplicity of nature.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of your Essay, your study of Duality has me thinking of further sub-texts. Mind-body versus: the mind, conscious and subconscious; the body, alive xor dead.

With thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I have been hoping to see someone fault the assertions in your paper theoretically or mathematically but I have not seen or is there? I am asking a few people on the relational space divide for a clarification:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, including your respected self, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. Thanks.

Indeed I have recommended Armin Shirazi (background), Don Limuti (uncertainty principle) and yourself (Bell's theorem) to help out with a quantum version of the judgement. I still don't think my math is strong enough to join in that task.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Good to see you continuing in your wonderful way with words and logic.

However, I trust that you have, by now, received the JUDGEMENT in the case of: The WORLD versus Dr. Akinbo OJO, 26 July 2013?

My copy arrived today. The critical part reads thus:

!! The COURT, having regard to Dr. OJO's skill with LOGIC, orders that he submit immediately to rehabilitative counselling. The COURT finds NO grounds for his continuing distorted thinking (quoting his repeated refrain, with added emphasis), "My math is NOT strong enough to join in the task of advancing our understanding of REALITY."

Beginning with arithmetic revision, proceeding through geometry to trigonometry, the COURT looks forward to the day when Dr. OJO recognises that much reality is revealed to the world via the simplicity inherent in the sines and cosines of angles!

For REALITY is based on mathematical principles AND maths is the best LOGIC:

Always forward, Dr. OJO! !!

Happy to help, and believing that the COURT judged correctly, I look forward to further developments.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT
Gordon,

I have perused your paper, but it will take more time to become familiar with the notation. What did catch my eye were the use of unit vectors (i.e. momentum) and your reply above of:

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

"Dear Hai.Caohoàng, here's that ADDENDUM: Another way to look at my Essay:

1. Read the carefully crafted Essay by Mark Feeley here --...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Jeff,

In so far as our understanding of reality is concerned, I had not considered that "vectors" could be be part of the problem.

I'm also a fan of GA (geometric-algebra) with its area-related functions.

So, overall (vectors being such fundamental and handy things), I'm confident that our problems lie elsewhere.

Regarding your own essay, I'm concerned by statements like this: "... tangents are a direct consequence of a change in area."

As time and priorities permit, I'm looking forward to following your "area calculus" and will send you some private comments if I find anything that might be helpful.

In the meantime, I wish you all the best with your research; pleased to see you "having a go" in the search for where we err.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:42 GMT
Hi Gordon,

Now I have reread your essay (see our's early dialogue) and have concluded that we really have many of common views (particularly, on Einstein's drama, that I see very interconnected with the drama of physics!)I have rated your work on high core, as one serious individual position. I just friendly asking you try to read the mentioned references (on my works)in your free time. Hope you will find some interesting for you.

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
Hi George,

Many thanks for your new comments. I am pleased to again agree that we have much in common, especially around those key points mentioned earlier (above): cause-effect, maths, facts; etc.

Even before your friendly asking, I've looked at several of your other works (from your references). In that they run far beyond my own theoretical interests, I'm not really qualified to comment without much deeper study of your details. But I certainly want to encourage you in such endeavours, particularly when it comes to putting your ideas "out there" for critical comment.

I can see the real need for both of us is to receive critical comments on our maths, ideas, etc. However, I'm also sure that, like me, you find there is often little time left for such activities when our daily/engineering priorities are taken care of.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of critical discussion, let me here remark (by way of example):

In http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1208.0213v2.pdf, at equation (22), you ask why (phi)* appears.

In my view, (phi)*(phi) is simply a faithful representation of the following mathematical fact: ANY non-negative distribution can be represented by the absolute-square of a complex Fourier polynomial.

Whilst I agree that QM seems unable to answer the challenge that you put, the simplest test of the above is this:

Write out a general complex Fourier polynomial; generate its absolute square; see if the result is anything other than a non-negative distribution.

Thus my cautionary tale, from one engineer to another: We need to proceed with great care whenever we depart from, challenge, or seek to reinterpret, experimentally supported facts.

Happy to correspond with you at any time, I'm hoping to put more time (soon) into joining in, and submitting essays to, vixra.org.

With best regards, and hoping to advance the cause of "cause-and-effect;" Gordon

Bookmark and Share


George Kirakosyan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Thank you Gordon,

I have rated your essay as ,,high,, because I see there right points (in my view.)

You also have find some communications between our approaches, but not rated my work - as per as ,,my score already is good,,! My dear, if follow your logic is need send to me one nice ,,unit,, also, to be somewhat balanced score of broders/adherents! And we want push ahead ,,our right science,, in such way?

Sorry, if I am wrong in my judgements.

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:22 GMT
Dear George,

Thank you for the good rating. That will nicely help to offset some low scores that I've received without one word of helpful criticism.

Your message is not very clear to me but my voting has been to encourage those that are putting maths to new and promising ideas.

I hope we will keep in touch as our theories are developed, corrected or abandoned.

PS: It's good to see you moving along nicely. Good luck in the final.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Thank you for your continuing interest. I really appreciate your feedback at this time of the competition. We can certainly learn more from each other after the end of the contest. I will rate your essay highly, as it deserves, I would like to see you in the finalists, hopefully I will be too.

Concerning counterfactuality, as soon as a good theory of quantum observability is written, one will be able to check it as others assumpions in science. I claim that Grothendieck's approach with dessins d'enfants is an excellent starting point because it has all attributes of an archetype (read Dickau's essay) or a monad (read Ojo's essay) and other good ontological properties which I don't list here. Topos theory is not too far.

There are important essays here that pushed me to see the dessins d'enfants as "explicate imprints" of a more general (possibly spatio-temporal) algebraic geometry. I have in mind the Hopf fibrations as an excellent tool. For example you can lift S2 (the Riemann sphere) to S3 (the 3-sphere, i.e. the space of a single qubit (Jackson's intelligent qubit?), also the conformally compactified Minkowski space (see Matlock' essay and in relation to Bell's theorem Joy Christian 'realistic' approach).

Local/nonlocal arguments are insufficient, I think, mathematics should help in revealing the hidden machinary of the physical and ontological universe. May be this is Einstein's dream, not contradicting Wheeler, at the end of the day because we are, more or less, their children in knowledge.

Yes our discussion should live.

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Gordon,

Sorry I already rated (highly) your essay on July 23.

Good luck.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Gordon Watson:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Nature your fathers, give you and splendid brain that deserve to be highly rated.

But maybe you, as a young man would like to see how an old man can see an old problem from a new point of view and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
Dear Héctor,

Thank you for bringing your essay to my attention. You have certainly picked an interesting topic to work on.

Given that my own focus is on simpler issues at the moment, I hope you will make contact with many of the other essayists that are grappling with TIME and its consequences.

PS: I found no real problems with your English.

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Gordon,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

I read your essay with interest and I'm sympathetic with your emphasis on Duality: in its simplest form (plus/minus), we find it everywhere.

My own interest in the nature of reality boils down to a passion for sorting and eliminating right from wrong in my own world-view.

Wishing you every success with your work, and with my best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 17:58 GMT
Gordon - truly outstanding work. It is rare to find someone so young who is so adept at Latex, the mathematical formalisms, and current issues in physics. Well done.

You might find your missing link here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

Good luck in the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Paul,

Appreciating your comments, I've just read the corrected version of your essay.

Your proposals are very different to my own, but I will study them further.

PS: It's good to know that others are thinking deeply about the current foundational issues in physics

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:43 GMT
Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES:

The FIGURES for my Essay are located above at three entries dated Jul. 21, 2013.

A quick way to locate them is by FIND -- Jul. 21 --


Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I was praying for your survival as there was a last minute shark attack on your ratings. Hope you survive. But if you didnt please dont be discouraged until your proposal is faulted. I came across this on Peter Jackson's blog and has some resemblance with your views. When you check it out let me know your take. Also Mr Jackson says he has yet to receive a reply from Alain Aspect for his views.

Best regards and all the best,

Akinbo

*By the way since I think you are more expert in Quantum theory, what will be the effect of a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion on things like the two-split experiment and the EPR paradox?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:32 GMT
Sorry I missed out the link in this above.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 10:33 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Many thanks for your encouraging words, and especially your prayers: which are surely improving with age, for you've undoubtedly played an important part in a significant miracle here!

Personally, I was happy to have my ideas published for critical comment: hoping that I'd learn of errors, even improvements. The big bonus (I must say) is that I made many new "scientific" friends, you foremost among them.

However, from my essay, you will know that I'm no expert when it comes to QM. Nevertheless there's an interesting error in Feynman's presentation of the two-slit experiment: his probabilistic analysis is flawed.

As for EPR, that supposed "paradox" is (I trust) corrected at Page 4 (Section 7) of my essay. Distinguishing that problem from EPRB-Bell (Bell's theorem), see my proposal at Page 7 (Section 11).

So, based on such considerations, I would say that "the effect of a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion on things" has no bearing on our understanding of the established experimental results.

Now, with regard to experiments, your LINK does not work for me. But I'm surmising that it relates to the work of the late Caroline Thompson (for I saw "ch.thompson" in the coding). Unfortunately, but like many other opponents of Bell's theorem, Caroline believed that Bell's theorem was not breached experimentally.

So, to be very clear about my position: I believe that Bell's theorem is triply refuted: by experiment's like Aspect's and by a sound local-realistic theory that reproduces BOTH the quantum-mechanical and the experimental results (as in my essay).

Hoping that may help somewhat, with my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 11:00 GMT
Gordon,

Did you know; you're IN the final group!!??

All those with 4.3 are INCLUDED! So that includes all down to Deepack Vaid, including you.

Congratulations. Fantastic. And well deserved I might add. ...but in any event;

Now my head has been a bit befuddled by numbers, symbols and mathematical approaches I need to cojoin with best and simplest way of describing the relationship that I can only derive geodynametrically. Ohh, I seem to have just invented a new science called geodynametrics. Astonishing how these new sciences appear isn't it!

I think I've now resolved it right down to a line and a circle; Uncertainty theorem; Cross the centre of the circle with the line; One axis is certain, the other unknown. Now move it to touch tangentially; The other axis value is certain but the first is unknown. But also; Move the line slowly from one to the other and check the rate of change of values. It is non linear. in fact I predict it will describe a cosine curve.

My DFM ontology then describes how a simple rotating dipole (IQbit) can produce those results at Bob and Alice's detectors in such a way that 'correlation' only asks 'yes'/no' questions so only gets those ('up,/down') answers, but with a cosine curve distribution, BUT, Each detector finding also has cosine curve distributions, which inversely correspond because the spin axis is the same but handed.

I'll demonstrate the interaction later, but if your formula can describe that then we're in business.

BUT; Two questions; Recursive layers. I think there are arithmetic and other descriptions around, but we do need relativistic gamma (which I've derive a geodynametric mechanism for separately) which is where reducing 'chaos' slots in.

ALSO; The 'bottom limit' (relates to the above). Have you read the bottom essay? Could you do so if you have time and discuss?

Project snake masterplan on track I think, possibly with more back-up.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 09:42 GMT
Hi Peter, and thanks for the congratulations; with even more due to you! Well done!

1. As to the essay that you mention: I suggest that you write to the author directly. It's an interesting essay but far from my field of study.

2. As to your geodynametrics -- gulp - soon to appear at geodynametrics.com (?) -- I suggest that it's essential that we quickly pack some maths around your novel ideas.

But you first need to identify/define (and give symbols for) what you see as the relevant device and particle parameter(s). Then you might offer a series of sketches which show the dynamics of each paired device-particle interaction proceeding from start to a conclusion. Some guidance by way of analogies might help; together with the means by which the particles are correlated; etc.

In that you refer to lines, circles, tangents, axes, cosines (and presumably cosine-squared), then the dynamics that you associate with these elements should be clear from the sketches: so the related maths should (then) not be too difficult.

3. As for my formula: In my essay, you'll see that I do what I've suggested above for you. (The Figures for my essay are located at my blog-entry dated July. 21.) The analogies that I use derive from the dynamics of macroscopic wire-grid microwave polarisers and good old-fashioned spin-torque-precession.

Then your equations (like mine) need to produce the quantum-mechanical results (if you accept that Bell-inequalites are experimentally refuted).

PS: And, in my opinion, they should also include the intrinsic particle spin "s" to be clear that the same mechanism is at work with photons and spin-half particles.

Hoping this helps, with best regards; Gordon

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.