FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Viewing Math and Physics as Korzybski's 'map' and 'territory', we analyze their trust-worthiness. Maps derived from observations of the real world bring eigenvalue-based measurement into question. But what to do when the map logic conflicts with our physical intuition? This is often resolved in favor of the non-intuitive, whether simultaneity in relativity or non-locality in the case of Bell's theorem. The subtle nature of Bell's hidden constraints erasing the hidden variable information is the basis of Bell's lack of trust in his intuition.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His 1979 dissertation, (now published as "The Automatic Theory of Physics"), describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy. Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 33 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. His recent focus has been on Bell's theorem issues.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Edwin,

I enjoy reading your high quality essay.

Let’s imagine that Einstein Rosen and Podolski would understand that time has only a mathematical existence. With this understanding they would get the idea that information moves in space only and not in time. Time is only duration of information motion in space from A to B. Space is direct immediate information medium by EPR type experiments. There was no need to introduce idea of “hidden variables”. In this sense Bell is right: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics”.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_3D_space_as_a_medium_of_quantum_entanglement.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 21:31 GMT

Hi Amrit,

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I understand your point about time and information movement, but I'll give it some thought. I wrote on my understanding of information in the 2013 essay contest.

I'm not sure either exactly what you mean by "space is direct immediate information medium by EPR type experiments." If you mean that it is essentially a position measurement, then I agree.

It may depend upon what "all" means in "all of the predictions of quantum mechanics". This is usually, and specifically by Bell, interpreted to be -a.b correlation, and I have shown here a local model that does produce this prediction unless it is prevented from doing so by Bell's constraints.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I will read yours soon and comment.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:22 GMT

Ed, is your model realistic?

I agree your model is local -- as you state above -- finding my own local model hiding within yours: see equations (3)-(6) at my local model; version 1.** But there I made a planned second step: introducing realism (and matching QM) with equations (8)-(13).

In other words: In that you and I (as local realists) require a model to be both local AND realistic: the above model was a deliberate pedagogic step to the fully local and realistic version at (8)-(13). See also my essay in this contest when it is available.

So, not seeing how your model is realistic (nor how it moves beyond that first step above), I'd be pleased to learn:

1. What is your definition of realism, please?*

2. How does your model meet that definition?

* Because until we define realism in local and testable terms, our opponents define realism in their own unrealistic terms.

** PS; to be clear: Per my earlier analysis here and comparison with equations (3)-(6) at http://viXra.org/pdf/1406.0184v1.pdf my local model; version 1.

With best regards; Gordon Watson

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:46 GMT

With more apologies: The correct direct link above is my local model -- version 1.

Gordon Watson

PS: I've asked to have this fixed.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Edwin,

An excellent read. I'm a bit confused though. I understood that the EPR experiment was the basis for Bell's Inequality and that the SG experiment simply demonstrated that spin states were discrete rather than continuous.

BTW, has the SG experiment ever been performed when the apparatus was moving?

Best regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT

Gary,

Thanks for your comments. You say the Stern-Gerlach experiment simply demonstrated that spin states were discrete rather than continuous. That is indirectly so. But Bell, in my analysis, treated the SG experiment as if it is directly measuring spin. I discuss why that is mistaken in my essay, and why his +1 and -1 constraints are therefore inappropriate. I show how it is his unwarranted constraints that lead to his conclusion that no local model can reproduce quantum mechanical correlations, which correlations, of course, have been experimentally verified.

To my knowledge, the SG experiment has never been performed when the apparatus was moving. Do you believe that some new effect would appear in this case?

Having been discussing, and arguing, this analysis for months now, it is clear to me that this is quite a complex problem (see the HL Mencken quote) and I thank you for making the effort to read it. My belief is that it is too complex to be understood in one reading, but it's all we can do to read each essay even once. I've printed yours out but not yet read it. I'll comment when I do so.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 19:26 GMT

Edwin,

You are correct that the topic is fairly complex. My understanding of the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement. Thank you for any clarification. I've read your essay a second time.

Your Equation 2 interests me. It looks to me like it is almost a...

view entire post

Edwin,

You are correct that the topic is fairly complex. My understanding of the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement. Thank you for any clarification. I've read your essay a second time.

Your Equation 2 interests me. It looks to me like it is almost a quaternion although you have written it so as to have the gradient multiplied by dx produce a scalar value rather than a vector. I will ask you to consider it in terms of Equation 1 in my essay. When Bell divided by the absolute value of the cosine, it looks like that simply normalizes the cosine over cosine term to be plus or minus one. One of the interesting features of quaternions is that pre-multiplication and post-multiplication have different results. It is also possible to add together conjugates to eliminate the vector term and thereby simplify an expression to be a scalar.

The energy conservation requirement is something that I understood that Bell had abandoned. My understanding was that Bell allows for energy to be briefly "borrowed" and that is the basis for quantum foam and such things. Perhaps the vacuum also makes car loans? Some things I will probably never understand.

Regarding a moving apparatus for SG ... Yes, I believe that there would be an effect. I think that the separation distance between the two groups of atoms would be affected. Essentially, I think that spin is the result of absolute motion through the vacuum. I am one of those aether heretics. I simply cannot wrap my mind around action at a distance without some type of intervening medium. I can parrot the words and symbols but I simply don't understand it. I also recognize that experimental proof is required. An aether must add something to Physics. One of the papers that I have posted to viXra discusses this possibility.

One of the things that I appreciate regarding a forum such as this is the chance to have some of these ideas from modern Physics clarified. I am also glad to have them challenged.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 20:43 GMT

Gary,

I can only thank you for reading my essay a second time. I've always found it necessary to read and reread complex topics, if I wanted to understand them. You are correct that equation 2 in my essay produces a scalar, since (non-relativistic) energy is pure scalar, versus the energy/momentum of relativity. I will think about your eq 1.

You're also correct that Bell's...

view entire post

Gary,

I can only thank you for reading my essay a second time. I've always found it necessary to read and reread complex topics, if I wanted to understand them. You are correct that equation 2 in my essay produces a scalar, since (non-relativistic) energy is pure scalar, versus the energy/momentum of relativity. I will think about your eq 1.

You're also correct that Bell's division of cosine theta by the absolute value of cosine theta produces +1 and -1, which has the effect of supporting the constraints he imposes on the experiment while suppressing all physics associated with theta, as I develop. I am generally familiar (not facile) with quaternions. I have put more effort into Geometric Algebra, and rate it highly.

Although I don't think that Bell depends much on 'borrowing' from 'quantum foam', I very much appreciate your remark about car loans. I have elsewhere noted that (some) physicists seem to believe in 'unlimited credit' when borrowing energy from the 'vacuum'. Unless one believes in 'long-distance borrowing', I have shown that local borrowing of energy does not produce the amount of energy assumed. Nor does it make sense.

In many of my essays I have focused on gravito-magnetism as a physical reality that is vastly overlooked. As I mentioned to John Hodges below, the self-interactive nonlinear nature of this field yields unexpected results. The relevance to your comment is that the basic equation, which falls out of general relativity or a simple extension to Newton's equation (actually first made by Maxwell and worked out by Heaviside), produces a circulation in the field (spin) simply from the momentum vector. So I agree with you that spin results from absolute motion through the vacuum.

On the other hand there is really no empty vacuum if gravity is present everywhere in the universe. I tend to view the gravitational field as the aether, rather than postulate a new physical field. My goal as a physicist is more towards reducing the number of fields in physics, whereas for decades now the trend seems to have been to add a new field whenever a new problem arises. Apparently that's what quantum field theory will do for you, if you're not careful.

Thanks again for reading and commenting Gary,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Edwin,

The quality of the essay is superb! Truly professional!

Now to the harder part...I was wondering if you could expand slightly on why you think we should accept local reality as obvious. My conclusion on these matters are very different, but I am certainly interested in different points of view.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Best

Hal Swyers

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 21:41 GMT

Harlan,

Thanks for your kind comments.

You're right that it is hard to expand on why I think we should accept local reality as "obvious". I prefer the word "intuitive", and I have seen many comments to the effect that non-local "realism" is non-intuitive.

If one believes that intuition is derived from long evolution, then it seems to make sense that the survivors would intuit local causality as "natural" or "obvious".

A major point in my essay is that Bell had the audacity to overthrow what most seem to consider an intuitive feature of nature on oversimplified grounds. As I note, if he had just said "my model fails to produce quantum mechanical correlations" there would be no problem. It is because he claimed no local model could work and concluded that local causality is an invalid concept that his failure became major.

I'm not sure whether you're saying that your conclusion on Bell differs from mine, or that you find non-locality obvious. I can understand the first, but would be curious to hear why it would be obvious.

Thanks again for your above comment,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Harlan Swyers replied on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 15:22 GMT

Edwin,

Sorry for the late response.

I think locality is a given in that operations that generate a measurement must be local, but our concept of reality is not. More specifically, that while there is an appearance of objects that are physically separable, which we interpret as real objects, these are outcome dependent on local operations. The notion of non-locality is a horrible interpretational problem that has been allowed to diffuse through the physics community at large. The fact that we see quantum correlations in test of Bell theorems does not mean the universe is non-local; there was no non-local operation that generate the correlation. What the measurement did was provide some perceived definiteness to a local observer.

Hope that helps,

Best

Harlan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 03:42 GMT

Harlan,

As best I can tell we are pretty much in agreement on this topic. You note that the notion of non-locality is a horrible interpretation problem based on Bell's belief that "there was no non-local operation that generates the correlation." I hope that you got from my essay that there is now a local operation (as outlined in my essay) that exactly generates the correlation, thereby negating Bell's conclusion about non-locality. It's local all the way.

This has real consequences for the idea of entanglement, such as Susskind's treatment of information loss and the firewall problem, as well as other current ideas about entanglement. If you missed this aspect of my essay, I invite you to look at it again.

I've read your essay and responded to it, and I thank you again for reading mine and for your response.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thanks for you very interesting line of thought.

I’ve added you book to my cart in Amazon. It seems this book is on point for this topic. Because I order books for free shipping in batches, I’ll look into other books to order - This book is #4.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium’’ of QM and gravity?

I also tend to view mapping...

view entire post

Thanks for you very interesting line of thought.

I’ve added you book to my cart in Amazon. It seems this book is on point for this topic. Because I order books for free shipping in batches, I’ll look into other books to order - This book is #4.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium’’ of QM and gravity?

I also tend to view mapping (transformation) formulations with great skepticism. As you demonstrated in examining Bell’s theorem, such math can allow many unrecognized assumptions to creep in. I add they also allow many unphysical operations such as division by zero or even division itself. Often the easy way of considering division the inverse of a multiply mapping operation leads to complexity that may be difficult to see the physical unreality of the conclusion. The map may not even represent the territory.

Do instruments that measure objects we do not directly sense (such as an electric field) expand the territory? That is, is the map really math and physics (a human study) combined (human description or words) about the territory of the universe (physical world)? Your text body first paragraph says this I think. But this is slightly different than the abstract.

It seems you introduce the concept of zero and equality as problems in mapping. These are easy when dealing with just counting. But when units of measure are attached, things get trickier. One of the problems I had in undergrad was mixing up the units of measure. I wonder if all of physics has this problem or the allied problem of slightly changing the definition of parameters during the derivation. Is this the issue you’re addressing?

Would you’re development of \theta also apply the cosmological constant Einstein introduced, also to make the map agree with his assumed physical reality? Could this be argued to question general relativity mapping? Yes, I know later physics has found a use for such a constant. But the later use is the same as the original use - an ad hoc introduction to make agreement.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 19:52 GMT

John,

Thanks for your well thought out comments.

First: my FQXi paper on QM 'wave medium' and gravity is The Nature of the Wave Function. If I were to rewrite this 2012 paper today a few things would change. At the time I used Tajmar's experiment to assume a very large factor multiplying gravito-magnetism. I have since realized that self-interactive (nonlinear) feedback can yield...

view entire post

John,

Thanks for your well thought out comments.

First: my FQXi paper on QM 'wave medium' and gravity is The Nature of the Wave Function. If I were to rewrite this 2012 paper today a few things would change. At the time I used Tajmar's experiment to assume a very large factor multiplying gravito-magnetism. I have since realized that self-interactive (nonlinear) feedback can yield such large factors, but they are not constant. A graph of the nonlinear behavior is shown on page 6 of my 2013 FQXi Essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information. This is a much better solution than the large constant that no one else had been able to replicate. It also partakes of the nature of iterative self-interactive feedback, which is suggestive of the feedback loops you propose. One conclusion I have reached is that, while I value our intuition very highly, non-linear feedback tends to be outside the bounds of our intuition.

I certainly agree with you that skepticism is called for when considering mapping (transformation) formulations, and, in the worst case, the induced complexity can lead to difficulty in seeing the physical on reality of the conclusion. My current essay describes a case in point.

I have reviewed my abstract and first paragraph and I did not see exactly what you're referring to. If you could expand on your comment I would be happy to address it.

I certainly agree that the concept of zero and equality are much easier to deal with when just counting. As you noted, the discrete aspects of reality support counting and algebra, while continuity supports geometry. My main point here was that, after introducing "distance" as an easy-to-produce numerical measure (based on simple logic machines), distance = 0 is essentially 'identity', when considering distances between entities of interest.

My essay focuses on Bell's (hidden) constraints that he imposes due to his choice of the wrong map, given two very similar appearing maps. In reading other essays here it's occurred to me that general relativity may have similar 'hidden' constraints. I plan to think more about this.

Thanks again for your comments and your essay. I think our basic ideas and goals are very similar, but I'm sure we differ in details.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 16:08 GMT

RE: your paper ``The Nature of the Wave’’. I’ll look again, but I don’t see coherence except that a single particle is self--coherent. Interference in the double slit requires coherence in several particles’ waves. I suppose you are having the wave travel much faster than the particle so the wave through the slits is basically redial. A thermal light source near a double slit does not produce interference (not coherent). Such light needs to pass through a slit or travel a long distance to become coherent. Further, if a photon causes a wave before reaching the mask, the field cannot self direct. Other photons are needed, as Newton suggested, to cause the wave field. This leads to having to satisfy Afshar’s low intensity (singe photon in the experiment) observation. To satisfy the coherence observations, I concluded a single photon must cause several coherent waves. Too bad I became interested in FQXi to late for this discussion. All you needed was to have a physical medium in which the wave oscillates where the large--scale gradient produces gravity.

The ``physics’’ (a study field of humans) is linked to territory in the abstract. Physics seems more like a map to me. In the text, this is changed to physical reality. Yes I know -picky, picky. Apologies.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 03:08 GMT

John,

Not at all sure that the linear momentum model you reference will not behave properly in the two-slit experiment, nor that two particles cannot interact in coherent fashion. I simply have not yet modeled these phenomena to that extent. My goal is to model reality with wave-inducing local particles and see how far it can be pushed. I think it will go quite far, but I can't prove it. As I imply in my essay, the spin (angular momentum) eigenfunction and the linear momentum eigenfunction, connected by a tensor product, are essentially separable, so I have focused most recently on developing the local model of spin. I plan to return to the linear momentum eigenfunction and develop it further after I put spin to bed. Most (but not all) of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is associated with spin.

As for a particle-plus-wave model in the two-slit experiment you might wish to look at 'Measurement in the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation: Double-slit, Stern-Gerlach, and EPR-B' by Gondran and Gondran [arXiv:1309.4757v3].

I now understand your question of "physics" versus "physical reality". In the context of my essay I assume 'math' to be the map and 'physics' to be the territory, so I've let 'physics' stand for physical reality. You are letting 'physics' (as theoretical models) be the map and physical reality be the territory. I agree with you about physics being a map, but I have a different usage here, primarily to accomodate the essay theme. (Also, I grew up around the corner from Hodges Street, which is probably why I inadvertently misspelled your name in an above comment.)

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin, When I look up the map and territory metaphor in Wikipedia they link it to the elephant metaphor that I used, so we should have something in common. However as you pointed out in your comment to my essay we actually think in completely the opposite way!

For you the physical world comes first and is unique while mathematics emerges in its many forms. For me the mathematical world is a unique structure from which many possible physical realities emerge. To you our intuition is to be trusted while for me it is something to fight against.

Well sometimes it is more useful to read the words of people who see things differently in order to challenge our ideas so I try to imagine seeing things your way. I like your use of cluster analysis to understand the way the emergence works.

Your arguments concerning Bell are very detailed and complex so I will need more time to take those in.

It is a well written and thought provoking essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 02:57 GMT

Philip,

I have yet to participate in an FQXi contest without learning something. If we all saw physics the same way there would be no contest. I too try to see your essay as you do. As I said on your thread, you have a wonderful talent for presenting ideas that I normally reject in such a way as to seem eminently reasonable to me and therefore cause me to think more carefully about what...

view entire post

Philip,

I have yet to participate in an FQXi contest without learning something. If we all saw physics the same way there would be no contest. I too try to see your essay as you do. As I said on your thread, you have a wonderful talent for presenting ideas that I normally reject in such a way as to seem eminently reasonable to me and therefore cause me to think more carefully about what you're saying and about my own approach. That is surely the goal of these essays.

Your second paragraph is a pretty accurate summary of the difference of our approaches. And we have independently converged in some areas such as symmetry. In The Chromodynamics War in 2009 I wrote a chapter: "Conservation or Symmetry?" My point was that while we have been brought up being told that symmetry yields conservation, the fact is that conservation was the primary (physical) entity, and only after our mathematical sophistication crossed a threshold did 'symmetry' enter the picture. Probably what first caught my attention is that almost all (all?) symmetries are approximate, even iso-spin. And recall that since superpartners have not been observed at the same masses as SM particles, supersymmetry (SUSY) cannot be an exact symmetry. I decided that every conservation law necessarily implies a symmetry, but every symmetry does not necessarily imply a conservation law of physics. I also decided that one reason so many physicists believe in symmetry (not sure 'believe in' is the right word) is that all symmetry groups have matrix representations. In short, just as I discuss in my essay, I believe symmetry is too simple. And I'm glad that we've arrived in much the same place, re symmetry, starting from our quite distinct theoretical perspectives.

Thanks again for reading and commenting. I hope you do find the time to digest it. Many of my previous essays have covered theories that I have but that I have not worked out in sufficient detail to convince others. I hope this essay convinces some others.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Dear Edwin,

I like your approach - follow the energy. It is good to see some physics relating to an actual Stern-Gerlach device, having wondered why an *inhomogeneous* magnetic field was required, which you relate to a continuous helicity eigenvalue spectrum. Many discussions on Bell's theorem are purely mathematical, but this really goes to the experimental foundation of Bell's ideas where you have exposed a critical misconception in the formulation of the theorem which constrains outputs to +/-1.

Your local model really seems appropriate for this problem. This ought to be a very popular topic and I expect you will do well in the contest.

Best wishes,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 02:20 GMT

Dear Colin,

You have captured the essence of my essay in five lines, something I wasn't sure was possible. Thanks for reading, understanding, and summarizing my essay so beautifully.

My best wishes for you, too,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I have been thinking quite a bit more regarding your Equation 2 and the text in general. Please bear with me.

Should the second term on the right-hand side be integrated? I’m thinking that F dx = dE.

Equation 2 reminds me of the Lorentz Force Equation but the silver atoms of the SG experiment are of course neutral. Is there any chance that the gradient term is a cross product between the two vectors?

Does the following expression have any physical meaning?

((vector mu)dot(vector B)+(vector mu)cross(vector B))/((length mu)(length B))

Are observers Alice and Bob considered to be entangled after the experiment? They each absorbed a different part of the entangled wave-function.

The entanglement is created by the experimenter in his/her frame of reference. The measurements are made in the experimenter’s reference frame. I think the entanglement only exists in the experimenter’s reference frame. Has an experiment been done where one or both of the two observers are moving with respect to the source of the entangled particles?

Many Thanks,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 02:24 GMT

Gary,

I neglected to answer one of your points in your previous comment that is relevant to your latest comment so I will do so now. You ask for clarification of "the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement."

Consider the Stern-Gerlach experiment in 1922, three years before Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck proposed that the intrinsic angular momentum or position-independent spin was half integral. The SG experiment has a twofold character by splitting a beam. Since it's unlikely that the inhomogeneous field could be exactly represented, the specifics of interaction of spin with the local magnetic field was of lesser concern. What counted was the two-fold splitting of the beam of silver atoms, attributed now to spin.

In SG, the gross nature of this two-fold splitting is sufficient. But the EPR experiment, based on comparison and correlation of two SG experiments performed on a singlet state can be treated as a discrete (binary) problem in physics or as a continuous classical physics problem. Bell's gross model requiring binary measurements effectively erases all of the "hidden variable" information of the classical local model. A much finer resolution of the physics of the particle in the heterogeneous field is required to match the predicted quantum mechanical correlation. That is a key point in my essay.

I propose theoretical and experimental exploration of unconstrained and constrained models of EPR. But the fact that my unconstrained model violates Bell's theorem has led to conflict with the simple binary SG model, and consequently quantum mechanical questions, which I answer in the essay in terms of eigenvalues maps.

As for entanglement, it is represented in the figure at the bottom right of page 6 in my essay. Entanglement is the shaded area between the cosine curve ( -a.b ) and Bell's linear curve ( -1 + 2 theta / pi). Bell claimed that local realism could not match measured reality, i.e., the -a.b correlation, because his model failed to do so. I view his model as too simple, and focus on the constraints he imposes on the models.

If a local model, with or without constraints, can exceed Bell's linear prediction, then entanglement will be diminished. And if a local model actually accomplishes the -a.b correlation, then the rationale for entanglement disappears. As you observe in the figure at top of page 7, my local model does produce the required correlation, -a.b.

Entanglement, is weird, mysterious, poorly defined, and, according even to those experimenters who made their reputation showing -a.b, it is "difficult to swallow". My model yields the cosine curve, so there is no shaded area, that is, no entanglement, so that's the answer to your last two paragraphs in the above comment.

Entanglement was invented to explain how correlation could occur that no classical model could produce. If a local classical model can produce the correlation, then entanglement is unnecessary. I say good riddance.

I will look at your equation above, and if I have anything sensible to say will comment again.

Thanks for your continuing interest in this problem.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Many thanks. You have given me a "Eureka" moment and I now better understand the distinction regarding SG vs EPR and the significance of your essay.

Regarding the above relationship, I simple used vectors mu and B to produce Euler's Equation. It might occur somewhere as part of the solution to a differential equation.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin

I like the Korzybski's idea of math like a map and the physical world like the territory; it is the kernel of mathematical physics.

If I understand, you see the knowledge like a pattern recognition through a neural network.

If I understand clearly, you say that an oversimplification of the Bell's equation in quantum mechanics can give the non-locality interpretation.

I must read more carefully the whole essay, but the quality is excellent.

Best

Domenico Oricchio

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 14, 2015 @ 01:56 GMT

Dear Domenico,

Thanks for reading and responding, and thanks for your kind comment. You have understood correctly the points you mention. I would add that the pattern recognition process is essentially an algorithmic process which can be implemented in any logic machine, especially including neural networks.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gibb’s comment above notes the two popular views of math and physics.

I suppose I may not have explained the concept well in the introduction.

For me the math and physics emerge together and are the same physical reality. Therefore, properties of math can be used to suggest the physics of reality. The difficult things of math can also imply things that don’t exist in physical reality such as mapping math and infinity. So the quantum math (not real) of Bell is incorrect which is shown by the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation that suggests the ``hidden variables’’ exist. There are few papers written on this. Your paper uses this to highlight how this works. Didn’t Bell question his inequality when he heard of the Bohm papers?

For me the prime thing to understand is the double--slit experiment with the Afshar’s experiments of which--way and single photon interference. This experiment is the key to understanding the world of the small. That was the subject of my previous paper on photon interference and current effort on the single photon interference. Newtonian mechanics must apply to create the wave (Bohm’s weakness) and direct the particle.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 14, 2015 @ 02:24 GMT

John,

In general I agree with your second paragraph in that physics (as the physical world) entails relations (math) in its (emergent) existence. Once the complexity of the physical world reaches neuronal levels, then math goes far beyond counting and geometry to include the many mathematical inventions of the mind. Unlike Platonic-oriented physicists, I do not view all math as either pre-existing or somehow existing 'outside of' the physical universe although if there is or was an intelligent designer, I grant that He understood math exquisitely well. If physical reality just 'pop'ed into being, then math (as geometry) came into being at the same time.

These are awkward concepts, but I believe in a unitary, self-consistent world, not infinite possibilities all disconnected and potential. I do so because of my experience and my intuition. As I believe logic is a property of physical reality, I do not see physical reality either derived from or emerging from logic. Nor, I suspect, did Godel.

I agree with you that the two-slit experiment is key and must be explained by a classical model if classical physics is to have relevance at the microlevel. I considered non-locality a worse problem so I've been working hardest in that domain.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I read your essay and admire your attention to detail in EPR. I am also impressed with your contribution to intellectual property. I had only about a dozen US patents and am not as educated or recognized as you. However we have a lot in common because we are innovators. I’m afraid that most of the people we deal with now don’t understand innovation. In their view,...

view entire post

Hi Edwin,

I read your essay and admire your attention to detail in EPR. I am also impressed with your contribution to intellectual property. I had only about a dozen US patents and am not as educated or recognized as you. However we have a lot in common because we are innovators. I’m afraid that most of the people we deal with now don’t understand innovation. In their view, different is wrong. I used to know my gatekeepers but where are they (kind of reminds me of the wizard of OZ)? Later in my career I hired and managed people, some were PhD’s. I depended on young less well educated engineers for the innovation we needed. Their scholarly peers loved to consult with their college professors and we funded their studies, but they were so enamored with the science they learned that they could not “trash” what didn’t work and ask the innovation question “what do we need to know that we do not now know to solve the problem?” We were perhaps the first to use computers as a powerful scientific tool.

Now the problems at hand: Do we need to list them? For you, why would anyone not listen to a new view of troubling findings if it leads to deeper understanding? In my case, why would anyone not listen to innovation when they don’t know what time or space is?

I approached my deep need to understand by trying to “reverse engineer” nature. I took the best fundamental particle data I could find and correlated it. The result was the logarithmic “code” I presented. I wish, as you requested, that I could find the origin. In arXiv 3701.0090, I suggested that that it started with 90 and separated into four parts of 22.5 each because E=2.02e-5*exp(22.5) is close to data for the Higgs particle energy. I noted the extensive use of ln(3/e) that underlies the electromagnetic field and information. I have been working with the information code for about 30 years and applied it to most processes in nature. All I can say is “it works”. My recent interest has been quantum gravity. The scholarly university products of the last 25 years have worked on the problem but in my view that didn’t question the basic tenant….the Planck scale. They fell in “love” with a relationship that contains Planck’s constant, C and G in what is considered a defining relationship. I don’t care how many dimensions you use, the general theory of relativity is not quantum if it is the curvature of large scale space time. I question the view and can calculate the gravitational constant from the proton model. Yes, BTW, the neutron decays in the model exactly produces the proton, electron and expected neutrino.

Thanks, lets continue the discussion.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 06:07 GMT

Hi Gene,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. As you note, novelty is often suspect. That's actually a good thing, as there are far more novel ideas than there are good or correct novel ideas. We would not want mankind chasing off after every new idea, as some of them lead straight over the cliff. That's why the patent examiners tried to shoot down every one of your patents, if they were doing their job.

That's a different problem from when novelty is opposed simply because it affects an industry of people quite successfully living off doing things the old way.

You answered my question well about the origin of your numerical code. Setting out to 'reverse engineer' the best particle data we have seems quite reasonable to me. The standard model came about from looking at patterns in the data. You said "All I can say is "it works"." There are much worse things than that! It's a great place to start.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Edwin. In your essay, I am mostly in agreement with your opinion, "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem. As this is generally considered the basis for 'entanglement', it suggests that reappraisal of much of current physics is in order." Bell's proof might be oversimplified or wrong, but I am not sure that Bell's proof can ever be refuted EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. The problem is that the string landscape can be formulated within a conceptual framework in which Bell's theorem is valid, and by means of clever D-brane adjustments the string landscape might be able to provide models of any plausible (or implausible) physics. In any case, my guess is that Bell's theorem shall always be regarded as great. According to Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research."

Regards, David Brown

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 22:39 GMT

Dear David Brown,

Thanks for reading and responding. You suggest that you're not sure that Bell's proof can ever be refuted even if it is wrong, because you believe string theory can be formulated in a conceptual framework in which Bell's theorem is valid. I'm not exactly sure I understand this, but in my essay on 'math and physics' as 'map and territory' I specifically state that I ignore maps that point to no territory. In your essay you acknowledge that "there is not yet any proof that the [string] theory is relevant to physics", which I interpret as saying the same thing. Thus my position is to ignore string theory and we can agree to disagree on this point. That's healthy.

Your other point, that "greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research" is more difficult to judge, as it must be contrasted with what would have occurred if thought had not been suppressed for 50 years, and with what advances might have occurred based on a correct understanding of local realism. That is half of the 20th century, the most prolific period in physics. It is hard to think of any real physics, as opposed to thousands of papers, that have come from Bell's theorem. So except for a small industry based on publishing 'entanglement' papers, I'm unaware of just what new line of research has accomplished anything in reality. I don't see the 'quantum computers' that supposedly use entanglement and I don't see much beyond encryption that would really benefit from such, although I know others will disagree on this last point.

In short, I did not expect to convince everyone, but I appreciate your taking the time to read it and think about it and respond thoughtfully.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Eugene,

Thank you for looking at my essay on Solving the mystery.

I wanted to comment on your essay but my difficulty is a lack of depth in understanding the details.

I would like to talk about Bell's theorem and the issue of whether physical effects are local or non-local and see how this relates to your position on the subject.

For my reference I include the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 15:01 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Apologies for sending the previous post as anonymous. I must have been logged out.

Regards

Richard Lewis

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 22:50 GMT

Dear Richard Lewis,

Thanks for your comments. I know of course that my essay is quite complex in dealing with a very specialized topic that not everyone has spent time on. I appreciate your going to Wiki to try and understand my essay, and agree with their summary of Bell's theorem to the effect that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever produce all of the predictions of...

view entire post

Dear Richard Lewis,

Thanks for your comments. I know of course that my essay is quite complex in dealing with a very specialized topic that not everyone has spent time on. I appreciate your going to Wiki to try and understand my essay, and agree with their summary of Bell's theorem to the effect that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever produce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." That "all" is a tricky word, but Bell and most experimenters have focused specifically on the correlation, -a.b. By exhibiting a local model which does produce this quantum correlation I have disproved Bell's theorem. But some have complained that I do not apply Bell's constraints, so I've spent considerable time showing that his constraints are based on a mistaken interpretation of the eigenvalue equation or 'map' that Bell chose to use.

You look at the problem from the perspective of your Space-Time Wave theory, which you say supports non-local behavior. Of course I did not have access to your theory before submitting my essay, but it probably would not have changed anything.

You are correct that interference experiments must be explained as well, but those are not really part of Bell's theorem, and, as I explained in referenced papers, the 'spin'-physics and the 'momentum'-physics are separable, and need to be tackled separately.

You have correctly referred to the EPR interpretation in which "there is action at a distance happening at the point of detection so that detection at point A prevents the detection at another point B." That seems a strong argument, but I have discussed an alternative interpretation in my 2013 essay on The Nature of the Wave Function, and I still believe that is the correct interpretation. In 1927, two years after Schrödinger and before Dirac, there was quite a bit of confusion and trying to understand things in an atmosphere dominated by the Copenhagen interpretation. Ninety years later I think we have a more complete picture.

In short, you have prepared a very good comment, which I appreciate, and you are free to interpret the Wiki "all" predictions to claim that a local theory that has matched "one" of the predictions of QM does not make Bell's theorem false. But having shown that Bell's hidden constraints are the reason that local models fail to produce quantum correlations, (the only prediction actually discussed by Bell) I continue to believe that I have proved Bell's theorem false, and explained in detail why it is false.

Good feedback such as yours helps all of us, so thanks again.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Richard Lewis replied on Jan. 19, 2015 @ 13:25 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your feedback which I take as very positive. I am quite relaxed about the idea that Bell's theorem could be false and this would be a great achievement on your part if it becomes generally accepted.

What I am more interested in is the true nature of events in physics and whether interactions can be non-local. Since the spacetime wave theory implies non-locality it is important for me that non-locality be accepted as a physical reality. Then Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant because it is making statements about local hidden variable representations.

One of the issues that arises when non-local effects are taking place is that the implication is that a measurement at A instantaneously affects the possible measurement outcome at B. When we talk about instantaneous effects we have to consider in which frame of reference they are instantaneous. Special Relativity requires us to do this.

This is where we must consider the idea of a unique frame of reference in which non-local effects take place and this is deemed to be the same frame of reference for light wave propagation (as per the spacetime wave theory).

We arrive at a position where the laws of physics (Special Relativity and General Relativity) are constructed based on the idea that all the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference moving with a constant relative velocity. Then we find that to accommodate light wave propagation and entanglement effects we have to consider the existence of a unique frame of reference with the possibility (at least in the realm of thought experiment) of identifying that unique frame of reference through a precisely controlled entanglement experiment.

Ultimately, I do think it is acceptable to consider the laws of physics within the scope of SR and GR to be invariant while still assuming the existence of a unique frame of reference for non-local effects.

Regards

Richard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Klingman

Thanks for reply on my site. I'd like to propose a task.

Links to my effort my effort.

The book I am thinking of getting is ``The Gene Man Theory’’. I didn’t find it on Amazon and $100 seems a bit tough.

Do you have any papers on the web? I looked in academia.edu, found 3 on Bell and spin in viXra. None on arXiv.

A decade ago I had one in New...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 16:35 GMT

"http://myplace.frontier.com/~jchodge/">my effort

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 23:32 GMT

John,

Recently published e-prints on viXra, both to support Phil Gibbs' worthwhile undertaking, and because it's fast and does not require towing the status quo line. You mentioned arXiv was okay til you deviated. It's hard to find a greater deviation today than going against Bell. Most recent writings (see the 50 year celebration of Bell) resemble hagiography.

You ask if I have interest in reinterpreting Schrödinger, but the other question is whether I have time. Currently still extracting information from my model and the feedback I've received over the past few months, especially negative feedback, requires time and effort to respond to. And believe me, my theory is vastly improved from some of the negative feedback I received.

I'm also trying to prepare papers for refereed journals, etc. etc. So yes, I'm interested, but no, I don't think anything will come of it. I suggest we go off-line to discuss such -- Klingman@geneman.com.

Finally, I know from past experience that when this contest kicks into high gear it soaks up time like a sponge.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I am following up on your question regarding the 13.8 MeV quark in the neutron/proton model. The PDG standard model masses and designations follow:

The quarks are not independently observed and standard model correlations are based on protons and neutrons that may have transitioned over time to lower energy states. I studied and correlated meson and baron observations. All except the proton decay and almost all of them decay to intermediate states consisting of lower energy mesons and baryons. The following diagram is from viXra: 1307.0133. The decay paths all conserve energy in their intermediate states, i.e. a high energy quark becomes a lower energy quark plus kinetic energy. For example, the 13.8 MeV quark in your note becomes a 1.87 MeV quark plus 11.93 MeV of orbital kinetic energy.

I detail how the neutron decays to a proton in viXra:1307.0082.

I could bore you to death with the details of meson and baryon decays but pairs of quarks eventually annihilate one another ending up as kinetic energy, electrons and neutrinos. BTW, I went far enough with the meson and baryon studies to understand them and then lost interest. It was very time consuming.

Unfortunately the diagrams would go through.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 23:35 GMT

Hi Gene,

I was hoping you'd respond about quarks. In the past I've used ~5 Mev for up quarks (rest mass) and ~9 Mev for down quarks, but I haven't checked recently to see what latest beliefs are. Obviously most of the energy of baryons is in the interactions and kinetic energies. I'll try to look at 1307.082. I agree meson and baryon studies are time-consuming.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I tried to carefully read your paper. Let me note first some of its strengths: You have a gift for expressing yourself lucidly, there are several very clear and nice-looking diagrams to help illustrate your points, and you do raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to what you call "Bell's hidden constraints."

I am baffled, however, that though the SG...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

I tried to carefully read your paper. Let me note first some of its strengths: You have a gift for expressing yourself lucidly, there are several very clear and nice-looking diagrams to help illustrate your points, and you do raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to what you call "Bell's hidden constraints."

I am baffled, however, that though the SG experiment features very prominently in your paper, you did not, as far as I can tell, address at all that aspect of the experiment for which it is most famous, namely, that if you separate out spin up and down beams along some axis by means of an inhomogeneous B-field, pass one of the beams through a second inhomogeneous B-field with a perpendicular orientation and pass one of those through a third B-field with the same orientation as the first, you obtain two beams one of which has a spin that should have been excluded by the initial separation.

Any local and/or realist account of entanglement phenomena has to be able to explain this empirical result, otherwise it is dead on arrival. The absence of an explanation of this in your argument makes it difficult for the reader to conclude anything other than that it cannot explain it, and I think that among those who have thought about this issue a lot this will dramatically diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.

The most charitable interpretation I can attribute to your argument is the passage in which you mention a work by Potel (with which I am not familiar), presumably to support the notion that the quantum mechanical model of the SG experiment (i.e. spin states in 2D Hilbert space) does not fully capture what is really going on. But if you want to make that case, then the burden is on you to show exactly how this failure of modeling the empirical result leads to an explanation of the observations by your model. You did not do this.

I do not relish pointing out weaknesses in other people's arguments, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of a discussion of this elephant in the room in the above posts, and someone has to point it out.

Let me close by mentioning a point on which we share the same viewpoint, namely, I think that there is no true non-locality in nature. However, I do believe that "realism" however fuzzy a concept it is right now, has to be sacrificed. I will touch on this issue in the essay that I plan on submitting to this contest, and I'd expect nothing less than criticism as candid as mine.

Best wishes,

Armin

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 20:40 GMT

Dear Armin,

Thank you for your very kind comments and your extremely well thought-out question. Allow me to respond to your first criticism. You say I "did not address at all that aspect of the experiment for which it is most famous, namely that if you separate out spin up and spin down beams... pass one of the beams through a second inhomogeneous be field with a perpendicular orientation...

view entire post

Dear Armin,

Thank you for your very kind comments and your extremely well thought-out question. Allow me to respond to your first criticism. You say I "did not address at all that aspect of the experiment for which it is most famous, namely that if you separate out spin up and spin down beams... pass one of the beams through a second inhomogeneous be field with a perpendicular orientation and pass one of those through a third B-field... You obtain two beams one of which has a spin that should've been excluded by the initial separation."

First, the aspect you speak of does not form any part of Bell's theorem, which is the central topic of my essay. Second, although Feynman made rather famous this 'aspect' of sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments, I do not think the experiment has ever actually been performed. I believe it is more of a 'gedanken' experiment and a teaching tool. But you say any local and/or realist account of entanglement phenomena has to be able to explain this empirical result, otherwise it is dead on arrival. You say I cannot explain it.

But if you study page 8 of my essay you will find the explanation. In an inhomogeneous field the incoming spin aligns with the local field. If the incoming spin is perpendicular to the local field the end result is 50-50. This yields exactly the behavior you refer to. My local model thus quite simply explains this behavior. I hope that you will study this and revise your opinion. I treat the problem in more detail in referenced works, but with a nine page limit I could not treat all aspects, especially those not directly related to Bell's theorem.

I thank you for candidly pointing out what you see as a weakness. That is how theories get stronger. But I do believe that you will find that your criticism is mistaken. I do understand how you came to this conclusion, because when I was thinking in terms of entanglement, that particular aspect was quite difficult to comprehend. Surprisingly in a local realism model it is actually quite simple to understand. But one has to take local realism seriously, and not try to extrapolate from entanglement.

Thanks again for thinking seriously about my essay. I hope you will give it further consideration. I look forward to your essay, and am pleased to learn that you too doubt 'non-locality' in nature. This is a complex topic, and nine pages is too short to solve all of the problems of QM, so I have focused very tightly on Bell's theorem and refute his claim that local models cannot produce -a.b correlation.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 17:27 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Thank you, your reply deserves a careful and thought-out response. Unfortunately, the next couple weeks or so will be very busy for me, so let me just say that I wish to continue our discussion, but there will be a little time lag time before I have a chance to fully engage in it. I do want to do it because this may well be one of those (relatively rare) kinds of discussions where both parties can learn from each other.

Best wishes,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Very interesting read. I agree with your fundamental argument, however I believe it was Bell's intent to define a state of locality in a non-localized field, thereby introducing the constraint as +/- 1. I believe, or my intuition tells me, we are led to a fuzzy paradox when attempt to constrain any bounded state of locality.

I do feel we often describe things in mathematics that we truly can not in physics. Idealistically my argument would contend we only use mathematics as a model to physical reality.

Nevertheless, it was a good essay. Kudos!

Best Regards,

D.C. Adams

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 20:28 GMT

Dear Demond,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting on it. I'm not sure I understand your comment, but the consensus of Bell's supporters seems to be that the +1 or -1 are simply eigenvalues and that measurements must produce eigenvalues. That is why I have focused on this argument and attempt to show that Bell confused Dirac's fundamental eigenvalue equation with Pauli's provisional eigenvalue equation, which is clearly inappropriate in that it leads immediately to a contradiction.

You say "I believe, or my intuition tells me…". Like you, I do regard intuition as meaningful. Some, as Phil points out above, distrust intuition, and attempt to suppress it from all considerations. There are arguments for both approaches.

You also say we only use the mathematics as a model of physical reality. I agree with this and refer to it as the 'map' that represents the 'territory' in the Korzybski sense.

Thanks for your kind remarks, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

In regards to Bell, let me give you something to think about, in the realm of truly macroscopic objects like idealized coins, rather than electron spins.

The correlation given for classical entities is a triangular function. The correlation given for quantum entities is a sinusoid. A triangular function has a Fourier spectrum, consisting of odd harmonics of the sinusoidal...

view entire post

Edwin,

In regards to Bell, let me give you something to think about, in the realm of truly macroscopic objects like idealized coins, rather than electron spins.

The correlation given for classical entities is a triangular function. The correlation given for quantum entities is a sinusoid. A triangular function has a Fourier spectrum, consisting of odd harmonics of the sinusoidal fundamental. Consequently, even a crude lowpass filter (smoothing operation) applied to the triangular function, will convert it into a sinusoid. Thus, the only difference between the triangular and sinusoidal correlation functions, is a lowpass filter.

Now Shannon's Capacity theorem, reduces to the uncertainty principle, when only a single bit of information is recoverable from a message. Any such message is inherently band limited (lowpass filtered). But was the filter applied at the transmitter or the receiver? If it was applied at the transmitter, then the "single bit" is an intrinsic property of the entity being received, not the apparatus being used to receive it.

Now consider making a very noisy, time-bandwidth limited measurement (limited at the transmitter, to contain only a single recoverable bit of information), and then trying to "decide" whether the measurement is +1 or -1. As noted above, a simple lowpass filter will convert a triangular function into a sinusoidal one. But does one apply the filter to the measurements or the discrete decisions derived from the measurements? And how, exactly, did one make the decisions? More importantly, in this limiting case of only a single bit being present, can one even separate the measurement and the decision making processes, and thus which data set, the measurements or the decisions, are to be filtered? If filtered decisions are used as input to the correlation computation, the result will be sinusoidal, though perhaps not "normalized".

My point is that, the correlation may result from the peculiar nature of attempting to "decide" the difference between a measurement and a decision/index based on the measurement, when only a single bit of information exists, rather than from any considerations of the physics per se, which is merely the carrier of the one-bit message.

Rob McEachern

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 20:34 GMT

Dear Rob,

I agree that the correlation given for 1-bit classical entities is a triangular function, versus the sinusoidal quantum correlation. But the classical 1-bit entities do not experience the energy-exchange that yields an analog result.

This "dissipation" can be viewed, as you say, as a low-pass-filter, and this is the difference between the binary result obtained without dissipation and the continuous spectrum obtained with the non-constant field.

You discuss Shannon capacity and the uncertainty principle in the case when only a single bit of information is recoverable from a message. The local classical model is not a one-bit model but a continuous distribution (quantum magnitude but arbitrary 3-D direction). You make a very interesting point that, if the filter is applied to the transmitter, then the 'single bit' is an intrinsic property of the entity, not the 'filter' (the apparatus). But, as I discuss, the actual result is not a single bit, but a continuous spectrum. So I don't see this as applying.

Your next paragraph is more complex, but seems to again assume (as did Bell) a one-bit measurement. As the local model is not one bit I don't see this logic directly applicable (as I understand it) since the assumption that only a single bit exists is not correct. Moreover, as I point out, this physical 'fact' should be experimentally testable, and I plan to work toward testing it.

In other words, Bell's 'one-bit' assumption is inappropriate, based on his over-simplification of the problem, which was itself based on his confusion between the Dirac fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation and Pauli's provisional precession eigenvalue equation.

Thus while I do agree with your analysis (as I understand it) it is premised on "when only a single bit of information exists", which is Bell's fundamental mistake. The physics of the local model (which produces correct results) is not "merely the carrier of the one-bit message".

Thanks for your insightful comment,

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT

Edwin,

I am not assuming a single bit. I am talking about "constructing" a classical object that only has a single bit. Imagine a coin, to which "noise" is added, via surface imperfections, after which, the surfaces are then blurred, by a physical lowpass filtering operation, to such an extent that, even if you held the coin in front of you, you cannot tell if you are looking at the "head" or tail side. The only process that can tell, is a carefully constructed "matched filter" type of operation, that knows, a priori, exactly what other filter must be correlated against the entire surface of the coin, to "decide" if the surface under consideration is heads or tails; a sort of carefully weighed average over the entire surface, for which the weighting function must be known, a priori, in order to recover the bit without error.

By carefully adjusting the noise level and bandwidths of the lowpass filter, the coin is being constructed such that it obeys Shannon's Capacity relation, for an entity from which only a single bit of information, can ever be recovered (in regards to the heads vs. tails observation) In this regard, it is quite unlike other classical objects. My belief, is that it is not small physical size, but small information content, that cause most of the oddities in quantum observations. Hence, if one were to construct a macroscopic object, that intrinsically has a small information content, similar oddities will occur, when one attempts to determine its observable state.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 22:01 GMT

Rob,

I understand that you are "constructing" a classical object that has only a single bit. This is the 'classical' example of the coin as model of spin one-half.

But my point is that it is this model that is inappropriate. My classical model of spin is not constructed 'of' or 'as' a one-bit entity. It is a continuous entity in that it can point in any 3-D direction. Nor is the measurement one-bit, as can be seen from the iconic 'postcard' data. Instead, it is Bell's assumption of a one-bit entity, and a one-bit measurement that is the focus of my essay.

I'm not arguing with your constructing a classical object that has only a single bit, nor your analysis thereof. I am saying that it is not the appropriate description of my local model which I have constructed as a continuum-based entity, and which I show can and does produce a correlation that Bell claims to be impossible. Nor did I make any claims about small size having any relevance.

I suggest that you have not understood my essay or my comments derived from it, as your arguments seem to miss the point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 02:56 GMT

Edwin,

If it obeys the uncertainty principle, then there is only a single bit of "information" present, regardless of how many data bits are in the measurements. The meaning of the uncertainty principle, is that regardless of how much data one collects, that data is all so highly correlated from one measurement to the next, that there is only a single bit of information buried in all the redundant data. If this is not true, then the data does not obey the uncertainty principle, and is not of interest quantum mechanically.

Think of it in terms of a time-bandwidth product, which is what the uncertainty principle is:

The limit in time means there is a limited time duration during which the signal is present and able to be measured. The limited bandwidth means that the "signal" has been lowpass filtered, which introduces correlations between any closely spaced measurements. The uncertainty principle says there is an inverse relation between the time-period and the correlation period, such that only a single independent measurement can be made; all other measurements are non-independent and entirely correlated with the first measurement, such that they are devoid of any additional "information". Furthermore, that single measurement, is only accurate to 1 single bit. This latter fact can be seen by setting the signal-to-noise ratio in Shannon's Capacity, equal to 1, in which case the expression for the capacity just becomes equal to the uncertainty principle; the uncertainty principle is simply the special, limiting case, in which the information carrying capacity of the "message", consists of a single bit of information.

Also, keep in mind that most of the experimental tests of Bell's theorem, do not even employ particles with spin, or use magnetic fields. They are performed by measuring the polarization of photons.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Rob,

I have the highest regard for your information theory perspective, which usually agrees with my own info perspective. But this is not the perspective in terms of which John Bell developed his theorem. I have just performed a hurried review of all the references in John Bell's 'Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics', which is the "Bible" of Bell's theorem, and have not found a single reference to Shannon. I know that you tend to see everything in terms of Shannon's info theory, and I generally think this is quite appropriate.

But Bell's theorem is special. For 50 years physicists have been told that no local theory of hidden variables can produce the quantum correlation, -a.b. In my essay I have shown a local theory that does produce these correlations. Bell was searching for a local classical physics explanation of quantum correlations, not an information theory-based explanation. I have provided the local physics-based explanation. The problem is quite complex and, based on about six months of discussion of these problems, I have found that Bell's supporters finally fall back on the eigenvalue arguments that I present in my essay. From above comments on my thread you can see that some of my readers claim they need more study to understand it.

As I view Bell's theorem as one of the most significant aspects of modern physics (non-locality versus locality) I am quite interested in clarifying this problem. I find it very difficult to clarify in the standard perspective that Bell developed. I simply do not believe your comments are clarifying, but, for most physicists, may be more confusing. Your remarks are now on record, and available to the readers of my essay, some of whom may find them enlightening. They do not, in my view, contribute to understanding my local model, nor the error that Bell made in interpreting Dirac vs. Pauli eigenvalue equations. Bell's theorem is not normally viewed as an uncertainty principle problem, and I do not find your first paragraph above relevant to my local model, either in your premise or your conclusions. Nor do I find your second paragraph any more enlightening. I strongly believe Bell's theorem is best discussed in Bell's framework, not your framework as laid out above. The fact that you twice put "information" in scare quotes tells me that the argument you make is not a simple one or transparent. I do not believe your argument about the uncertainty principle applying to 10,000 measurements of local variables as you imply. I suspect our understanding of quantum mechanics differs.

Finally, I have elsewhere addressed the fact that most experiments have been based on photons. It is not necessary to present both a local Stern-Gerlach particle-based model and a photon-based model to counter Bell's claim that NO local model can produce the correlation. I will address photons later, but it is not required to counter Bell's claim.

In short, for a few souls, your translation of the problem may be enlightening. It may be very well worthwhile for you to write a paper presenting your unique perspective. But I do not wish to take a perspective based on John Bell's framework and attempt to reformulate it into your perspective. I don't see that as efficient or effective, nor likely to be successful.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. This comment is not in-line as the FQXi software is having problems with my browser.

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 00:34 GMT

Edwin,

I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled by your paper, and the angle theta. In your paper, you seem to be defining theta to be the angle between the spin direction and some measurement angle. But in Bell's plot of the correlation vs. theta, theta is the angle between Alice and Bob's detectors, and is completely independent of the spin direction, the magnetic field direction, or the angle of either Alice or Bob's detectors relative to the spin and/or field.

In your figures on page 7, what is the theta angle that you are plotting the correlation against?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 01:38 GMT

Rob,

Thanks for inquiring about theta. Your statements are correct. In my paper I believe all references in the text are intended to be the angle between the spin lambda and the local field direction, a or b. In other words, for Alice, theta = (a, lambda) and for Bob theta = (b,-lambda). These angles are (on page 4) in Bell's third assumption and implicitly...

view entire post

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 15:19 GMT

Edwin,

OK, next question (I'm trying to decide if you and Bell are comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges)

Exactly how are you computing the correlations?

Are you correlating measured angles? Or are you correlating up/down decisions based upon the measured angles? In other words, to use entangled coins as an example, one could either measure the angles of each coin, relative to some detectors, and then compute the correlations between those angles, or one could be required to declare the coins to be either heads or tails, after the measurements, and then correlate the numbers of heads/tails decisions. What are you correlating?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Dear Edwin ! Profesionally, your : Thermodynamics of Freedom, is of great (!)importance to my work. The Bell Essay, about map and territory, is very distant from my knowledge base, although I've the intuition that it could help me in these social science problems as well. I can imagine that: www.lifeenergyscience.it could interest you. Even 'simple nature' does not behave like classical physics, so pleae visit the mentioned website. Best wishes and cordially: stephen

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 23:35 GMT

Dear Stephen,

I'm pleased that you found my ToF essay useful to your work. I've looked at your site, but syntropy to Bretton Woods covers quite a bit of territory, and there's more there, so I've not absorbed all your information. Although I'm sure we will differ on details, I believe that, particularly in your field, going in the right direction is more important than getting all the small details right. Thanks for your comment and my best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 04:38 GMT

Thanks Edwin ! The Website is that of Dr. Ulisse di Corpo (Rome); I mainly thought about his interpretation of the relativity formula and the related work of scientist L.Fantappie. Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Klingman,

Your bio says it all, your recent focus has been on issues of Bell's Theorem, which is quite daunting to the uninitiated. It is clear however that your conclusions which come from questioning Bell's underlying assumption of constraints which essentially impose arbitrary unity in the formulation of his arguments, produce the same results as did Joy Christian's questioning of his choice of topological measurement space. However mathematically contrived, spin is related to identifying rotation as a measurement function, firstly on a complex plane, and the integer and half integer values really only assign which quadrant to look in. Your argument that a continuous rotation in 3 dimensions is not a simple bit of information, is I think self-evident. I'm only qualified to 'watch and learn', as the laggards say on construction crews, so I'll gladly rate with the community. Best Wishes, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 23:37 GMT

Dear jrc,

I've read many of your comments over the years and very much appreciate the above comment. As you note, Bell's theorem is quite daunting to the uninitiated, and not that transparent even to those who study it. I'm glad this FQXi contest allows me to present the ideas contained in my essay. I agree with your statements about spin, from Bell, to JC, to 'not a simple bit of information', and I am happy to have you "watching".

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Rob,

This comment is out of sequence as the FQXi bug will (again) not allow me to enter this comment where it belongs above. I encourage you to write up your view of Bell and QM. You and I have a different understanding of quantum mechanics. Thanks for presenting your perspective. It is not my perspective.

As I noted on your thread, I do find your ideas expressed in your current essay quite interesting, and wish you luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 23:08 GMT

Gentlemen,

This has been an interesting and informative exchange, as polite differences generally are. Thank-you. Bell's Theorem seems to be the one topic which concentrates attention on the elusive characteristic of spin. And I say characteristic because it is only because of characteristic behavior both of electromagnetic and particle-like phenomenon that suggests some fundamental physical property. Yet I've found nothing anywhere that seems definitive of what that might be.

It isn't physical rotation, though its treated that way. As a purely classical puzzle it seems to me to be as much about the question of what is it in a field that exhibits apparent motion, as whether there is an induced angular motion in a particle or waveform. It intuitively seems that Spin is more a measure of a physical property that doesn't undergo a coherent rotation. It's weird! :) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 23:33 GMT

jrc,

Glad you enjoyed it. Rob has internalized the information theory perspective and usually has unique and interesting insights into various fields of physics.

While my local model is essentially classical, and, FAPP may be considered a spinning particle, the QM and QFT 'point-based' particles do have difficulties with this perspective. It's interesting that Dirac's 4-component point-based electron does not yield an eigenvalue equation for spin. Only after the Foldy-Wouthuysen integral transformation to a 2-component wave function as an average over a "Compton-volume" does the fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation fall out. I do have a view of particle physics that is not entirely weird, but I want to stay strictly focused on Bell in this forum. Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 03:56 GMT

Rob,

Although I have hinted that we should terminate this exchange, I think so highly of your basic information theory approach that I've tried to understand where our basic disagreement lies. To this end I reviewed your 2012 essay, in which, discussing Bell's theorem, you state, "when 'spin' was discovered, it was assumed to be analogous to a quantized version of angular momentum… [and] to be describable via multiple components… like an ordinary three component vector." You then imply that it is not a 3-D vector but "a single bit of information", and go into your 'two-sided coin' discussion.

Is this still your assumption, that underlies your above comments? It appears to me to be so. In your last reply to me above: on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT you say:

"Classical statistical mechanics never deals with entities encoding only a single bit of information. That is what makes the quantum case so peculiar, in comparison. When there is only one bit of information in a message, there is nothing to average over, there are no better defined states, precisely because there are no other states at all, by definition of what is meant, by a single bit of information. Since such entities are never encountered in the classical realm, we have no intuitive understanding of how such things behave. But we seem to be observing such behavior, in the quantum case."

In other words, although I have clearly stated that we are not discussing a single bit of information, you seem to insist that we are. If that is the case, we cannot possibly come to an agreement. You ignore the QM assumption of a 3-component vector, putting your own interpretation in its place, and then insist that my treatment, based on the QM assumption is wrong.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (4 not shown)

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 05:08 GMT

Thanks Doc,

That summation directs to good reading and really helped me connect dots in your argument. :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 14:32 GMT

Edwin,

I am not ignoring "the QM assumption of a 3-component vector", I am disputing it, as a misinterpretation of reality. The problem is not that the quantum world behaves oddly, but that the classical world behaves much more oddly than people suppose.

The reason people suppose they understand classical behavior, is simply because they have never, ever encountered the one type of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 17:27 GMT

Rob,

Thanks for your reply. You confirmed my last comment, as I was sure you would. You are effectively ignoring the QM assumption of a 3-component vector by replacing it with your own 1-bit interpretation of reality.

Thus all your arguments are based on your own idea of 1-bit events that match your fixation on Shannon and agree neither with the quantum mechanical interpretation nor with my local model. As your results will never agree with the 3-D realistic world we can only agree to disagree on spin.

I still find your view of superposition generally compatible with mine and hope to address this later, but there's no point in responding to the details of your above comment because they concern a different model of reality.

Thanks very much for your clarification,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 18:54 GMT

Edwin,

It is true that 1-bit events do not agree with the standard quantum mechanical interpretations. But they do agree with both classical and QM observations. That could be just a marvelous coincidence, but I think not.

Best Regards,

Rob

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Edwin,

There are many claims in your paper that need to be discussed, but perhaps it is best to start with the main one. You claim to have produced a local theory that nonetheless predicts violations of Bell's inequality. But the theory simply does not appear to be local in Bell's sense. Of course, if one enforces certain global conservation restrictions on a system, that will have...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

There are many claims in your paper that need to be discussed, but perhaps it is best to start with the main one. You claim to have produced a local theory that nonetheless predicts violations of Bell's inequality. But the theory simply does not appear to be local in Bell's sense. Of course, if one enforces certain global conservation restrictions on a system, that will have consequences for what is observed. The perfect anti-correlation between results for spin measurements in the same direction on particles prepared in the singlet state, for example, is predicted by enforcing 0 net spin for the system. But if each particle is not in a state which predetermines the outcome of the experiment, and is completely unaffected by whatever distant experiment is carried out, then enforcing the global conservation means that theory is not local in Bell's sense.

Let's put is more directly. Suppose that a system has two, widely separated parts and I carry out experiments on the parts at space-like separation. And suppose that as a consequence of carrying out an experiment on one part, the energy of that part changes. If I now enforce global energy conservation, so the energy that disappears from one side must appear on the other space-like-separated side, then the theory is not local in Bell's or Einstein's sense. Calling this non-local interaction between the sides "energy exchange" does not change this: energy exchange between space-like separated subsystems is a violation of locality. So it is not a surprise that your model can generate violations of Bell's inequality: it is not a local model.

The claim that your model is local is critical part of the paper: if it were true, then you wold have shown that there is some flaw in Bell's reasoning. As for your remarks on Bell's argument, you seem to have mistaken an illustrative example that he gives for part of the theorem itself, which it is not. The theorem is about any theory—whether the theory uses quantum-mechanical formalism or a completely different formalism in which there is no talk at all of eigenstates or eigenvalues—that makes certain predictions about correlations between outcomes of distant experiments. Because of this complete generality, it is not even correct to us the term "hidden variables" to describe the theorem, since that term itself is used only in connection with quantum theory. Peres, who you cite, has it right here. Since Bell's theorem only refers to the results of experiments and their correlations, he makes no assumptions at all of any kind about the theory predicting those results, save that it is local. His theorem does not apply to "energy exchange physics" because in this setting the energy exchange would not be a local process, and the theory would not be local. It is therefore not a counterexample to Bell's theorem.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 16:22 GMT

Tim,

"If I now enforce global energy conservation, so that the energy that disappears from one side must appear on the other space-like-separated side..."

Where does he say that? A particle need not refer to a point exterior of itself to know its initial orientation to its state of motion. That is clearly implied by our definition of inertia globally, regardless of relative local energy transfers. If you are in a closed spacecraft intergalactically and the interior appears to be tumbling around you, is it? Gently, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 18:05 GMT

Dear Tim,

Thanks for reading my essay and responding. As I understand your comment you make three points:

1. Global energy conservation across space is non-local.

2. Bell's suppression of theta physics is illustrative, not basic.

3. Bell's theorem is about any theory, not just quantum mechanics.

If I understand you correctly, you state that global conservation (compatible with the perfect anti-correlation case) will have consequences for what is observed, but is not local in Bell's sense.

Then you claim that "if I now enforce global energy conservation, so the energy that disappears from one side must appear on the other space-like separated side, then the theory is not local in Bell's or Einstein's sense."

While this is probably a true statement, it has nothing to do with my model, in which there is no hint of energy disappearing from one side and appearing on the other.

My model assumes local conservation of energy; (which, I believe, generates global conservation of energy,) energy does not "disappear" locally. It transforms, which is the meaning of my Energy-Exchange theorem. The precession energy, which locally is transformed into deflection energy is not "lost" locally. It is converted into deflection energy, and can be measured by the position measurements that Stern-Gerlach performs, yielding the initial angle that spin makes with the local field, which is the "hidden variable" in my model.

You also claim that Bell's suppression of this theta physics is merely an illustrative case, and not part of his theorem. While technically this may be true, it is a de facto result of the constraints he imposes in his theorem, and it also illustrates his thinking that underlies his model. The results are the same, whether one considers the suppression of theta a basic assumption or a consequence of another basic assumption.

As for your statement, which agrees with Peres, that Bell's theorem is about any theory, whether the theory uses quantum mechanical formalism or is a completely different formalism in which there is no talk of eigenstates or eigenvalues, I would ask you to explain just how the +1 and -1 constraints show up in a non-quantum-mechanical theory.

To summarize the 3 points:

1. is a mistaken interpretation of my model.

2. the logic is the same whether theta suppression is a basic assumption or follows from another basic assumption.

3. is an editorial point, and has bearing on the logic of my argument only if you can explain why 'any' theory must erase information in a way that mimics imposition of QM eigenvalue constraints.

Finally, I sincerely thank you for stating that if my model is local then I have shown a flaw in Bell's reasoning. You claim my model is not local because "energy-exchange physics" is not local. But that is mistaken because the energy exchange in my model is completely, 100%, local.

Thanks again for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Member Tim Maudlin replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 06:00 GMT

Dear Edwin,

To say that it is "de facto true" that Bell's example about spin is just illustrative and no part of the theorem does not address the point. The entire discussion of the detailed model makes no contact with the theorem. The theorem holds of any theory at all that is local (in the sense Bell articulates) and makes certain statistical predictions. That these are predictions about...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

To say that it is "de facto true" that Bell's example about spin is just illustrative and no part of the theorem does not address the point. The entire discussion of the detailed model makes no contact with the theorem. The theorem holds of any theory at all that is local (in the sense Bell articulates) and makes certain statistical predictions. That these are predictions about anything called "spin" or anything treated quantum-mechanically is no part of the theorem at all. All one needs are the conditional probabilities for outcomes of certain experiments, which need not be described in any more detail than "Instrument 1 is set to setting A" and "the outcome is outcome 1" or "outcome 2" One can use "spin measurements" in quantum theory as instances of this sort of thing, where the setting is the orientation of the Stern Gerlach magnet and the outcome is a spot on a screen appearing in one place or another. Clearly any theory at all might make such predictions. Since the theorem is only about these sorts of conditional probabilities, it is in no way "about" quantum theory.

Your initial characterization of the question Bell was asking is not accurate. He was not asking whether one could somehow find a theory that predicts the outcomes of experiments deterministically, he was interested rather in whether any local theory at all (deterministic or probabilistic) could recover a certain set of predictions. He insisted on this many times, and complained that his point had been almost universally missed. In fact, the paper relies on an understanding of the EPR argument, which had already established that locality can only be recovered in a situation with perfect EPR correlations if the theory is deterministic, but, as Bell says, "It is important to note that the limited degree to which determinism plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but inferred. What is held sacred is the principle of 'local causality'-or 'n o action at a distance'. Since the EPR correlation are recoverable by a local theory only if it is also deterministic, one can then ask about constraints on such theories. Bell demonstrates such constraints.

On p. 4, you list what you call "Bell's key physical assumptions". None of these are assumptions or premises of his theorem. The theorem applies to any situation in which the outcomes of certain experiments can be categorized as, e.g., "outcome 1" or "outcome 2", and correlations between the outcomes on different sides predicted. The theorem, which is not particularly about spin, has none of these assumptions as premises, so no discussion of them can have any significance for the theorem.

What is particularly odd about your presentation is that you claim that Bell has a "hidden constraint" in his proof, but nowhere actually discuss the proof itself, but rather only the illustrative example. It would help if you would actually point out where in the proof the supposed constraint appears. Your rather extensive discussion of the toy model makes no direct contact with the theorem itself.

As for your own model, let me try to understand the claim that you make. Your equation 4 has the consequence, as you say, that the deflections produced by Stern-Gerlach magnets will not be quantized, that is, that we cannot, as a practical matter, distinguish the outcomes into two classes, usually denominated "spin-up" and "spin down", determined by the location of the detected particle. If that is correct, then your model certainly does not reproduce the actual phenomenology reported in the lab, nor the predictions of quantum theory. Since the correlations discussed by Bell are correlations between the outcomes on the two sides, which are taken to always be either "spin-up" or "spin-down", and since these are also the predictions of quantum theory, then it would appear that your model actually makes no contact with Bell's topic. You do not explain how the top graph on p. 7 was created, or even what it means. Here is a key sentence from that page: "If I throw away this θ -information by truncating the measurement data, i.e., setting the results to A, B = ±1 , my constrained model cannot produce the correct correlations." The obvious reading of this sentence is that in your model, the outcomes of the experiments are not categorized into two classes, spin-up and spin-down outcomes, and that if one requires such a categorization of the outcomes then you get Bell's result. But it is an observed fact that the outcomes do sort into these two classes, and it is a prediction of the quantum theory that they will, and furthermore if they do not then it is not at all clear what the meaning of "correlation" in your theory is, since the predicted correlations are between these binary results. So you it would help if you could do these things:

1) point out where the supposed "hidden constraint" actually appears in Bell's theorem.

2) Explain, if your model does not predict quantized outcomes for spin experiments, what bearing it has on quantum theory, or Bell's theorem, and what you even mean by a "correlation" between the results on the two sides.

Regards,

Tim

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (18 not shown)

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

I hope you will forgive me for not commenting until now after your comment on my essay.

Bell's theorem, EPR, Bohm's suggested experiment, the 1982 Aspect experiment, all seem very interesting to me. Your essay indicated there are interesting conceptual issues still outstanding regarding entanglement. Although I have some familiarity with Korzybski's general semantics (you refer to him on page 1), I do not feel I know enough about QM to comment on the math in your article.

You write: (p. 2:) One must apply the right map at the right place. You quote: "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." (P.2).

My comment: Maybe (and I wonder if this might be the case) entanglement would be a simpler problem with an easier to understand solution in a different conceptual reference frame. That seems to be an implicit possibility raised by your article.

Thank you for your article, and all your comments on the various essays.

Best wishes.

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 20:45 GMT

Dear Bob Shour,

Thanks for looking at my essay and responding. Let me take this opportunity to say again how refreshing I found your essay, and how novel your points.

As you note, Bell's theorem and associated physics and philosophy are quite interesting, but significantly complex. That is why Bell's oversimplified model has stood for 50 years. As I have pointed out, if Bell had simply said, "My simple model does not work," there would be no problem. But Bell attempts to overthrow our intuitive understanding of reality and replace it with a mystical connection. The mere fact that one can graphically illustrate 'entanglement' as the shaded area in the graphic at the bottom of page 6 does not in the least detract from the inherent mystical nature of entanglement.

Of course you may be right that entanglement might be easier to understand in a different conceptual reference frame, but I have no idea what this frame might be, and I am aware of no suggestions as to what it might be.

The gist of the matter is that physicists have interpreted Bell to mean that "no local model can yield quantum mechanical correlations between remotely conducted measurements." I have produced a local model, based on classical physics, that does produce this correlation unless the local information is erased, as is required by Bell. As 'entanglement' represents the difference between the quantum mechanical cosine curve and Bell's (constrained) 'local-model-based' straight line, if a local model can agree with quantum mechanics (and real experiments) then the shaded difference disappears and the very rationale for entanglement vanishes.

Thanks again for your kind remarks, in my best wishes to you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sir,

You have rightly quoted Korzybski to say that math is the map and the physical world is the territory. But the map is not “any” territory - it describes the physical boundaries of a specified territory. This is what we say mathematics is not the sole languages of Nature, but only exhibits its quantitative aspect. We may have many “maps” of the universe, but each represents...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

You have rightly quoted Korzybski to say that math is the map and the physical world is the territory. But the map is not “any” territory - it describes the physical boundaries of a specified territory. This is what we say mathematics is not the sole languages of Nature, but only exhibits its quantitative aspect. We may have many “maps” of the universe, but each represents different features. Geometry, the mathematics of maps, always relates to two or three dimensional fields or structures, where the mathematics is always non-linear (distance is linear and its calculation is not geometry), even though both lead to perception of relations and patterns. Problems arise when we treat fields to represent integers. Fields are always analog, whereas eigenvalues are always discrete. The processes are dynamical, because all mathematical operations involve dynamics of the constituents. You have also said “the eigenvalues are generally taken to be truly representative of the system”. Analog fields cannot be the sole representation of integers, as numbers are discrete and linear. The unit makes them non-linear. You also imply the same thing when you say: “Once a counter produces a number, another machine can add (subtract) this number to a different number to yield a new number”.

We prefer mathematically simple theories to complex ones because Nature is economical. All thermo-dynamical processes lead to entropy to finally reach equilibrium. Each step takes the minimum energy to evolve in time subject to what you call as eigenvalue maps. Two spin eigenvalue maps differ because they are different or as you quote Messiah: “the initial states are statistically distributed over a somewhat extended domain”.

You are right that a local model does produce correlation, based on energy-exchange physics. But when we analyze the underlying physics, some assumptions of quantum mechanics become questionable. A statistical model cannot ensure that all relevant parameters have been woven into it simply because our measurement processes are unitary – we measure limited aspects of a system over limited time. Generalizing the result of such measurement is fraught with the dangers of embracing uncertainty. As we have often said, uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is the result of natural laws relating to measurement related to causality that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence. Since time evolution is not uniform, but conditional on interactions, we do not see each step from the flapping of the wings of the butterfly till it turns into tempest elsewhere. The creation is highly ordered and there is no randomness or chaos. We fault Nature to hide our inability to know.

For example, contrary to general belief (especially with reference to EPR), entanglement does not extend infinitely, but breaks down after some distance like a rubber string. Or it may remain exclusively like a pair of socks, though used only in pairs. Energies behave like a pair of socks – they co-exist. Interdependence of every system in the universe with all other systems makes one ‘energy’ to act, when a ‘related energy’ acts. This is not truly energy exchange. This principle also applies to your model, which Bell suppressed. Because of interdependence, no local model could reproduce the quantum mechanical prediction based on limited data over limited space and time. This is what Bell tells the hidden variables. Your constant field shows local equilibrium. The inhomogeneous field shows interdependence, which, as you say, can cause transitions. When Bell says: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics”, he ignored this interdependence.

Congratulations for presenting a complex model in fairly simple manner. We have clarified your comments in our post.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 22:33 GMT

Dear basudeba,

Thank you for reading and for your fine comments. I will address specific statements. You recalled Messiah's quote that "the initial states are statistically distributed over a somewhat extended domain." This fact is interpreted differently according to the two eigenvalues maps usually associated with spin. These interpretations are discussed in detail in Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell.

Then you note that my local model does produce the correct correlation, based on energy-exchange physics, and remark that some assumptions of quantum mechanics become questionable, as a statistical model cannot ensure that all relevant parameters have been woven into it.

That is correct, as quantum mechanics does not take note of the initial spins upon entering the field, which determine the scattering or deflection of the particle is it traverses the non-constant field. Thus, as Einstein suggested, quantum mechanics is not complete. This conflicts with the Quantum Credo believed in by many physicists.

Quantum mechanics is a marvelous statistical machine for those situations in which only certain outcomes occur, with energy-based distribution according to the partition function. In such cases it (apparently) cannot fail to predict the statistical outcome. But it is incomplete and there is an underlying level of reality that quantum mechanics does not see. That is in contrast to the current consensus belief that the classical world is a statistical overlay on QM. I discuss these interpretations on pages 104 – 113 in Quantum Spin and Local Reality

Thanks for your, as always, informative comments.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 01:48 GMT

Dear Sir,

We appear to have agreement at the fundamental level. You may recall, after the black hole firewall paradox appeared during July 2012, it is no longer easy to say that both relativity and quantum mechanics (especially entanglement) are correct. One of them must be wrong. We question relativity as conceptually flawed and a wrong description of reality, but question only some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. But why is the scientific community shying away from accepting facts boldly? If the points raised and examples given in our essay are wrong, it should be openly told and not bye passed. If they are correct, they should be accepted.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 22:03 GMT

Dear basudeba,

I only addressed specific issues in your above comment, but I found your comment extremely well written, and very insightful. I would like to address your remark that

"Contrary to general belief, entanglement does not extend infinitely, but breaks down after some distance like a rubber band…"

Susskind at Stanford regularly states that entanglement is weird...

view entire post

Hi Edwin,

I congratulate your professionally written essay.

In another thread you said:

"I built first in my mind and then built a theory around. I believe modeling physics in your mind and then describing it mathematically is to be preferred to studying math and trying to guess what physics it describes. I believe that much math does not describe 'reality' in the same sense that much fantasy and fiction do not describe reality."

I agree with this statement completely. I followed this procedure to formulate Model Mechanics. Although we have different models of reality, but that is to be expected.

I believe that there are many assumptions in relativity are wrong. Specifically the idea of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). Why? Because it is in conflict with the idea that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames.

Regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 21:49 GMT

Hi Ken Seto,

Thanks for your nice comment. Based on your essay I'm not surprised that you agree that modeling physics in the mind and then describing it mathematically is to be preferred to searching for physics in mathematics. It is hard to think of any significant physics that was not found in this way.

As for your comment about special relativity, have you seen the following:

Scientists slow the speed of light

The arXiv paper is here: Photons slower than speed of light

This may shakeup things, but then, some things certainly need to be shaken up.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ken Hon Seto replied on Jan. 31, 2015 @ 17:02 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Doing the math before the physics is the main problem of current string theories. All string theories posit extra space dimensions and there is no experiment to confirms the existence of these extra dimensions.

Regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Klingman, if you will send your email address to genebarbee@msn.com, I will send you an excel spreadsheet with all of the meson and baryon energies and decay times almost perfectly matched.

report post as inappropriate

The main thing that I get from your essay is that you have essentially a classical model of the electron. The factoring out of cosθ is due to the fact the quantum measurement of spin does not measure a part of the angular momentum projected along an axis of measurement. That can happen classically, but experimentally this has never been found. So this factoring out is motivated by experiment that is in agreement with quantum physics.

LC

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 19:13 GMT

Lawrence,

With great respect for your acumen in math, could you elaborate enough to make it clear where the physical distinction lies in factoring out (cosTheta/cosTheta) as pertains to Quantum measurement not including a coeffeciency of measure along the spin axis. Doesn't this impose an assumption of a true circular orbit of precession?

Arguably any precession would be physically ellipsoid, or at some point on the axis of rotation, change of direction would become instantaneous. If any precession would naturally follow a 'wobble' of that point avoiding instantaneous angular change, then the statement that it 'has not been experimentally found' is a fallicy of substitution. Classically, it is consistently found that deflection occurs as a three vector, which QM simply does not try to predict. Again, we encounter the arbitrary +or-1, which in this case limits vectors along the axis projection to extend only in parallel to the extention of the eigenvector of results, and excludes any local values between that and perpendicular. Genuinely asked, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 20:21 GMT

The theory of angular momentum is that the value of the angular momentum measured is a projection from L to -L in increments of 1. A spin 1/2 system can then only have -1/2 and 1/2 along a basis. A boson can have -1, 0, 1 if the boson is massive, and the 0 case is gone for a massless particle. Quantum mechanics does not permit one to measure a spin = 1/2cosθ for some angle other than 0 or π. That is the point of the whole division by |cosθ|. A classical angular momentum, where there is not much meaning to a classical intrinsic spin, can have the angular momentum vector pointed differently than the direction the observer chooses to measure it.

LC

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 22:10 GMT

Lawrence,

Thank-you for your time and attention in response. I'll give it some read. Much obliged, jrc

post approved

show all replies (1 not shown)

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT

Lawrence,

Despite what some Bell defenders say, Bell really was asking whether a classical model could produce quantum predictions. He did not insist on "classical" because he would have been interested in any non-classical theory, if only someone could imagine one that works.

The main point I am addressing is the constant refrain in the literature that:

"No local...

view entire post

hide replies

For some reason the above post does not show a reply box.

You have a classical model of the electron that does what you say. If you are doing this business of not taking Fcosθ --- > Fcosθ/|cosθ| then you really do not have quantum mechanics. Later text appears to show similar ideas with ellipses and the like.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 03:31 GMT

Lawrence,

Despite our history of five years of disagreements, you say that I have a classical model of the electron that does what I say. Thank you. What I say is that it yields the quantum mechanical correlation that Bell claims to be impossible for any local theory.

Then you say I really do not have quantum mechanics. As I've stated, my intention was to design a local theory that yields quantum mechanical correlations, which I have done. It implies that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

You said above "Quantum mechanics does not permit one to measure a spin = 1/2cosθ for some angle other than 0 or π." My response is that my energy-exchange theory should be subject to experimental test that could measure just such an angle, and I plan to push for such a test. FQXi is offering grants for The Physics of What Happens. My model explains what happens when the particle is scattered by a heterogeneous field. If θ is measured, then that will simply prove QM is incomplete.

Thank you for observing that the model does what I say.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 11:49 GMT

You don’t have QM in the standard way. The Stern-Gerlach experiment in your setting would not have the discrete sets of spins. You have a local realism where the spin has projections along an axis that can be less than 1/2.

You have a “war” against QM and nonlocality, and of course this is a physics case of Don Quixote on his quest. FQXI has a large number of people who hang on the blogs and contribute to the essays who have similar ideas. There are further people with anti-relativity biases as well. As a result your essays always attract loads of attention and votes. The problem is that science is not really a democracy, and these contests tend to operate that way. I don’t have time right at the moment to look this up, but there are a couple of famous videos of Richard Feynman talking about this. In one of them he talks directly about the sort of ideas you advance and in one of them he talks about “if you don’t like it go somewhere else.”

Actually, if you really think about it, QM is not what is so strange. What is really strange is that on a large scale there is this classical world, which is coarse grained physics built up from QM. QM can’t be understood in a classical sense. The strangeness of QM is due to our insistence on shoving it into a classical setting. Trying to converse to build the classical world from QM is difficult as well, and we might find this not entirely tractable either.

LC

post approved

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 15:43 GMT

In all fairness, both classicists and quants see the other side as arising from their own. In application, technocrats don't care which works, just that it does. jrc

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 18:43 GMT

Lawrence,

for no known reason, a couple of your posts are now missing. All disagreements are in some manner instructive as to what questions need be discovered. Relativity and Quantum diverged so rapidly from the outset that maybe something was missed. Hope FQXi can restore your comments. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 19:35 GMT

jrc,

I requested the administrator remove the last post, which made false accusations and included several gratuitous insults. I do not go on LC's thread and insult him. Most longtime FQXi'ers know that he and I have very different ideas of reality, and this is extremely unlikely to change.

I find quantum mechanics almost a miraculous machine for statistically predicting outcomes of situations which can be in one of N states. The cost of this is ignoring the physics of the process and merely calling it a 'jump' or a 'collapse of the wave function'. My suggestion that QM is incomplete may offend some, despite that it was Einstein's key question in EPR. Yet Zurek's "decoherence" program which attempts to derive classical physics from quantum mechanics, is, in my opinion, unconvincing. My classical model that yields quantum predictions may have struck a nerve. As I note, the question can be decided experimentally, which is the way physics works.

Technical arguments are welcome on my thread, but not gratuitous insults.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 20:37 GMT

Edwin,

If I may. Me thinks they doth protest too much. But in response to which I found in reading what looks like it might be a quantum corollary to your model in the 'quantum rotor model'. It has experimental confirmation in low energy electron dipole coupled systems such as quantum Hall effect devices. :-)jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 22:06 GMT

jrc,

Thanks for your continued interest. You are correct that the "quantum rotor" is an apt analog. I have spent some time on the 'kicked rotor', which receives a cyclical kick and leads to chaos. If you look at my right hand figure on page 8 of my essay, you may be able to see how such a kick arises. I've done some work on this but it's not ready for prime time. Initial results seem to imply that chaos can account for the apparent quantum randomness in an otherwise deterministic model.

There is a ton of literature on kicked rotors, quantum and classical, with one of the latest being the 21 Nov 2014 Phys Rev Letters 113, 216802 treating the chaos of the kicked spin-1/2 rotor. Another PRL paper, 49,509 (23 Aug 1982) reports that

"The motion of nonlinear classical systems can display random characteristics… The solutions of the equations, although they may statistically be definite, are stochastic and behave as if they contain a random number generator… even though the equations themselves are deterministic and even simple."

They refer to

"The simplest example known, that of the kicked quantum rotator."

My basic model has proved to be exceedingly rich, and I see much low hanging fruit that I hope to harvest. One of the papers I just looked at online concludes that their kicked rotor model exhibits a quantum to classical transition. The kicked rotor treatment of my model may provide a classical to quantum transition.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

hide replies

Maybe I will just leave this to Richard Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4

LC

report post as inappropriate

Definitely a hornet's nest.

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Feb. 5, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT

Edwin,

You used to steer clear of BT as though it were in fact a hornets' net but now you've sort of gone at it with a bat (baseball or cricket depending on the reader's culture).

I'm not sure Korzybski would've would've considered math the map and physics the territory so much as holding that both math and physics are maps and the territory is the actual physical world. He was suspicious of all symbolic representation and physics is that as much as math is. A better icon might have been Eugene Wigner who wrote the classic essay alluded to without attribution in this contest's set-up: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Maybe the FQXi honchos didn't speak his name because they were afraid contestants would go back and crib stuff. So don't do teasy b.s. like throwing out scare-quote hints, guys.

Speaking of Wigner, he also published the first paper by a major establishment scientist (which Bell certainly wasn't at that time) about BT. Back in 1970. Bell cites it in "Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality" and also incorporates him into what he named "the Wigner-d'Espagnat Inequality". That inequality is a particularly sweet formulation of Bell because it's simple Venn-diagrammable set algebra which anybody can get her or his head around and employ to conduct experiments on classical objects here in the macroworld. When you do that you get no violation. It's a description of a definitive feature of macroscopic ontology. It's pure distillate of local realism. (It has also been used in quantum experiments in which it's violated but for a number of reasons lost out to CHSH.)

Anyway ... isn't it conceivable that the only meaningful objections to Bell experimental outcomes are technical ones ... the need to close the experimental loopholes? Isn't the rest mainly intellectually reactionary metaphysical nitpicking?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 00:09 GMT

Hi Nick,

Your first point is easy to address. Yes, math and physics are both Korzybski maps if "physics" is defined as the model(s) of physical reality. I was using "physics" to stand for physical reality, but technically you are perfectly correct.

And yes I did steer clear of JC's "topological" treatment of Bell. My essay, while complex, is pretty straightforward. An often repeated and almost universally believed statement is that "no local model can reproduce QM correlations, -a.b." I show that this is not the case. As 'entanglement' is the shaded space in the figure at the bottom of page 6, it disappears if the local model yields the cosine curve rather than the straight line. It only exists to bridge the gap between Bell's local models and reality. If the local model agrees with reality, as mine does, there is no need for a mystical 'entanglement'. The question is then why did Bell always get the straight line, and I argue that he unnecessarily and incorrectly imposes constraints on his models, based on his oversimplified assumptions. Recent scores indicate that this is not a popular argument. Quelle surprise!

I don't know how much effort you put into following my reasoning (backed up by references 2 and 4) but the problem has nothing to do with loopholes. Experimental results, quantum mechanical predictions, and my local model all agree with -a.b. It is Bell's models that don't agree, because he erases the physics that yields the correlations by imposing his constraints. My results imply that quantum mechanics is incomplete, which appears to be as popular as the skunk at the picnic. I've been accused of being "against" QM, and of saying that QM is "wrong". Not wrong, incomplete. Big difference. But there are probably no physicists alive who have not been sold that reality is quantum mechanical, and we only have to show how the classical world derives from it.

As is obvious from comments on this thread, the problem is extremely complex. That's also obvious from the fact that 50 years of Bell has left physicists confused about spin, entanglement, non-locality, etc. I think physicists are pretty bright guys, and would not remain in confusion over a simple problem. It's not a simple problem. I hope you find time to understand my essay, but I know how short time is. Anyway thanks for your comment and it's good to see you again.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I think a lot of the negative reaction to calling QM "incomplete" stems from the pejorative attitude that emanated all along from EPR, particularly E, in connection with the word. It was not meant in an objective way. They were singling QM out as historically anomalous, singularly unworthy of scientific status, a leper among theories. The attitude was hostile. Not as dreadful as JJC's, but then he does hold a unique position in the annals.

At best EPR were suggesting that not only was QM incomplete but that as a result it was fundamentally wrong.

I'm fairly laid back about incompleteness. I've studied stats and worked with statisticians. On one level statistics is not a complete theory, because it offers no physical explanation for a vast number of the correlations it presents to the world. Take as an example the Nielsen ratings. What is the causal relationship, if any, between the viewing patterns of a sample population numbering in the low four figures and the viewing habits of the hundreds of millions in the general population which the sample population is purported to reflect on an ongoing basis? Nobody can say or even make a good guess. But empirically we know the correlations are genuine, because you can double-check by setting up auxiliary sample populations and when you do you find those entirely separate groups in agreement. Statistical measurement is valid. It works. You just can't explain why and how except to say it probably has something to do with randomness. QM writ large.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 20:07 GMT

Hi Nick,

In re-reading your first comment above, you bring up Wigner's "Unreasonable effectiveness…" paper, answering which was a key motivation for my dissertation, The Automatic Theory of Physics. The figure on the first page of my essay encapsulates the way in which physical counters, producing natural numbers, can make counter-based measurements (recall that the heart...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2015 @ 01:46 GMT

Errata: In the above the phrase "performs cluster mapping on involving intercept and interest set distances" should read "performs cluster mapping on evolving inter-set and intra-set distances".

I would blame it on my Dragon voice recognition software, but then I'm the one with the duty to edit my own words. - - - Edwin Eugene Klingman

Nick Mann replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 01:29 GMT

Hi again, Edwin,

I'm focusing on Chapter 14 of TAToP (Robot Physics Example) because I like to start with concrete examples and work backward to theory, bouncing around as I go. Also looking for the author's evolution from the older toward the current work. Sometimes I get screwed up doing this, however. If you think that might become the case here let me know ...

Nick

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin Klingman,

My initial comment, as I intend to return to make more, is that your effort to demystify the unnecessary mystery introduced into physics at the quantum level is to be encouraged especially given the coherence of your argument. It however seems, you believe that there is a mystery to be solved since you use the same kind of reasoning Bell used only leaving out the...

view entire post

Hello Edwin Klingman,

My initial comment, as I intend to return to make more, is that your effort to demystify the unnecessary mystery introduced into physics at the quantum level is to be encouraged especially given the coherence of your argument. It however seems, you believe that there is a mystery to be solved since you use the same kind of reasoning Bell used only leaving out the hidden constraints. I am not expert on the EPR argument and I have serious reservations about the starting premise. For example, in the EPR experiment using light polarization, it is a doctrine that a photon is indivisible and it is on this premise that an attribute called "spin" was foisted on light. Whereas, light as a wave can be split and made to interfere being a transverse wave and cancel each other. Let me leave that for now.

Given, a large box full of black balls and another full of white balls. If you select one ball from each box and give to an assistant to package one ball each in a parcel and DHL one parcel to Alice on Venus and another to Bob on Mars. On receipt, Alice is to write parcel 1 = Black or White as the case may be; parcel 2 = Black or White as the case may be, etc up to parcel 12. Bob on Mars is to do the same. After the expedition they report back to you on Earth with their findings. You, who carefully prepared the parcels in the so-called 'singlet state' or binary as Tim prefers. Are you saying the report of Alice and Bob will give us new physics or mathematics, or am I missing something?

I hope you will not like others claim that because of one controversial experiment by Aspect et al, which the late Caroline Thompson has discredited in my opinion as I have stated elsewhere on a blog post on the FQXi website we should be made to undergo unnecessary head splitting as is currently the case?

In my opinion, unless you think otherwise, any time Alice marks Black ball, Bob will mark White ball, and if no ball perishes in transit they will be correlated 100% of the time. This is an experiment that can be performed cheaply on the classical scale. Or is it not as simple as I suggest? Perhaps, there are things I am ignorant of that I need to be taught?

Best regards and always willing to learn from you,

Akinbo

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

I do appreciate your kind remarks, and thank you for reading my paper. I'm very happy you intend to return to make more comments.

I'm sure you understand that I claim John Bell significantly oversimplified the problem, leading to an erroneous conclusion. But even his oversimplification is complex! To go a level deeper, as I have done, makes the issue even more complex. (Actually, I think it simplifies the physics, but in the context of his theorem it requires both the new level of physics plus Bell's model and requires bringing in the Dirac fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation plus the Pauli provisional precession eigenvalue equation plus new arguments and the new Energy-Exchange theorem and local conservation of energy. Thus Bell supporters can either validly miss the point or can obfuscate by ignoring the points.)

As I have noted, Bell's models do not work. Bell could easily have simply stated that "my model fails to produce either the quantum mechanical or the experimental measurements" and it would not have been a big deal. Instead Bell claims that no one's local model can possibly work (a pretty big assumption, if you ask me) and then claims that local reality, one of our most basic intuitions of the universe, is wrong. That is a big deal.

Because Bell formulates this as a simple mathematical model and because his mathematics is essentially correct (his physics is wrong) those who work through his mathematical model conclude that no local model could escape his logic. The fact is that Bell imposes unwarranted constraints as the first equation in his theorem and this guarantees that no local model can beat his theorem. The only question is, are his constraints justified? I argue that they are not.

As I do not assume that you have read all of the above comments, I will repeat a few points. First, Bell (and/or his defenders) make (at least) two false equivalencies:

1.) The assumption that the Dirac equation and the Pauli equation are essentially equivalent.

2.) The assumption that the Stern-Gerlach and the Aspect experiments are essentially equivalent.

The first I have dealt with in detail in my essay and in the ~20 page paper Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell, so I won't repeat the arguments here. The second I have not yet written up in detail, so I will mention it here.

It is an error to assume that Stern-Gerlach and Aspect experiments are equivalent due to two facts. The first and obvious fact is the quite different physical nature of the entities being tested. The fact that quantum mechanical kets look similar, or that simplistic models are plane waves obscures this but does not erase the essential difference between charged spinor fermions and uncharged bosons, and no one who is serious can claim that these physical entities are equivalent.

But even more significant, from the Bell's theorem perspective, is the essentially different measurement techniques involved. Despite many comments above, Stern-Gerlach, whether measuring silver atoms or neutrons, produces a distribution of deflections. It is a scattering experiment, whose outputs are position measurements. Aspect-type experiments count photons, and the output is a count. In the deflection measurements, the initial spin (lambda) is indirectly exhibited, and clearly exists. In the counts, the photon-equivalent of the initial orientation is subsumed, and is not evident as it is in Stern-Gerlach. This is one reason I have focused on SG experiments.

On page 84, in Bell's "Speakable…" Bell states "let A be a variable which takes the values +1 or -1 according to whether counter one does or does not register. [and same for B...]" This, whether it is currently realized by Bell defenders or not, is significantly different from his claim on page 15 that "the result A of measuring sigma_dot_a ... [is +1 or -1 ]." One is a deflection, the other is a count. One exhibits the 'hidden variable' in the value of a deflection, the other subsumes it in a count. To expand on this as it deserves would take another essay. The point is, it is overly simplistic to equate these two types of experiments as almost all Bell defenders do. Such a claim is based on either ignorance of the physics, ignorance of the nature of the measurements, or both.

As Nick mentioned above, this battle has often been fought on the grounds of "loopholes", and Caroline Thompson, as I recall, focused on loopholes, forgive me if I'm wrong on this. That argument, I believe, is essentially that the measurements are wrong, and loophole free measurements would agree with local models. That is significantly different from my argument which is that Bell imposed erroneous constraints on local models and that is the reason his local models do not work. I have presented a local model, the physics underlying the local model, a computer experiment based on the local model, and the results of the local model, which agree with experiments and with quantum mechanics. Loopholes play no part in my argument and are simply a distraction. Bell's oversimplified physics is the essence of my argument and I present physics that, as Einstein demanded is "as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Akinbo, yours is a very relevant comment, and to address all your points in one response would require a longer comment, so I'll stop here, and address your other points in another comment(s).

I hope to address two types of readers in this forum – one type is the Perimeter-type, like Pusey and Leifer, "the big boys" in the field who have entered FQXi contests in the past and who contribute to FQXi. I hope for the sake of the FQXi community they respond. You represent the other type – informed, brilliant, interested non-physicists – so I hope you will return with more comments. The effort to move me down in the rankings is, I believe, to decrease the visibility of my essay and my arguments and I consider that a good sign.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 00:35 GMT

Dear Akinbo,

You are correct that I am against mysticism in science. If mysticism is real, it belongs in religion. The mystical has no place in science. In my opinion entanglement is mysticism. Technically, it is represented by the shaded area shown at bottom right of page 6 in my essay. Both quantum mechanics and experiment yield the cosine curve shown, while Bell's constrained local models yield straight lines. 'Entanglement' is the non-local bridge designed to get one from Bell's "local" model to reality. As such, it is a mystical figment that cannot be explained, accurately described, or measured, despite hundreds or thousands of papers that work in the shaded realm. That statement does not make friends in the Bell community, but that does not affect its truth value.

I am not certain what other mysticism you refer to. As noted in my first comment to you, photon-based experiments are essentially different from Stern-Gerlach scattering of magnetic dipoles in an inhomogeneous field. It only complicates things further to deal with the difference, and it is not necessary to do so to "disprove" Bell, who clearly was thinking of Stern-Gerlach as he addressed EPR issues.

Bell's formulation adds a "hidden variable", lambda, that Bell essentially allows to be "anything". The designer of a local theory can choose whatever physical attribute he wishes for lambda. The goal of the game is to compute the physics of the local model, based on a distribution of lambdas input to Alice and Bob's measurements, such that the outputs of Alice and Bob's measurements will be correlated as predicted by quantum mechanics, and as found by (photon-based) experiments.

Your box of black and white balls does not have anything corresponding to lambda, therefore it is not analogous to a Bell experiment. I have spent a short while considering adding colors to your balls and letting Alice and Bob look through a third color filter, but it gets too complicated for a comment. I hope you get the idea however.

In my local model, lambda is the initial orientation of the spin, which can be any vector in 3-D space. If this spin vector is sent to Alice, the opposite will be sent to Bob. As outlined in detail in my essay and references, whatever the initial value of spin vector is sent to Alice, it will align with the field direction (that she chooses) or it will anti-align with the field. But this process of alignment is a dynamic process, that involves energy exchange between the "precessional" energy and the "deflectional" energy modes, in such a way that (since both energy modes depend on the angle between Alice's field and the initial spin direction) the deflection contains information, recorded as position, about the initial value of lambda. That information is absent from quantum mechanics, hence quantum mechanics is incomplete. Not wrong, incomplete.

The question is whether, given the value of this (hidden) variable lambda, a local theory can determine the deflection such that the actual values, calculated locally by Alice (and Bob does the same for the field angle he chooses), when correlated (on a pairwise basis) agree with the statistical quantum mechanical predictions, or not. My local model does agree with quantum mechanics, whereas Bell says this is impossible.

But Bell does not measure deflection – the information is there but he throws it away and says, in effect, "I care only about whether it was deflected "up" or "down", not how far up or down. Thus he allows you to put additional information (the initial direction, lambda) into the problem, and even to calculate the physics with a local theory, but then he erases all of the physical information content in the "how far up or down" by using only simply "up" or "down". (+1 or -1).

Why does he do this? To understand this you need some concept of eigenvalues and eigenvalue equations, and this involves the Dirac and the Pauli equations which Bell apparently considers equivalent (they are not!) In essence, a simplistic idea from 1925, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck's idea that "the projection of spin on any axis is +1 or -1" has added a mystical aspect to spin that no one can understand, and makes spin 'look like' one bit of information instead of a physical spin that simply aligns with a complex local apparatus. It is absolutely not an essential concept of quantum mechanics. If it were it would be an axiom. It is simply more confusion that came about historically and is treasured by those who worship quantum mechanical mysticism. It's got nothing to do with the statistical results of the quantum mechanical formalism.

I hope that the above helps you understand why the black and white ball example is not a good analogy for Bell's theorem.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 00:54 GMT

Akimbo, – I should probably add one more brief comment. The experiment with balls that you describe corresponds to Alice and Bob always choosing the same direction of magnetic field in their respective instruments. In that case, yes, the (anti-)correlation is perfect. The problem of Bell and EPR is when Alice and Bob can freely choose any direction, uncorrelated with each other, and unknown to each other. That aspect of the problem does not show up in your B&W analogy. – Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (14 not shown)

Dear Akinbo,

You mention above that I have "carefully prepared the parcels in the so-called 'singlet state' or binary as Tim prefers." As the singlet states are 2-D representations, but include the imaginary i, and Pauli matrices are 2 x 2 matrices, also including i, the operations of the 2 x 2 matrix on the 2-D states can be mapped into a 3 x 3 real rotation matrix operating on a real 3-D vector. Just another way in which quantum mechanics obscures or hides the 3-D nature of spin. (Nothing nefarious implied, just the way things are.)

As you note Tim (@ 03:49 0n 4 Feb above) states

"Send a neutron through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus and report the outcome as either "spin up" meaning "neutron recorded above the midline" or "spin down" meaning "outcome recorded below the midline". The outcome space is now binary and Bell's result applies. This is what is meant everywhere by "doing a spin measurement on a neutron" and it is what is understood by saying "a spin measurement on a spin ½ particle is always either spin-up or spin-down"."

He then goes on to state: "The actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below, and for the purposes of reporting the result the former count as "spin up" and the latter as "spin down". This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..."

This appears not to be the case, based on "an actual experimental record of neutron impact positions on the screen." As we non-members are not allowed to post graphics (probably a good rule) I will post the neutron data in such manner than anyone can plot it:

Position, counts

60, 48

50, 130

40, 182

30, 298

20, 364

10, 350

0, 436

-10, 381

-20, 338

-30, 311

-40, 154

-50, 102

-60, 39

Tim Maudlin, in a series of comments above, flatly states that Stern-Gerlach, with neutrons, is a binary measurement, with "actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below..." and further states, "This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..." Does this appear to be the case to anyone else? Plot it and see.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 01:02 GMT

A curious distribution indeed. Not binary but also not a normal Bell-curve type distribution. Here Bell does not refer to John Bell.

I am hopeful that Hamilton might allow those spin calculation to be done in an alternate manner.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 20:20 GMT

Gary,

I wonder if what you mean, is that there might be a topological fix to make the asymmetric position plots conform to a symmetrical bell curve? I think not.

The asymmetry looks very much akin to an analemma that one would expect of an orbiting body annually by its declination and time equation. If the precession axis intersects the midpoint of the rotation axis, the resultant...

view entire post

Gary,

I wonder if what you mean, is that there might be a topological fix to make the asymmetric position plots conform to a symmetrical bell curve? I think not.

The asymmetry looks very much akin to an analemma that one would expect of an orbiting body annually by its declination and time equation. If the precession axis intersects the midpoint of the rotation axis, the resultant analemma will be a symmetrical 'figure eight'. An asymmetrical analemma is prescribed by an intersect offset from the midpoint.

And that is what I find distinguishing in the arguments about quantum mechanical spin. Firstly, spin was an adjustment for the magnetic field intensity of an electron, envisioned as a hard sphere with the total charge uniformly distributed on the surface, being much too strong to be explained by Maxwell's electrodynamics as generated by rotation of the sphere unless the translational velocity on the equatorial plane was in excess of light velocity. So spin was hypothesized to be an intrinsic, static, rotation. In other words, it behaves as if there is rotation but there isn't.

Secondly, though General Relativity has yet to be reformulated to describe micro-scale field quasi-particles, the relativistic concept of time dilation need not be discounted. A photon would experience the same elapsed time, transiting the same amount of time in a smaller bottle as in a larger bottle. So the magnitude of light velocity difference between electrical and magnetic field intensity between identical point charges as per Maxwell, (treated as angular light velocity on the electron equator) could be attributed to relativistic time differential in a spherical non rotating energy field volume. The polarity of the magnetic field would then be explained as a typical projection of physical rotation exhibiting a dipole moment, but with out exceeding light velocity. Spin is not really necessary but would be subsumed as a measurement function extending from a point center which QM treats as the point particle. Yet that spin axis initially should be treated in relation to the inertial trajectory of the real particle.

AND, thirdly, spin evolves from the electron ("I would just like to know what an electron is." A. Einstein) so we have to acknowledge that. BUT you can NOT use electrons in a Stern-Gerlach experiment because the magnetic moment becomes overwhelmed by interaction with the external field. Neutral atoms, or neutrons are used which experience gradient deflection in relation to the axial declination of rotation at point of time in precession. Hence the asymmetrical plot spread indicates a real particle rotating with a slight wobble.

Also, in an S-G experiment, neutrons come one at a time, as many as you like. There is no splitting of equal numbers of opposite polarities.

Hornets! you say? :-) jrc

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 22:12 GMT

John,

Actually, my statement was not nearly so complicated. I merely observed that the data is not a binary distribution as Dr. Maudlin insists that it must be. I also noted that it does not look like the usual Bell curve from statistics, and hence statistical analysis might not be useful.

I plotted the data and it looks like a triangle. If position is the x-axis and counts are the y-axis, the data looks like a triangle with the base being at (-70,0) to (+70,0) and the apex being at (0, 436).

Of course, there are no zero count measurements presented, but both sides of the triangle seem to extrapolate to a symmetrical value. Two of the data points are not a good fit but all the rest are.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your careful reading of our essay and your comments on it. We will definitely read your essay in the next few days and respond to it.

Best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu

report post as inappropriate

In an effort to keep the most relevant ideas in one place, I reproduce most of the comment I made to Roberto Mangabeira Unger:

In your essay you state that "causal explanations make no sense outside time; causal connections can exist only in time." This I agree with. But then you say "…the moves in a mathematical or logical chain of argument do occur outside time." I'm less sure of that. A mathematical argument goes from step to step in sequential fashion which seems to incorporate the nature of time. As it does not matter when one steps through the sequence, it is time-independent. Much of physics (the physics covered by energy conservation) is time independent: dH / dt = 0. I do not see this as equivalent to the Platonic vision which does truly seem to proclaim a realm outside time and space.

In similar fashion I view logic as a property of reality that allows the physical structure of AND-gates and NOT-gates. The physical implementation of logic gates, combined combinatorially in space and typically sequenced in time, provide counters that generate the natural numbers and address Kronecker's maxim: "God made the integers, all the rest (of math) is the work of man."

Thus I see logic not as an 'outside' rule or 'law' but as the primary property of physical existence, supporting a single, self-consistent, unitary reality. Physical evolution in time yields math 'circuitry' at almost all levels, but perfected at the level of man. The logical operation of such circuits (in a computer, a cell, or in our brains) is independent of time in the sense that it does not typically matter when the logic sequence is triggered nor how long the steps take, but still, the physical existence and operation is embedded in time. Of course structural changes that 'endure' in time record information, and this too is typically time-independent, but is in no way 'outside of time'. Thus all the basis of math is derived from and 'evoked by' physical reality. This operation of the universe is not "subject to laws" outside time, but we can abstract relations (as I briefly show in my essay) that capture the operations reliably and thus appear to have the character of law, or "timeless truth" -- probably more accurately stated "time-independent truth."

Finally, I fully agree that "mathematics cannot replace physical insight." As an example I show in my essay how mathematics, based on faulty physical insight, led Bell to introduce a mystical 'non-locality' that almost banishes physical insight. And this is not the only 20th century mathematics that muddles physical thinking. I see the correction and clarification of these induced mystical concepts as the greatest need in today's physics. Then we might move forward. Most movement today impresses me as lateral or even backward.

You certainly could have been thinking of John Bell when you stated:

"The less we grasp the non-mathematical reasons for the application of mathematics … the more enigmatic and disconcerting the application of mathematics will appear to be."

Bell did not grasp the underlying physics, and thus based his mathematical treatment on false assumptions. The correct application of mathematics to incorrect physics has certainly led us to enigmatic and disconcerting conclusions. In this sense mathematics is as you say, "a good servant but a bad master."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Having read your essay, we will need to revisit it again to form an opinion on your stand on Bell's theorem. In the context of the first two pages of your essay, you remarked in your post on our page:

"I have employed a robot as a vehicle to eliminate bias and "baggage", while providing pattern recognition, learning algorithms (neural nets, self organizing maps, etc.) and have shown how counting, derived from logical physical structures, is essentially (along with simple arithmetic logic circuitry, silicon or biological) all that is required to go from raw measurement data to feature vectors of the quantum persuasion. "

While you do mention that this is elaborated in the early part of essay, and certainly there must be much more detail in your book, it will be very helpful to us if you could explain again how, after deriving counting from physical structures, you build the number system, as well as geometry and algebra. Is there a parallel with the cognitive processes we discuss? And what did you mean above by `feature vectors of quantum persuasion'? Thanks.

With best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 00:02 GMT

Dear Tejinder, Anshu,

Thank you for reading and thinking about my essay. As the issue of Bell's theorem and physics is quite complex and exceedingly important, it's wise to revisit it until it is understood and can be accepted or rejected. References [2] and [4] contain much supporting physics. I do hope you find time and are motivated to understand my treatment of Bell. I believe the...

view entire post

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 20:35 GMT

Dear Ed,

1. I refer to this comment of yours; cited 2 posts above:

"I have employed a robot as a vehicle to eliminate bias and "baggage", while providing pattern recognition, learning algorithms (neural nets, self organizing maps, etc.) and have shown how counting, derived from logical physical structures, is essentially (along with simple arithmetic logic circuitry, silicon or biological) all that is required to go from raw measurement data to feature vectors of the quantum persuasion. "

Is this a reference to the model that you used to construct the two graphs on p.7 of your essay?

2. Am I correct in thinking that the second graph is a modification of the first graph (via the application of Bell constraints) and not a graph published from a new run of your model under Bell constraints and with new random inputs?

3. Perhaps I'm missing something here, re #2; but I ask because the density of the data-points varies over the range of θ; being low at the extremities. Could this indicate some θ-based noise or bias in your model?

4. In these graphs I take it that you here are using θ as the angle (a,b). Does your model allow a and b to be vectors in 3-space?

Thanks, and best regards; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

You've not emphasized the conceptualisation of intuitional notions which results for "Truthful" actions which erases the name "Trick" from the subject.

It's important to explore the True picture!

Good luck!!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 22:35 GMT

Dear Miss Sujatha Jagannathan,

While I have stated that intuition should guide our choice of the many mathematical maps applied to physical reality, you are correct that I did not emphasize the conceptualization of intuitive notions. Yet the classical model that yields QM correlation is very intuitive, and it contradicts Bell's extremely non-intuitive concept of non-locality.

Thanks for reading and commenting. I look forward to reading your essay.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

First of all, I must admit that I am not a fan of Bell's analysis. There are so many deep flaws in Bell's approach that I do not consider it even useful discourse.

Fortunately, your essay really had very little to do with Bell's arguments and I was pleasantly surprised by the flaws you note in Bell's approach.

And I especially liked your comment to me about Hestenes geometrical algebra. The spin or phase of quantum matter is not something that we normally sense and that makes quantum action a little mysterious. The phase or spin of matter is what is missing from gravity action and that is a real shame.

Your approach is largely based on the reality of empty space just as Bell's was and the typical statement of nonlocality is one that presupposes empty space as an object.

I believe that quantum action does not need space at all and it is much more useful for the concept of space to emerge from action and not be a place for action to occur in the first place.

1.0, entertaining

2.0, well written

1.5, understandable

2.0, relevance to theme

6.5

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 22:33 GMT

Dear Steve,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I would agree with you about 'useful discourse', but Bell has had such a profound effect on our physics, it is necessary to discuss him, useful or not. And I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised by the flaws in Bell's approach. Some responses to these flaws are not so pleasant.

I have found Hestenes' approach very worthwhile, as every entity in his math has both a geometric definition and an algebraic definition, which is a far greater coupling than exists in other maths.

I'm not sure how empty space emerges from action, but I tend to view space as containing at least the gravitational field and hence not being truly 'empty'. But obviously, this aspect of reality is one of the less agreed-upon features of modern physics.

Thanks again. I'm glad you found my essay understandable. That was my main worry.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I read your highly professional essay executed in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt with a great interest. I have only one question. How you consider when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty? When they lost a reliable existential "map"?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 00:29 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your comment. That is a very interesting question! Einstein of course contributed when he confused 'synchronicity' with 'simultaneity', and again when he replaced the gravitational field with "curved space-time". But I believe the biggest disconnect between the math of physics and the intuitive trust in physical reality probably occurred when physicists began believing in "superposition" as if it were a physically real condition rather than a mathematical artifact. I think that's where the train left the tracks. After that physicists felt comfortable simply introducing another 'quantum field' or equivalent whenever a new problem needed to be solved. Today no physicist knows exactly how many 'fields' there are in physics, nor has any idea which fields are 'real'. As so many essays and comments here state, finding physics to fit the math is the wrong way to go. Much better to use math to describe real physics.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Many thanks for your answer! And you can agree with Alexander Zenkin's conclusions in his article SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS ?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 03:42 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I have looked at the interview with Alexander Zenkin. He begins by noting the super-abstractionism of the Bourbaki, leading to two mathematicians working in neighboring rooms but unable to understand each other. Almost all of my math education took place at the peak of the Bourbaki school, and I have been trying to overcome this handicap ever since. The rigor and rigidity is the antithesis of what a physicist should use math for.

As I've noted in a number of places, I do not believe infinity 'exists' in physical reality, so (except for my early math education) I have paid no attention to mathematical treatments of infinity. In the paper Zenkin mentions that Cantor designates 'a series without end' by the symbol omega and then, skipping through the potential infinity of the series, continues to count further: omega +1, omega +2, … Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics.

In short, I am very much in sympathy with the views expressed in the paper.

I would also point out to you that Eckard Blumshein's essay has just posted, dealing with similar aspects of mathematics and its relevance to physics. I highly recommend his essay and think you will enjoy it.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 08:59 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for your answer! I think that the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" - the main problem today. And above all - this is a problem "foundations of Mathematics". This is "problem of the millennium number 1". "The Queen and Servant" should have a strong and reliable throne…

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." (A.Einstein)

"... Truth should be drawn and presented to" unlimited group" viewers. " (A.Zenkin)

"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" (J. Wheeler)

Thank you very much, I'm sure to read the essay Eckard Blumshein!

Good luck in the Contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 07:01 GMT

Dear Edwin and dear Vladimir,

Nobody and nothing seems to be perfect, not even the fqxi topic number of my essay. I just got its approval and the correct number 2342, not 2346 which I had seen before.

What about my name, Edwin wrote this time correctly Eckard but he Americanized Blumschein to Blumshein. In Russia I was advised to change it into Blumschain, and I signed accordingly ;-). Germans pronounce ei like ai.

I don't think that "the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" is the main problem today". Aren't semi-irrational ideologies more problematic? I don't just refer to malign patriotism and malign islamism but also to the suppression of criticism.

Why not sober looking at Weierstrass, Kronecker, Cantor, Dedekind, Hilbert, Einstein, Fraenkel and Bourbaki with the due critical distance?

Yes: "omega +1, omega +2, … Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics", and it has actually been proven entirely useless.

I vote for as many rigor as rationally justified, and I arrived at strong arguments against what I consider unwarranted ideologies like Set Theory, Special Relativity, and Spacetime which I capitalized in order to put them into the same drawer as God.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Edwin

I read your highly technical and beautifully illustrated paper with great interest impressed by what appears to be your definitive highlighting of the fatal flaw in Bell's Theorem. I say 'appears' because while your analysis is technically beyond me, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory I followed physical and intuitive reasoning to reach a similar conclusion: local causality embodied in the anti-parrallel angle between the two particles (your green arrows) is maintained from start to finish even though the spin direction theta is random. In other words this anti-parrallelism is still there when when Alice and Bob measure them so of course they are entangled. By the way you say "theta-dependent scattering should be testable experimentally". It will be great if you can explain that. This cracked Bell has tolled hollow for far too long. I wish you and like-minded researchers more power to silence it for good.

I am still writing my essay hope you can glance at it when it is published. Best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 05:20 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

It's good to see you back. Thank you for your comment. You are correct that the anti-parallel spins retain their correlated directions until they reach the remote measuring instruments. This used to be known as conservation of momentum, rather than entanglement. Once in the measuring device the energy exchange process that I describe provides a further correlation between their initial spin and the direction of instrument, and this is the correlation that yields the -a.b result that both quantum mechanics and actual measurements provide, and that Bell says cannot be provided by local models. Although my local model proves Bell wrong and I explain exactly why and how he is wrong, his word has been gospel for 50 years and that's a brick wall to come up against.

The interesting thing, in terms of this essay contest on math and physics, is that Bell got his math right, but his physics is wrong because he oversimplified the problem. Apparently most of the fighting has been over his math and in the end everyone agrees that his math is correct. As you have noted, the physical analysis of the actual, more complex, phenomena is rather complicated. In fact, even Bell's oversimplification is complicated, so unless one has lots of time and interest in this problem it's just too complicated to fool around with. Nevertheless, it is a problem of major importance, and I am producing more results and working toward an experiment and I'm not going away.

I won't try to explain the theta-dependent experiment here, but it's really a rather minimal variation on the standard Stern-Gerlach experiment. Considering that was done in 1922, I'm sure we should be able to do a reasonably accurate experiment today.

And of course I always look forward to your beautifully illustrated and interesting essays.

My very best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Quite impressive essay. It has the density of a black hole, but mental light escapes with multiple readings. With less erudition and understanding, I believe I make some of the same points. "Math operations on real world features are the basis of the science of physics." We do use our minds to connect math and physics and our intuition to judge the results. Sometimes peer reviews help us not to slip (BICEP2. I like the math maps and the physical territory forming the substance, and applying the right map.

I would like your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Yes, it's a pretty dense essay, but you clearly know the secret – which is found in multiple readings. Unfortunately not everyone has the time to read an essay more than once. But that's the only way to understand very complex issues. I thank you for doing so.

As I mentioned to Vladimir above, even Bell's oversimplified analysis is complex. When one tries to deal with the more complicated physics going on when a magnetic dipole interacts with the non-homogeneous field, and view this interaction from the perspective of classical determinism while at the same time keeping in mind the quantum mechanical perspective, it gets, as you say, pretty dense.

Why would anyone even care? Only because Bell, on the basis of correct math applied to incorrect (because oversimplified) physics concluded that nature is non-local. And because no one could find error in his mathematical proof the world at large accepted his physical conclusion. A perfect example of what this essay contest was designed to bring out – the tricks that math can play on physics when one is not paying close attention.

I look forward to reading your essay and commenting on your thread.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

On another thread Tim Maudlin noted that "The reason that people stop responding to your incorrect claims about Bell is that you do not pay any attention to what they say."

I responded as follows:

Dear Tim Maudlin,

There is quite a difference between "not paying attention" to what you say, and "agreeing with what you say." For example you have said approximately 15 times that the Stern-Gerlach-type experiments describe:

"Binary outcome space" , or

are "coded as +1 or -1", or

are "outcome1 and outcome2", or

are "spin up and spin down", or

"red light went on" versus "green light went on", or

are "above the midline" or "below the midline".

It's pretty hard to miss that you believe the experiment is based on binary outcomes.

What you have missed, and missed a number of times, is that this suppresses the physics of the situation.

As an example, when particles are collided at LHC, some of the collision products come out 'above the midline' and some of them come out 'below the midline'. Nobody cares -- there is no physics in analyzing LHC scattering experiments in such a simple manner.

I've tried to tell you, in a number of different ways, that Bell ignores the physics going on in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. And by constraining the outcomes to be simple binary outcomes he throws away the information that can be derived from the physics of the experiment. Physicists care (or should care) about this information. The fact that when this information is thrown away the physical model cannot match reality, is significant. Applying correct math to incorrect physics makes no sense, but that is exactly what Bell has done.

As John Cox remarked, as an academic philosopher, you find it easy to take the physics out of math while leaving the math in physics. As a physicist I don't find it that simple. You have twice stated that I pay no attention to what you say. I have reviewed our comments and find it is difficult to discover any response from you to my valid points. And when I supplied data that contradicted your statement about neutron results, and asked you for any data that would support your position, you said you couldn't imagine why anymore time should be spent on the argument.

In fact, having reviewed your comments, I do have more responses.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

really impressed by your insights giving me new ideas.

Applying correct math to false physics is the underlying problem in QM and cosmology.

Please continue your quest of pulling out physics from this 20th-century trap.

Best

Lutz

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 02:05 GMT

Dear Lutz,

Thank you for your supportive comment. There are number of experienced players here who agree wholeheartedly with your take on things.

One purpose (as I understand it) of this FQXi topic is to ask whether math has, or can, "trick" physicists in any significant way. My essay answers in the affirmative. Specifically I claim that John Bell's math is impeccable, else his theorem would not have lasted for 50 years as it has. It is his physics that is not impeccable, due to his significant oversimplification.

At first this may sound suspicious. How could physicists be fooled by incorrect physics for 50 years? Is that conceivable? While it is obvious that his math can be, and has been, checked, why not his physics? That is more complicated.

First, there are between half a dozen and a dozen different "interpretations" of physics. Which one should we apply? Second, most physicists accept the paradigm of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck from 1925 (before there was quantum mechanics) that

"The projection of spin on any axis is +/-1."

This classically makes no sense, and Susskind and others have acknowledged that this is physically incomprehensible. That is, it is part of the "mystical" tradition of quantum mechanics.

Generally speaking, while physicists have no qualms or hesitation about attacking math errors, few are willing to go to war against mystical aspects of orthodoxy which are best summarized by Feynman's quote that

"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."

[Updated by Matt Leifer to: No one understands the quantum state. (see my endnotes)]

And so Bell's seemingly reasonable, simple interpretation along the lines of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, remains unchallenged. Even at the expense of giving up local causality!

An ironic aspect of this is Allain Aspect's remarks in his introduction to Bell's book, to the effect that

"The conventional wisdom among physicists was that the 'founding fathers' of quantum mechanics had settled all the conceptual questions."

Aspect claims that

"Bell's example helped physicists to free themselves from the belief that the conceptual understanding that had been achieved by the 1940s was the end of the story."

Today, of course, Bell is the 'founding father' and once again the conventional wisdom is that Bell has "settled all the conceptual questions."

I argue that this is not the case and it is not an argument that those heavily invested in Bell wish to hear. Hence the "hear no evil, say no evil, see no evil" reception that my essay has mostly received from the establishment.

In political terms this was called, "benign neglect", defined generally as "an attitude or policy of ignoring an often delicate or undesirable situation that one is held to be responsible for dealing with."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Mr Klingman,

Excellent essay. I feel the most important part of your essay were the statements "We restore the physics of θ to a classical model by assuming a random particle spin before it enters the magnetic field and we predict the position of the particle after leaving the magnetic field." and "No local model of Bell’s can reproduce QM correlations because he applies the hidden constraints that erase the hidden variable information. Yet Bell’s many followers are adamant that one must apply Bell's constraints. They believe strongly that 'spin' is being measured, that spin has eigenvalues ±1"

I would be very interested in your comments on my modelling of the Dehlinger and Mitchell experiment related to the Bell theory at Dear Mr Klingman,

Excellent essay. I feel the most important part of your essay were the statements "We restore the physics of θ to a classical model by assuming a random particle spin before it enters the magnetic field and we predict the position of the particle after leaving the magnetic field." and "No local model of Bell’s can reproduce QM correlations because he applies the hidden constraints that erase the hidden variable information. Yet Bell’s many followers are adamant that one must apply Bell's constraints. They believe strongly that 'spin' is being measured, that spin has eigenvalues ±1"

I would be very interested in your comments on my modelling of the Dehlinger and Mitchell experiment related to the Bell theory at http://www.animatedphysics.com/photons/bells_inequality.htm.
I believe we are matching our ideas directly.

Great read, let me know if you would ever like to work on a collaboration along these lines.

report post as inappropriate

Ed Unverricht replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 17:51 GMT

Sorry, something went wrong with the link in my post and I dont see any way to correct it.. Hope it is still understandable.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 03:11 GMT

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I was able to follow your link to the 'animated physics' page. The page, as far as I can determine, is strictly about the photon test of Bell's theorem, so it's probably appropriate for me to remark again on this.

My essay of course concerns the Stern-Gerlach scattering of magnetic dipoles in an inhomogeneous field. I have developed the...

view entire post

Just reread and gave you a vote of 9.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

If I'm not mistaken, this contest is not about Bell's theorem and quantum mechanics. You tried to disguise some of your ideas about quantum mechanics in a paper about Bell's theorem. You talk about things that this community is not required to know and you have not answered the main questions of this contest. Therefore, I think your paper is of no interest to general audience but only to your peers and I would like to ask you if you have send this for journal peer review and if it was published. Thank you for your effort.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 19:07 GMT

Alex,

I think you are completely mistaken that my essay is not on topic. In the first pages I address several FQXi questions that are answered by my essay. Further, FQXi stands for "fundamental questions", and there are few if any questions more fundamental than whether local causality exists, or not. I believe that my essay is exactly what Templeton hoped for when he funded FQXi.

Your other point, that it is not for a "general audience", is somewhat more relevant. Scientific American also supports FQXi; they of course desire essays that can become articles in their magazine. My essay is too dense for most general audiences, but if you read the comments above you will find that the FQXi community finds it appropriate and relevant.

I hope you did not waste too much of your time before discovering it was not your cup of tea.

Sincerely,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I truly appreciate your good words about my essay. However, I have a problem with your invitation to read your essay as follows:

Before your comments my community rating was at 6.0 based on two votes. Afterwards, it dropped to 5.0 based on a single vote. This means that someone rate it at 3. There are two possibilities then

(1) Either you rated my essay at 3 despite your good words, or

(2) You did not rate my essay despite your good words.

In either case, I will not read you essay and as a matter of fact I will refrain from judging other essays because such judgment cannot be objective anyway. I will read several essays but not rate.

Thank you. I am not here to get a prize but just to participate and convey my thoughts. I know the process since last time I participated in 2011. My essay was first for two weeks and then in just a few days I got a series of low marks. It ended up in the 35 essays sent for review but to see how some people acted was quite disappointing. I just wish FQXi would use an independent panel of judges and pay no attention to ratings. I think they are smarter than that.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 19:15 GMT

Dear Efthimios Harokopos,

I saw your complaint about scoring on your thread before I commented on your essay, so I knew that you were already upset about scoring. What I had not realized was that you think you can, in general, correlate comments with voting behavior. It is upsetting when low scores are received for no apparent reason. During the first weeks of this contest I was the top paper with a 10 (every time I looked at it I reminded myself that there was nowhere to go but down) and then I received at least two 1s and a couple of 2s. I was of course not happy about this.

There are no rules for how one "should vote". After several essay contests I have a voting strategy that I think is most effective. I typically wish to see all essays before I decide how they should be ranked. I think it is presumptuous for you to assume that my voting behavior should match your ideas of voting but if you are hostile over this point it's probably best you not read my essay.

You have written an essay in an earlier contest, and you should therefore be aware that no one is happy with FQXi voting. There is always some vote trading going on and the best policy is not to discuss votes in comments and not to combine the timing of comments and votes to 'send messages'.

Your implication that I would give high praise and low scores is unwarranted, and there is no basis for you even to suggest this. The fact is that I have not scored your essay, nor most essays, as I have my own policy or voting strategy. I think your complaint about voting is valid, but your assumptions about how I should vote are invalid and not appreciated.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Efthimios Harokopos replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 20:36 GMT

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you for your response.

report post as inappropriate

Bob Shour replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 21:28 GMT

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I have enjoyed reading your comments on the various essays. I think your approach to voting that you outline in your exchange a good and wise one.

I have also noticed that many of the essays seem at times to be treated unusually well, and some unusually poorly. Unfair voting impairs the standing of the contest and impairs the experience for participants who have made a sincere and time consuming effort, and should be spared tactical downgrades or extreme and unwarranted ratings.

Perhaps, I thought, as a FQXi forum or question, the topic could be a self policing voting system for the essay contest. For example only, suppose at the 6 week mark and the 8 week mark, the voting essayist who is closest the average rating of all essays (that is, find the difference on each essay of the rating essayist from the average rating, and add up the differences) gets an extra 10 vote, and the one second closest an extra 9 or something like that. The idea would be to encourage and reward fair-minded appraisals as opposed to a strategic downgrade, and to discourage outlying ratings. The idea exploits the idea that the average of several ratings is often a more reliable indicator than any single vote.

I suspect my suggestion has various flaws. I think it might be interesting to see what people come up with as rating systems that can circumvent some of the objections to the current system. The issue has been raised by some participants. You comment that 'no one is happy' with the current system. Perhaps collectively we might consider this not a philosophical problem about voting but an interesting problem relating to game theory or voting theory.

With best wishes,

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Congratulation for such a brilliant essay. You deserve the best.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 22:37 GMT

Dear George Rajna,

Thank you for your most gracious comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I agree very much that "we use our minds to connect math and physics" and that "math maps imposed on the physical territory form the substance of physics." You asked about process four in my essay Quantum Gravity and it precisely your quoted sentiment that I was hoping to capture with that process.

My main feedback on your very interesting essay is that I was not convinced that "Bell showed a local model cannot produce the correlation -ab." Perhaps I did not fully appreciate your argument, can you explain? (Sorry if this was covered in your other comments, I see there are very many.) This is a non-standard statement of Bell's result that I have not heard before.

I admit to being one of the people who say what you refer as Bell's constraints must be imposed. The lines in the SG experiment will either be up or down so it is natural to impose a binary eigenvalue map on the physical territory of the GS apparatus. How else could one describe a binary up/down result?

Lastly I will point out that in my own study of Bell's result, I noticed an assumption that led to equation (1) which was not included in your list on page four. Namely, the assumption is that spin eigenvectors are orthogonal. I treat the case where they are not orthogonal in my paper On Bell's Inequality. My result agrees with your conclusion that Bell was wrong. However where you derive an error from the connection of the math to the experiment, I derive a trivial mathematical error that shows that Bell's inequality does always allow local hidden variables.

Jonathan Tooker

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 22:34 GMT

Hi Jonathan Tooker,

You are correct that quite a bit of explanation is included in the above comments, but it takes a while to plow through them. The short version is that Stern-Gerlach is not measuring spin directly; it is measuring spin-dependent scattering from an inhomogeneous field. And the inhomogeneous field is not described by Pauli's simple eigenvalue equation, due to the...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan Tooker,

You are correct that quite a bit of explanation is included in the above comments, but it takes a while to plow through them. The short version is that Stern-Gerlach is not measuring spin directly; it is measuring spin-dependent scattering from an inhomogeneous field. And the inhomogeneous field is not described by Pauli's simple eigenvalue equation, due to the non-zero and non-trivial gradient of the field that must be included in the Hamiltonian. Instead, depending on the specifics of the gradient, there is a continuum of eigenstates, not binary eigenstates.

When the physics of the particle interactions are taken into account, the amplitude predicted by the local model can be correlated (in pairwise fashion) and the result (as shown on page 7) is the quantum correlation -a.b. Bell claims this is impossible, and the consensus today as evidenced by numerous statements in the physics literature is that "no local model can produce the quantum correlation". Bell assumes that the particle only precesses, but this is true only in a constant field, which yields null results and thus a logical contradiction. Bell apparently believes that he is measuring spin directly, and assumes spin can only have two possible results +/-1, thus he throws away the actual measurement data and replaces it with an abstraction, the +/-1 dichotomy. This prevents his constrained model from ever obtaining the correct correlation. In other words he is applying the wrong map, Pauli's (provisional) precession eigenvalue equation in a situation where it does not apply and it is likely that he is doing this because he is confusing the Pauli equation with the Dirac equation as I explain in the essay.

Believing that there is a difference between what local models (as constrained by Bell) and quantum models can produce in terms of correlations, physicists have looked for an explanation for that difference. They have settled on entanglement as the explanation of the difference. If a local model can produce the correct correlation, as mine does, then there is no difference between the local and quantum correlations, and this would seem to have some significance for entanglement. And as quantum mechanics does not contain the initial spin, and cannot predict each local result, but only the correlation, then quantum mechanics is incomplete, in Einstein's sense. My model should be capable of being tested experimentally, and this issue decided.

Thank you for your comments. I hope this short summary answers your questions and of course will be happy to try to answer any other question.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your interesting approach of the Stern Gerlach problem described by J,Bell.

In short I would describe his problem with the fact that there was no so called ”smearing” of particle impacts on the screen observable which indicated that before entering the SG magnet, the particle magnetic moments had to be up or down. Right?

I think I could give you...

view entire post

attachments: Stern_Gerlach_1.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT

Dear Leo Vuyk,

I see that you have put some effort into studying Stern-Gerlach. I was somewhat surprised by your statement of 'no smearing' of particle impacts on the screen, as there appears to be visible 'smearing' on the iconic postcard that Stern-Gerlach sent to Bohr, and Messiah (a primary QM text at the time of Bell) describes "the appearance on the screen of a more or less spread...

view entire post

Dear Leo Vuyk,

I see that you have put some effort into studying Stern-Gerlach. I was somewhat surprised by your statement of 'no smearing' of particle impacts on the screen, as there appears to be visible 'smearing' on the iconic postcard that Stern-Gerlach sent to Bohr, and Messiah (a primary QM text at the time of Bell) describes "the appearance on the screen of a more or less spread out distribution of impacts…" indicating that the atoms are not all in the same initial condition and implying a statistical distribution.

But I see you are referring to the lack of a continuous distribution with no separation. Please note that this is compatible with my model and can be explained with classical physics when energy-exchange between precession-mode energy and deflection-mode energy is taken into account.

I do understand your suggestion, and I find it both interesting and well thought out, based on belief in entanglement as a fundamental phenomenon.

My approach is not to deny entanglement as a starting proposition, but to explore Bell's conclusion that no local model can produce the QM correlation. I have presented a local model that does produce the QM correlations, unless Bell's constraints are imposed. This would seem to call Bell's constraints into question, and so I have analyzed the reason why he might have imposed such constraints. My essay offers an explanation, based on confusion of Dirac and Pauli eigenvalue equations, and assumptions of eigenvalue measurements. If this analysis is valid, then the rationale for entanglement is called into question.

But if one assumes entanglement from the start, then I believe your analysis is reasonable. The good news is that we have proposed two experiments that should be able to settle the question. As the belief in non-locality is certainly one of the most major challenges to intuitive understanding of physics, it seems very important to perform these experimental tests. I am beginning efforts to have my experiment performed, and I hope you are doing the same.

Thank you very much for reading, thinking, and commenting.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

DearEdwin,

Thank you for your extensive answer.

You wrote:

I am beginning efforts to have my experiment performed, and I hope you are doing the same.

I have no connection to university PhD experiments , but perhaps both experiments are perhaps interesting for such a student.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin -

Thanks for the challenging article! I wonder what Bell would think. I like the map-territory analogy for math and physics - it highlights the difference between abstract proof (math) and empirical claim (physics). Yet it may tend to the platonist (as do I) in the sense that the map is real too.

Thanks as well for reading my essay. Best of luck - George Gantz (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2381)

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay since long ago and I did not see it worth commenting earlier because it is pure nonsense. You claim to provide a possibility of something that was famously, clearly and rigorously proven impossible. If there was a consensus on this impossibility, it is not because physicists are idiots having fanciful beliefs that something cannot be done just because they did not have the idea...

view entire post

I read your essay since long ago and I did not see it worth commenting earlier because it is pure nonsense. You claim to provide a possibility of something that was famously, clearly and rigorously proven impossible. If there was a consensus on this impossibility, it is not because physicists are idiots having fanciful beliefs that something cannot be done just because they did not have the idea how to do it (how ridiculous is this suspicion : in fact they are not idiots and they are well willing to find a possible explanation of something, when it is possible, and especially when it is as elementary simple as the kind of things you wrote), but because a rigorous proof of this impossibility was given and verified. You claim to show what is clearly impossible. Like claiming to have proven that 2+2=5 that can be funny but does not deserve attention. But in the content of your text you do not prove anything because you only put a small pack of words and formulas with no sense (your so-called "energy exchange theorem" that does not even say if it is for a local system or a system of 2 separate particles at different places, which the EPR paradox is about) and then you just boringly spend most of your text repeating like a parrot the claim that this senseless pack of words and formulas succeeded to do that impossible thing. Just making a nice graphic is not a proof of anything.

I suspect a possible source of error of your reasoning, in case you sincerely mean something that has some minimum of coherence in your head (which is impossible to check), is that you did not make it clear how you define the convention of unit of correlation between spins. I cannot know it because you did not make it clear what is the unit you use.

The fact of quantum physics, that might be written by the sentence "quantum correlation -a.b" is that for example if a and b have the same direction then there is 100% certainty to get observed results with opposite signs. Of course if you did not interpret it like this but only provide a correlation that varies, for example, in the interval [25%, 75%] of probability of being found the same sign, depending on the angle according to the law of dot product then your system respects Bell's inequalities and does not reproduce the results of quantum physics.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 12:51 GMT

Another possible source of nonsense of your article, and of your ignorance of the problem (that seems to be more precisely your ignorance of what the predictions of quantum physics actually are and how they break Bell's inequalities, so that of course you have no problem to classically reproduce some incorrect description that does not break the Bell's inequalities and in which you misinterpret...

view entire post

Another possible source of nonsense of your article, and of your ignorance of the problem (that seems to be more precisely your ignorance of what the predictions of quantum physics actually are and how they break Bell's inequalities, so that of course you have no problem to classically reproduce some incorrect description that does not break the Bell's inequalities and in which you misinterpret what needs to be explained), is, if you did not even get what the terms of the observation are about: the fact that spin measurement results are only one binary digit of information, and nothing else such as any continuum of possible positions on a screen. If done well, the Stern-Gerlach experiment only has 2 spots on the screen (independent of the initial spin direction of the electron that entered), with no bridge between them. Because, when we measure a spin along a direction, there are only 2 possible values of the spin we can find along this direction: either +1/2 or -1/2 but nothing else, leading to either spot on the screen. Of course it is always possible to blur this fact by referring to pictures made during the prehistory of spin measurement experiments where the separation between both spots was not clear.

For more explanations about the predictions of quantum physics: a basic list of examples of consequences of quantum physics that cannot be classically explained are given in my page on interpretations ("Description of a quantum correlation experiment" and links to similar descriptions written by others); to understand the formalism of quantum physics and how it can give such predictions in logically coherent manners (but escaping classical explanations), see my introduction to quantum physics. I find it so amazing to see most participants of this contest so deeply ignorant about quantum physics and its incompatibility with classical realism that they failed to detect earlier the total falsity of this article and gave it such good rates in average.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 23:32 GMT

Ed, further to my earlier questions (above): but now re Silvain's comments above.

As you know, I've long maintained the view (and worked toward): "a correct theory of particle-device interactions" will deliver the correct results for EPRB ++ and breach the relevant Bell-inequalities. So Silvain could be a good sounding-board as we work toward that common goal -- given that not many others...

view entire post

Ed, further to my earlier questions (above): but now re Silvain's comments above.

As you know, I've long maintained the view (and worked toward): "a correct theory of particle-device interactions" will deliver the correct results for EPRB ++ and breach the relevant Bell-inequalities. So Silvain could be a good sounding-board as we work toward that common goal -- given that not many others (so far) engage with the details.

But NB: I believe some of Silvain's seeming passion might arise from your desire to keep the low hanging fruit for yourself at the moment; especially as you say you keep finding more things in your model. For this puts you at risk of giving the impression of making it up as you go -- the basis for my suggestion that you should put some corrected/expanded views at viXra.org ASAP -- in that I believe your method needs to be more clearly expressed. For example, with me using X for your x for clarity below:

1. Using θ in several senses is confusing: so use α for (a,λ) and β for (b,λ')?

2. Reason: Your key formula, eqn (4), appears to need rewriting (possibly with "X is proportional to "…? Otherwise, how does X become constant for a given angular input if it's related to a velocity? Though I'm sure we differ here.)

3. Now your (4) yields X as positive only, and you've explained to me that the sign of X is in the direction of the velocity of deflection. So is it correct to presume that your model (from figure on p.6) is using variants of (4) with velocity-sign thrown in?

4. Suggestion: Derive a new signed Xa based on α -- not θ -- and call it (4A); and a new signed Xb based on β -- not θ -- and call it (4B).

5. Then the graph on top of p.7 correctly retains θ as you derive E(AB) from a straight-forward comparison of your new (4A) and (4B)?

NB: If you use just the sign-X (in your terms, the sign of the velocity deflection) then that reproduces Bell's (1964: 196) failed "Illustration" -- given that the sign of your velocity change appears to depend only on the hemisphere of the lambda wrt the principal axis of their respective polarisers -- right? So I'd like to see a clearer focus on why your variable X does not need a Y if you are modelling the second figure on p.3 -- thereby avoiding the conversion of each X to sign-X?

With apologies if some of my own confusions re your model are showing here; Gordon

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hi Gordon,

I hope this means that you got your essay in on time. The local model used to generate the data on page 7 in my essay has not changed. The data shown are good and reproducible. Finding different ways to analyze the data does not invalidate or "make it up as I go". Instead of "finding more things", it's probably better to say "understanding more things", and that is as it...

view entire post

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 09:42 GMT

Nature's grammar, mathematics, settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein.

So Yes Ed, my essay is in and waiting approval:-

Among other things, I'm hoping to make the point that Nature speaks in many ways - from whispering snow-flakes to falling apples and roaring avalanches; etc. - what I call her many languages. She doesn't speak via mathematics (well, not very often to me). RATHER: mathematics is the grammar that governs all her languages and we must parse those languages to get at the maths -- ie, the LAWS that govern the cosmos.

Re your listed matters:

1. OK, as long as it's all consistent, no problem of course.

2-3. My point was concerning (4) where each θ-dependent x-direction contribution is non-negative?

Now you say: "It is the θ-dependent contribution to the deflection. The sign works out automatically when all terms are combined."

So which term is it that combines with the output of (4) to give the X-plus and X-minus terms, please?

And which term comes from the hemispheric models on pp.73-76 of your QSLR essay?

4. My view was just that θ = (a,b) is the norm in much of the Bell-lit. But see #1 above.

5. NB: The conventional θ = (a,b) is also in your Peres' quote on p.6.

6. "Velocity OF deflection" -- correcting my typo -- see non-typo statement in my #3; the expression was in the reply you sent me when I asked about non-negative (4).

With thanks, and best regards; Gordon Watson

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 11:34 GMT

Ed, still striving to understand your essay:

1. In conventional terms the expectation E(AB|Z) with Z = EPRB (Bell 1964) is:

E(AB|Z) = P(A⁺B⁺|Z) - P(A⁺B^-|Z) - P(A^-B⁺|Z) + P(A^-B^-|Z) = -a.b. (A)

2. But at p.7 you say: A⁺ = +1, etc., are "constraining measurement values" due to Bell that you reject.

3. So what is your probabilistic formulation for E(AB|Z), please?

4. What I mean is this: It is one thing to derive E(AB|Z) = [?] = -a.b; but for that output to be a true expectation, the intermediate [?] must be the probabilistic average over all measurement outcomes.

5. So, given your key equation (4) yields X and X' as a function of the relevant θ and θ': your probabilistic weightings must apply to a near continuum of X- and X'-outcomes built from the θ-based X and X'-direction contributions and their final modification by your theory.

6. So is this what is represented in top chart, p.7? And what then are the components in [?].

Thanks; Gordon Watson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 20:03 GMT

Gordon,

First to your point 5 in your 9:42 comment. Yes, I did miss one. The Peres reference on page 6 does refer to θ = (a,b) and not the local θ defined above. Thanks for catching that exception. I'll now address the rest of your 9:42 comment.

A good number of these essays make the point that it is a mistake to attempt to understand most physics from math. Physicists attempt to understand the physics and use math as a tool. Thus look at the physics of what's happening:

Given the dynamics of a 3-D spin vector with a 3-D velocity in a 3-D field and a 3-D gradient, one can generate some rather complex math. But physically, one sees that, in Stern-Gerlach, the deflection is caused by the force of the gradient on the magnetic moment. If the magnetic moment is aligned with the field, the force is maximum and hence the deflection is maximum. Call this deflection X and calculate that it is given by the first term in parentheses in equation (4).

If the spin is (initially) not aligned, then the force is less than maximum, and I use energy-exchange physics to calculate how much less and show it as x in equation (4). Thus to get the actual deflection you must calculate X-x. I think you'll find that this takes care of the sign you've been so worried about.

Alice's deflection then ranges from full max to full min, based on the local angle θ between her spin and her field, (a,λ).

Next, one might remark that this is the classic continuum and there is no binary splitting. If the length of the device is not sufficient to bring the magnetic moment into full alignment, then this is what is to be expected, and I believe that accounts for the neutron data I presented to Tim above.

But if the SG-device is of such strength of gradient that the moment becomes fully aligned (or anti-aligned) then the contribution from θ ceases, and the maximum force is applied to the dipole until it leaves the device, which means that the magnetic moment continues to be deflected away from the centerline, and a split develops, with separation dependent on the distance from the device to the screen; pure geometry.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (9 not shown)

Dear Edwin, I adhere to the "map" metaphor for the mathematical image of physical reality, with the evident strong simplification of the latter within a too low-dimensional map of actual mathematical tools and approaches. In order to avoid the arising contradictions, one should obviously increase the "map" dimensionality, as your analysis seems to imply too. In my own presentation here (Extended Mathematics) I describe a universal way to increase the map (dynamic) dimensionality to that of the unreduced reality, which is equivalent to resolution of all "mysteries" and "difficult" problems, as in this case one can clearly "see" the full, non-simplified image of "dynamically multivalued" reality. In particular, "quantum mysteries" are transformed into non-contradictory but complex (multivalued) dynamics of elementary particles and interactions, after which reduced visions like Bell's theorem become even senseless. This conclusion correlates with your results here, I just add a working version of "full-dimensional map".

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 19:44 GMT

Dear Andrei,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. As I noted on your thread, yours is a more general approach to the "unreduced reality" where "reduced" reality typically means models reduced to a lower dimensionality, such as 1-D or oversimplified models. But in some cases even a 1-D treatment represents progress over a 0-D current treatment. For example John Bell analyzes the scattering of a particle in an inhomogeneous field by assuming that the field is constant (thus zeroing out the gradient) and assumes that the resultant scattering continuum distribution is reduced to a binary result. A less reduced (i.e., simplified) local model of the interaction of the particle with the unreduced field produces exactly the quantum mechanical correlations that are impossible with Bell's oversimplified model.

As you say in your comment, when the complex dynamics of elementary particles and interactions is considered, Bell's theorem becomes senseless.

My best wishes for your success in your program.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. Looking through the comments on your essay I must admit to some gratitude that you kicked the hornets’ nest first ;-) EPR-Bell has subtleties associated with at least the following points:

1.Local

2.Causal

3.Deterministic

4.The correlation result itself

5.Distinction between theory and experiment

It isn’t possible to address all these in the essay character count, leaving every author who considers Bell hanging on at least one point. I address points 2-5 but am left hanging on the connection between points 1 and 2. I see that your model has the correct correlation result through meeting the JC result: correlation between two results involving S0 over a S2 spatial subspace from comes from S3. I also note that your consideration of point 5 has similarities to mine:

•Dirac eigenvalue map – over underlying-reality in my terms

•Pauli eigenvalue map – over experimental-reality in my terms

As you commented on my essay, my hidden propagator dynamics approach is more general than your specific example, but from your essay I cannot tell if your model would be an example of my general HPD result or not. So can I ask you about your position on:

1.Am I right in thinking that your point about the two eigenvalue maps can be characterised as a distinction between the true underlying physics and what is measured by experiment?

2.From the point of view that these is a distinction between underlying physics and what is being measured, the terms local, causal and deterministic become ambiguous unless it is made clear whether they are referring to the underlying physics or experimental measurements. Although the suppositions you make seem to be that your model is causal and deterministic in terms of the underlying physics, does that actually mean the correlation result is local and deterministic?

Best wishes,

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 23:20 GMT

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your well thought out comment on my essay. You're welcome re. kicking the hornets nest!

Your five points are well chosen, and, as you say, difficult to nail down in the allotted word count. You ask specifically whether the Dirac eigenvalue map, is over underlying-reality (in your terms) while the Pauli eigenvalue map is over experimental-reality.

First, the issue is covered in much more detail in Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell, which I hope you find time to look at. It is my reference (4).

The underlying reality implied by Dirac's relativistic equation is interpreted as 'spin' but, as I note, there is no exact eigenvalue equation for his 4-spinor solution. Instead, the Foldy-Wouthuysen integral transformation is imposed to produce (to any desired order in v/c) a two-component equation that can be put in one-to-one correspondence with Pauli, but does not treat spin, per se. Instead, it is a helicity eigenvalue equation with implications discussed in reference (4).

Pauli, on the other hand, is a constant-field-solution with Hamiltonian based on mu.B, which is a provisional eigenvalue, provided the field is constant; which it is not in Stern-Gerlach. To model Stern-Gerlach appropriately (which Bell does not do!) one must add the gradient term to the Hamiltonian, which does not yield the binary +/-1 eigenvalues, but instead yields a scattering continuum. Because Bell [and his legion of supporters] assume that they are measuring spin directly, and assume that Pauli's equation does apply, they force the experimental results to equal +/-1 despite that the measured scattering is clearly not a point but a continuous distribution. Thus they misinterpret the experimental reality, which is the scattering continuum, in favor of their desired result, which is the spin projection. The results of the experiment do indicate two final spin states, since, with energy exchange, the spins do either align or anti-align, whatever the initial state, but this completely discounts, in effect erases, the additional "hidden" information derived from the initial spin, which is in a random direction.

After erasing the underlying physical reality information, they cannot compute the actual correlation, and draw conclusions of non-locality from this basic mistake. I show that when the actual underlying physics [of energy exchange] is taken into account, my local model yields exactly the -a.b of quantum mechanics and of experiment.

You then ask if my causal and deterministic model in terms of the underlying physics actually means the correlation result is local and deterministic? That's a good question. I had not asked myself exactly this question, but would probably have answered yes. But I'm not sure. The inputs to the experiment are the random initial spin's, and the local outputs are causally determined. But the correlations over these outputs are still a statistical quantity, reflecting, in some manner, the random distribution of inputs. Thus, each run of 300 (a,b)-angles times 10,000 spins per angle [reflected in my results] yields the -a.b cosine shape of the curve but with the nonzero 'thickness' of the lines as shown in my figures. If instead of 3 million points I based the results on 3 billion points, the line should be much thinner. At what point does the statistical data become a cosine curve of no thickness? I don't know. In the limit that's what I would expect. Does that mean the correlation is local and deterministic? You decide.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gordon,

Above, you claim that "Your E(AB) ... being simply twice* the E(AB|classical), is unphysical."

First, you are deriving a non-local equation by including a, b, λ, and λ' in your equation. These never appear in the same place in a local solution. In my model they are calculated locally and only the numeric result is sent to the statistical module. To understand this, assume that Alice calculates [according to the energy exchange physics] the number 36. Did this come from 1x36, or 2x18, or 3x12, or 4x9, or 6x6? These are local numbers that no one but Alice knows. Similarly for Bob. So when you derive an expectation value with all of the local values in one place, as you do, you have already lost locality in favor of non-locality.

My local model only correlates the actual results, which do not contain explicit local information, but only the results of the local physics. Your analysis, both here and in your other work, always yields a non-local calculation of the correlation.

You are showing exactly the behavior to be expected when the focus shifts from physics to math. Of course the math has to be correct! Bell's math is correct, and my math is correct. It is Bell's physics where the problem lies. And it is your unwillingness to focus on physics, while worrying the math to death that is the distraction.

Do you believe that, for every experiment Bell considers, that (ignoring the actual spread) the experimental results are +1 or -1? Of course not. Instruments must be calibrated, and, in some instances, normalized.

By focusing only on math, you set X = sqrt(2) and claim my result, proportional to X-squared, is off by a factor of two. But if you bothered to think about what X is, you would see your error. X is the term calculated by dividing the field strength by the gradient, and these are not only not known exactly, but extremely difficult to measure, and vary from experiment to experiment, and this does not in any way affect the interpretation of the experiment.

So your assumption that X is constant, which supposedly leads to an error in my analysis, is a mistake you make due to ignoring the physics. A major theme of this essay contest is how math leads physicists astray. Your math is leading you astray. Please stop and think about the physics, before making more such claims.

Bell's theorem mistakenly forces the outcomes to +/-1, but he does correctly insist, per EPR, that when a = b, there is perfect correlation, -1. It should be obvious that this is possible for any gradient only if the result of the correlation calculation is normalized to fit this known data point. When I normalize the data the actual form and strength of the field and its gradient are effectively adjusted (as Bell does!) to yield the physically meaningful correlation. Your math is not physically meaningful, and in fact, by ignoring the physics and focusing on the tool, you have tricked yourself.

FQXi is to be congratulated for choosing a topic that, in many essays, focuses attention on the fact that, as Alma Ionescu says,

"Mathematical physics is only as good as physical insight."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 07:21 GMT

The Klingman Model (TKM). Problem 1: Alice's calculation.

In all Bell-tests known to me, Alice is the agent (human or robot) that freely sets the direction a of detector A. So Alice is correctly shown "out of sight" in top figure, p.6: for she (normally) has no other role to play.

However, at p.6, Alice calculates local deflection Δx_j via eqn (4): which may be written

Δx_j = X - X(1-cos(a,λ_j)) = Xcos(a,λ_j); (1A)

where X is the first term in parentheses in (4).

Given that Alice knows a: how does she make this calculation?

PS: On p.6 it says that "Bob will see initial spin λ' = -λ ...". I'm taking this to be a colloquialism and that such variables cannot be seen?

Gordon Watson: a local realist interested in the physics behind TKM.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 00:31 GMT

Gordon,

Bell states that "since the quantum mechanical wave function does not determine the result of an individual measurement, this predetermination [ i.e., a = b => -1 ] implies the possibility of a more complete specification of the state." In my local model that more complete specification is the initial spin, λ, which has dynamical significance. What is in question is the physics of this "hidden" variable which is 'hidden' from quantum mechanics. It may or may not be hidden from Alice and Bob. Whether or not it is measurable is not specified by Bell's theorem. There are several cases possible. If Alice knows the value of λ, she can compute the deflection. If she does not know λ, the deflection will still be determined by the laws of energy exchange physics, and will be the result as I have specified. In that case, in principle, Alice can recover the value of λ (or at least the value of angle (a, λ) that the spin makes with the local field) from the actual deflection, which she measures and sends to the statistical unit. Same for Bob. It is these measured values, determined by the energy exchange physics, that determine the correlation. In addition the theory can be checked by preparing a known λ and presenting it to Alice, and -λ to Bob.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 02:06 GMT

Thanks Ed; it's good to see some agreement returning between us. I hope to show that I understand the physics of your local model very well … and that some clarifying simplification is possible. Since we each proclaim ourselves to be "local realists", I suspect that we might only differ when it comes to a definition of "realism".

Now, re simplification: I would have your Alice be exactly the Alice that is discussed in Bell-tests. She simply sets a once -- ie, once for each each experimental run -- and has a snooze.

While she sleeps your "black-box" A will send each Δx_j to your module D until an experimental run of N paired-tests has been conducted (N large). Similarly Bob's box B sends each paired Δx'_j to your module D.

I accept: (i) independent of Alice and Bob, it is these paired Δs that determine the correlation; (ii) in addition your theory can be checked by preparing a known λ_j and presenting it to Alice, and a paired λ'_j to Bob.

I must run right now (so E & OE), but if you'd let me have your views on the above simplification (I believe it avoids unnecessary complications), I'm keen to move to another.

Best; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Excellent job Ed!

You definitely made your point here. I think it's absolutely true that Dirac's approach to helicity is both general and fundamental, while the expression used by Pauli is a special case. I like that you use the word provisional. The subtlety of the error you point out, and its self-concealing nature, mean that you probably have as many objections to deal with as Joy did. But you seem to be up to the challenge, and perhaps with enough of an even temper to refrain from pushing your detractors into defensive posturing.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 03:34 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much for your kind comment and your encouragement. You definitely understand the point, and you clearly also see the problem.

And of course the problem is subtle, as your brilliant use of the term "self-concealing nature" shows. Only something as "self concealing" as this would keep it hidden from physicists for 50 years. So thank you again. Your clear, clean, wise comment is most appreciated.

I read your essay today, and find that we are in even more agreement than usual. I will comment on your thread soon.

With best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 06:05 GMT

Good show!

I am glad that my insights are valuable. But your paper is deserving of kind attention.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Through forty years of monthly doses of Scientific American, I've been led to believe that Bell, supported experimentally by Aspect, had a knock down riposte to EPR, so I am very interested to see you have taken him on. I like to think I might one day put the effort into mastering the mathematics required to understand your argument technically, but in the mean time I find the idea of Bell "using the wrong map" persuasive. As you know, I am passionate about reaching beyond instrumentalism in understanding this universe of ours, and I believe you are extending into that realm. I thoroughly enjoyed your essay Edwin,

Cheers,

Rowan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 19:57 GMT

Hi Rowan,

Yes, the popular press reflects the establishment press and, based on acceptance of Bell's oversimplified model of Stern-Gerlach, no one was able to puncture Bell's logic. Thus, when Aspect derived experimental evidence that the EPR correlation actually agreed with quantum mechanical predictions, it was [falsely] interpreted to support non-locality. But there is nothing in Aspect's [or others'] experiments that "supports non-locality". All that the experiments do is prove that Bell's model does not match reality!

I argue that Bell's model does not match reality because he ignores the actual physics that occurs in a non-constant field with his oversimplified treatment of Stern-Gerlach as a constant field, thus describable by Pauli's eigenvalue map, which is the wrong map, as it is based on a Hamiltonian that is missing the key term based on the field gradient.

Thank you for reading my essay and extracting the key point.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I will respond to them on the page for that essay.

Reading your essay, I find myself in general agreement with your views about how physicists use mathematics. I agree that we can look at mathematical description or analysis of physical phenomena as a map for the phenomena. For any given aspect of the world, there are many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?

Of course, the point of interest in your essay is not this general truism, but the specific application you make of it. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient background to say anything useful about the application. I am well aware that the consensus view among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. Against this consensus, you state, “Bell simply applied the wrong map to the territory.” Since I cannot render an independent judgment on the matter, I can only wait to see how the discussion turns out. I am glad to see that your essay has received many comments. With this exchange of views, scientists who are conversant with the issues should be able to gain a better understanding of your ideas.

Best wishes for this contest and for your work.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 20:04 GMT

Hi Laurence,

Thanks for reading and extracting the essence of my essay. You are correct when you say "for any given aspect of the world, there many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?"

And of course you are correct that the consensus now among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. And, in general, he was. But in the specifics of Stern-Gerlach his "constant-field" model leads to an immediate contradiction, as a constant-field Stern-Gerlach apparatus yields zero, not ±1. This seems like the first hint. The second hint would be the actual data, shown on the iconic postcard. The third hint would be the extremely counter-intuitive concept of non-locality.

As Aspect points out in his introduction to Bell's 'Speakable…', Bell went against the conventional wisdom among physicists that "the 'founding fathers' of quantum mechanics had settled all the conceptual questions." Aspect claims Bell "helped physicists to free themselves from the belief that the conceptual understanding that had been achieved [20 years earlier] was the end of the story." How ironic that now Bell is the 'founding father' and this belief in the 'end of the story' is now 50 years old!

Thank you sincerely for your kind comments and best wishes.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Laurence Hitterdale replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Your response clarifies the situation for me. Although I cannot evaluate the details of your argument, it seems to me that you are making a point which is specific enough and clear enough that it should be possible for physicists to reach a definitive answer. Your essay has received a large number of comments, and a large number of ratings, mostly favorable in each case. These figures, and the content of the discussion, suggest that your ideas on this matter have a good chance of becoming accepted in physics. As I said, I do not have the background to be able to make an independent judgment, but the outlook does seem promising.

Best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 18:16 GMT

Dear Laurence,

Thanks for the very gracious comment. I yesterday spoke to Zeilinger, who was presenting a talk at Stanford. I noted that Bell derived and described and explained his theorem in terms of particles in Stern-Gerlach, and he concluded that "NO local model could produce the QM correlations." I asked whether, despite the fact that most experiments are done on photons, it would be significant if a local model of spin in Stern-Gerlach could produce the QM correlations. He answered, "It would be fun."

What a difference from the usual response I get from theoretical physicists! Maybe I need to spend more time with experimentalists.

Thanks again for your comment and your wishes.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Thanks for your kind comments on mine. You give a great presentation and analysis of the same truth from a slightly different viewpoint which is so logical I'd expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue. (they'll stay lost as they have the wrong map!)

I do now understand your references to...

view entire post

Edwin,

Thanks for your kind comments on mine. You give a great presentation and analysis of the same truth from a slightly different viewpoint which is so logical I'd expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue. (they'll stay lost as they have the wrong map!)

I do now understand your references to 'precession' as the result of the 'higher order' interaction effects referred in my own conception. I do also have a slight quibble as to Bells 'view', which I found a little more subtle than the (common) representation you use. Though showing the mathematical limits using the "freely adopted" assumptions of QM he firmly stated his opinion that those assumptions were, somewhere, wrong, so his theorem would be circumvented. In a way I agree with Tim Maudlin on not being a 'counterexample' to Bell's 'theorem', yet Tim is quite wrong suggesting Bell's used no assumptions! he clearly wrote otherwise.

I don't think you've read my recent joint paper with full analysis agreeing that view and deriving the Gell Mann 'quasi' classical solution, paralleling your own. A full set of Bell's quotes is given plus all flawed assumptions identified. I hope you'll comment on it.

https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglemen
t_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2

I also take the helicity question further than my last 2 essays using a physical dynamic model of 'fractal like' higher order spin states in this short video, showing it's resolving power is even more immensely broad than you expose here. http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs I hope you'll comment on that too.

If you haven't read Alan Kadin's essay yet I think you should. I still also think it's about time to address and overcome the troglodites successful 'divide and conquer' method. But that's another matter.

Well done for an excellent contribution, of far more value than will likely be seen.

Peter

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 20:10 GMT

Peter,

Thanks for reading my essay, and thank you for finding it so logical that you would "expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue." You sure got the "simply look away" part right.

You are also correct to observe that Bell's theorem is based on assumptions. And I agree that my approach does not counter his "Theorem", which is a valid mathematical treatment of his faulty assumptions. It only challenges his conclusion, that "no local model can produce quantum correlations."

I look forward to reading the link you have provided with Bell's quotes plus all flawed assumptions identified. I will comment on it after I've read it.

As I'm sure you are aware, "simply looking away" is merely a delaying action, not an effective argument. We can hope that the "drip, drip, drip" of truth and logic that year-by-year appears in FQXi essays is slowly acquiring critical mass, to the point that it will no longer be possible to "look away". But, as Thomas Erwin Phipps remarks in a comment on his thread (February 26, 2015@21:33)

"Worldwide Professors United, though not a recognized organization, nevertheless exists and knows how to close ranks in defense of the status quo. This means that progress can occur only from inside, and at a snails pace."

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment,

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.

Great essay and equally fascinating comment sequence. You evidently don’t need any help defending your ideas (and theory).

I realize how busy you are, but if you could somehow squeeze in an answer to at least some of the points that I will make here, it would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps it might clarify for...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 23:40 GMT

En Passant,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Before answering the questions in your comment, I would like to relate my reply to your essay, which only Michel Planat and Gary Simpson have so far appreciated. In your essay you note that it is not the 'number' that has significance in physics, it is the quantity of 'something' and

"The correct selection of somethings and the appropriate selection of the numeric relations among such somethings is physics."

Stern-Gerlach measures the scattering of particles, depending upon the initial spin, i.e., the spin upon entry to the device. But Bell believes that it is directly measuring only the final spin output from the device, which is (usually) in one of two states, aligned or anti-aligned. Thus, instead of using the 'actual' position measurement, which contains and reflects the physics that goes on in the device, he [mistakenly] assumes an 'idealized' measurement, and, lo and behold, he cannot make his physics model match the actual correlations. Quelle surprise, en passant!

One must select the right 'somethings' before establishing the relationships.

You further state:

"Math without consideration of whether it mirrors the outside world is always tautologic… Once it starts to speak about the world, it becomes physics. At this stage, it can be validated (or not) by experiment, which is the final arbiter of whether your physics is right."

Bell's physics, of course, is not validated by experiment, but, instead of simply stating "my model fails to produce the correct result", he decided to overthrow local realism. And the physics community went along with him and has continued to go along with him for 50 years. It is downright embarrassing at this point to be forced to go back and look at the actual physics.

I will answer your questions in the following comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 00:19 GMT

En Passant,

Your first question relates to Tim Maudlin's initial critique, stating that "enforcing the global conservation [of energy] means that the theory is not local in Bell's sense…"

That merely reflected the fact that Tim does not take any challenge to Bell [about which he has written books and papers] as worthy of serious attention, because my Energy-Exchange Theorem [proved in the essay, but with one obvious typo] is not about global energy conservation, but about local energy conservation.

The precessing particle contains local energy of configuration that does not exist once the particle is aligned with the field. Where does this energy go? The particle initially enters on a horizontal axis [say] and exits deflected up or down, with an upward or downward component of velocity [proportional to the initial spin angle] and hence with energy associated with this deflection. Where did this energy come from? I show that, by use of the standard Hamiltonian, it is easy to prove that the energy of one mode is exchanged with (or 'into') the energy of the other mode, in this case from precessional energy into deflectional energy. While this analysis is new to Bell's theorem and to Stern-Gerlach, it is well-known that molecules exchange energy between modes, for example rotational- to vibrational-modes, so I am not making up completely new physics, simply applying it where it has never been applied before.

After I explained this local conservation, Tim essentially accepted this by never mentioning global conservation again, and never claiming again that this leads to my theory being "nonlocal" in Bell's sense.

I hope the above answer clarifies your first question, but if not I'll be happy to try further.

I think I'll address your next point in the following comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 01:13 GMT

En Passant,

You next interpret Tim Maudlin's statement that my model "makes no contact with Bell's theorem" [BT] as implying that Tim thinks I should have made contact via logical argument "(rather than by actual worldly facts, albeit those are at present only via [my] model.)" This reflects the fact that, after acceptance of Bell's oversimplified "physics" as "realistic", all focus changed to the "logic", and a small industry of such "quantum logicians" has arisen, with the 1979 analysis by d'Espagnat in Scientific American having essentially established the 'rules of the game'.

You are correct, I deal "in physics" and Tim, a respected professor of philosophy and math, would seem to prefer logic dissociated from physics. This is what would appear to be behind his repeated efforts to deny that Bell actually had any classical or other physics in mind when he set out looking for an alternative and more complete picture of physics that could also yield quantum correlation predictions. There are too many examples of this to review here, but they can be found in Tim's comments above.

Stern and Gerlach measured silver atoms, but when Tim claimed that neutrons are also "binary" I searched and the only neutron data I found is not binary (in Tim's sense) but pseudo-Gaussian or triangular [it's hard to tell with only 13 data points].

If I understand your question about reclassifying each of the 13 outcomes in the binary form, you are thinking about pairs from Alice and Bob, and asking if the desired correlations would express significant physics. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the complexity of the issue, as the only neutron data is derived from a single Stern-Gerlach device, while the EPR experiment requires a 'pair' of coupled neutrons and two Stern-Gerlach devices, one for Bob, one for Alice. So EPR has never been done for neutrons, and it's not at all clear to me it's ever been done for other particles. For particles, it is much more an exercise in logic, based on Bell's Stern-Gerlach assumptions, than it is actual physics. And the physics of photons, and of photon detecting counters of the Aspect type, change so many aspects of the problem that there is no one-to-one correspondence in any meaningful way (except "logically", ignoring physics).

I do agree with you that, if Bell's theorem were accurately stated, it would state that "no local model that is constrained to binary results can reproduce quantum correlations", as stated in my last sentence on page 11 in my essay.

I would not dispute your final point, as everything about academia is political these days.

Thank you for your effort to understand and clarify these issues. It's been a pleasure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Edwin:

I want to thank you very much: first, for a generous characterization of my essay, and second, for a critical reading of my observation concerning the phenomenon of duals. With respect to the latter, let me clarify what may have been obscure in my original submission.

We know for a fact that duals are everywhere, but some of us are curious to know why is it so: Why two? And why everywhere?

In my essay, I have used a thought experiment most intuitively familiar to us as human beings, viz. vision system and the concept of figure-ground within it (and of course its inevitable shadow, the concept of nothingness). Next I have tried to go one step further: I assumed the aforementioned separation of figure and ground must have energy expenditure, which cannot be too large or too small (for the reasons given in the essay).

I am sorry if I gave the impression that the “bundle of energy” required for separation obtained in the manner described is precisely the physicists’ Planck constant, which you correctly points out needs to be in the units of (energy) x (time).

My speculative conclusion – not very original I’m afraid since I already know how Planck himself obtained his constant – is that my “bundle of energy” looks very much like the Planck constant!

Despite the analogical nature of analysis, this new perspective on Planck constant as a Mother of All Dualities can help us view:

(1) Quantum theory and its manifestations less mystically, and

(2) Mathematics and Physics as a Dual similar to many others. (Freedom-Determinism if you like: mathematics as a free creation of mind whereas physics is not complete without grounding in the results of experiments.)

Best Regards,

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 20:54 GMT

Dear Than Tin,

I believe yours is the only essay to focus on duality as an unmistakably significant aspect of logical, and analogical thought. I very much appreciated your essay, and, in another context, which I hope to write up later this year, agree with you that, in some sense the Planck constant may be considered the "Mother of All Dualities". I would encourage you to continue pursuing the approach you have taken.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

It might be helpful to readers here to repeat some of my response to you at my own essay. My argument about electromagnetic mass (in spaces of various dimensions) is somewhat complex but starts to come together for anyone with solid background who just follows along carefully. I appreciate that you are another of us, who realizes that math cannot just be glibly substituted as map for territory. There are many ways for the project to go wrong, both in terms of practical effect as well as deep questions of mind, determinism versus free action, etc.

Yes, quantum mechanics is one such area where the effort can be a morass. I read your essay awhile ago, but at this point to appreciate your basic claims and line of critique. You put a lot of effort into analyzing and teasing apart the background physics, the experimental procedure and results, and the interpretations usually provided and their weaknesses. I admit I'm not yet convinced that you are right, or if anyone can be fully correct in this difficult aspect of physics. Yet your efforts deserve credit for the amount of work you put in, and their audacity, and I see you have been rewarded here accordingly.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:03 GMT

Dear Neil Bates,

Thank you for your kind comment. As I noted on your thread I find your views generally compatible with my own, and found your treatment of dimension fascinating. I especially liked your statement

"All that math knows and can tell us in effect, is about math. When we think it is telling us something about "the world", we are just finding out about the model that we're using."

In my essay I discuss Bell's over-simplified physics model of Stern-Gerlach based on precession in a constant field, which leads to a null result; 0 not ±1. This contradiction is the basis upon which Bell builds his model, with well-known "logical" consequences. My model, of course does not lead to such a contradiction. Instead, it leads to local realism that produces the same correlation as quantum mechanics. As you indicate, the model did not fall together overnight, but the pieces do fall into place, after, as you say "teasing apart the background physics." It is a complex problem, and, as Jonathan noted above, of a "self-concealing nature", so I do not expect everyone to be convinced right off the bat. It does go against 50 years of gospel. But I am gratified by the number of people who make the effort to understand.

Thank you sincerely for your kind observations,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Mr. Klingman,

Your comment "We use our minds to connect math and physics" confirms the correctness of my essay heading Mind Over Matter. "Math arises in the physical world, not the other way around", and "the essence of math is awareness of relations and patterns," further confirm my understanding.

I suspect that your definitions, e, g, Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Entanglement, are very helpful to a "well-educated but non-specialist audience" but your reliance upon mathematical equations, symbols, graphs and other diagrams to support your arguments must leave many wondering about the distinction between tricks and truth.

The name Alexander Graham Bell rings a bell, however it isn’t until one reaches page 12 that one understands that the references to Bell in the text are to J. S. Bell or John Bell, and only after reading the Bertleman reference is one given to understand that J. S. and John refer to the same person.

I enjoyed what I understood and misunderstood what I did not enjoy! That seemingly is the crux of mathematics and the sciences generally.

Good luck with your submission,

Gary Hansen.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:09 GMT

Dear Gary Hansen,

Thanks for reading and commenting. As you note in your first paragraph, we do agree on the overview. Your second paragraph observes that my essay is rather technical and mathematical for a "well-educated but non-specialist audience". I plead guilty to that. I'm sure you are correct that many in the audience must be left wondering about the distinction between tricks and truth.

Unfortunately, the local audience of other authors, which is the one I tend to address, generally have no problem identifying Bell, as he is almost a saint in the community. But they have been tricked by Bell for 50 years, and it is necessary to become quite technical to reveal the trick. Even then, many find it hard to believe, because it has been ingrained into them that local models cannot produce quantum results. After 50 years this has become a visceral conviction, and can not be successfully addressed with a physics-lite treatment.

I'm very glad that you enjoyed what you understood. It is unfortunate that everything cannot be understood at first reading [not by me at least] but very fortunate that re-reading complex essays increases their understandability.

Thanks for plowing through my essay. It's appreciated.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

It’s a very good expression of Mathematics to map the physical states of structures, but for mapping the Mystery in the Map, I think we may have to map the beginning of the Universe, where the Mystery exists, while your argument on the exclusion of multiverse is true.

‘Spooky action at a distance’ may be interpreted differently in String-matter paradigm of Universe.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:12 GMT

Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your very clear statement about use of math to map the physical state of structures. I agree that it is best to recognize mystery at the beginning of the universe, and not in our basic theories via such a mystical ideas as "collapse of the wave function" and "non-local entanglement".

I will read your essay and respond. I'm very biased in favor of "continuum mechanics", but against "string-matter" [as I understand it] and look forward to seeing how you manage this.

Thank you for reading and responding.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I would like to now fulfill my promise that I made to discuss your theory further. I do not wish to duplicate points that you have discussed with others, and in light of the extensive discussions you have already had, there is really only one thing that strikes me about it.

It appears to me that much of the opposition you are running into is due to the fact that your...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

I would like to now fulfill my promise that I made to discuss your theory further. I do not wish to duplicate points that you have discussed with others, and in light of the extensive discussions you have already had, there is really only one thing that strikes me about it.

It appears to me that much of the opposition you are running into is due to the fact that your idea presents an answer to a question that nobody is currently asking, and that, from a strategic perspective, a more effective approach for you would be to get people to first ask the relevant question, and then present your theory as a solution.

In order for someone to seriously consider your argument, they have to first be willing to question whether the Stern-Gerlach experiment really has been misinterpreted all along for the last 90 years, which is what your assertion amounts to. But that is something that is probably only slightly less controversial than the claim that a single flip of an ordinary coin could result in many outcomes other than heads or tails. If I wanted to defend your position, I would first and foremost gather as much raw data from published SG experiments and perform statistical analyses to show that interpreting its outcomes in binary terms is a mistake. I am quite frankly astonished that you have so far only listed (as far as I can tell) the raw data from a single experiment (and, as far as I can tell, without statistical analysis), and done little more than just to assert that the outcomes of the SG experiment are not binary.

As much as I am sympathetic to non-mainstream viewpoints, I don't think you can blame mainstream physicists if they don't find this convincing. The burden for gathering the evidence is on you, and for such an established result, it is very high.

So my suggestion would be, for the moment, not to focus on promoting your theory, but on planting doubts that the SG experiment has been correctly interpreted. And to do that, you will need massive evidence. Let me be clear that, personally, I am very skeptical that this can be done, but I'd like to see any novel idea in "the marketplace of ideas" have a fair shot. If you don't do this (and under the supposition that there really was a mistaken interpretation), I think you are only depriving yourself of a fair shot.

I hope you found my suggestion useful.

Best wishes,

Armin

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 05:49 GMT

Ed,

I accept that there is merit in Armin's view: It appears to him that "much of the opposition you are running into is due to the fact that your idea presents an answer to a question that nobody is currently asking."

But I write to reinforce my own view. "Your opposition in part arises from this fact: you do not answer questions that are asked by me, a fellow local-realist...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 00:01 GMT

Dear Armin,

I regret that the thread of your well formed comment was broken by nonsense.

Thanks for returning after you've had more time to review my essay. You boil it down to opposition arising from my presenting an answer to a question no one is asking. You you are probably correct in this. The treatment of Joy Christian, for example, has certainly deterred many from asking this question. It has apparently even prevented many of the establishment from reading my essay, and certainly from commenting. In short, it is a taboo question to ask whether Bell was wrong.

You correctly observed that "in order for someone to seriously consider [my] argument, they have to first be willing to question whether the Stern-Gerlach experiment really has been misinterpreted all along for the last 90 years, which is what [my] assertion amounts to."

You suggest that I collect all the SG data and statistically analyze it to show that interpreting its outcomes and binary terms is a mistake. You make a good point. But as I have a personal subscription to Phys Rev Letters, I am not in a university environment with access to all different journals, and therefore I frequently run into pay-walls. Moreover, there is abundant evidence on other FQXi threads (JC's, specifically) that people will argue statistics until the cows come home. So while your suggestion is a good one, it seems not best for me with neither access to the data nor much competence in statistics.

I certainly agree with you that the burden of proof is on me. And as others have reminded me, great claims require great proof. In my opinion, it will be easier to conduct a new SG type experiment to explicitly test for θ-dependence than it will be to gather all data and statistically analyze it, so it is my intent to perform or have performed this specific experiment. Of course, even experiments can be and are ignored, if they go against the grain (see, e.g. Martin Tajmar).

On the other hand, I think it is incontrovertible that Bell's interpretation of Stern-Gerlach leads to a contradiction. He interprets SG as a constant field through which dipoles precess, which leads to zero deflection, while the entire content of his theory requires ±1 deflection, an obvious contradiction. And it does not take much to see that when the non-constant (gradient) term is added to the Hamiltonian, then Pauli's eigenvalue equation should be affected. These are simply issues of logic that any physicist should be able to follow, and one would think they might be caused to wonder about this aspect of Bell.

In addition it is easy to show that the local model I derive does reproduce the quantum mechanical correlations [see page 7] against all gospel, and one would think this would arouse curiosity among 'real' physicists, especially when the correlation fails if Bell's constraints are imposed.

Finally, there is matter of intuition. In this contest at least Phil Gibbs and Ken Wharton have expressed that "intuition" is a thing to be wary of. Most of us are familiar with the theory that says we evolved in a macro-sized world, and therefore our intuition – whatever it is – is simply not suited to the microworld and should not be expected to be so. But my own theory of consciousness does not view consciousness as an artifact, but more as inherent in nature, not quite panpsychism, but close, and in this view intuition is less 'scale-dependent' and more in tune with the true nature of the world, in which case the intuitive rejection of non-locality is not to be dismissed.

Nevertheless, you have put quite a bit of effort into analyzing the context in which my theory is presented, and have made quite sensible suggestions. For this I thank you sincerely. Yet, as Tom Phipps remarks, the establishment knows how to close ranks in defense of the status quo, and "this means that progress can only occur from inside, and at a snail's pace."

I am not quite as old as Tom, but I am not well suited to a 'snail's pace' at my age. Better to present the logic, the history, the analysis, the model, the results, and the interpretation that contradicts Bell and then focus on an experiment that will prove [or not] my theory.

Thank you very much for your well thought out and friendly, supportive, suggestion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Anonymous replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 00:41 GMT

Gordon

Last year, you sent me several papers for review and comment, and at that time it appeared you may have shown the mathematical basis for my physics-based Bell argument, and you have been given full credit for your relevant contributions in my QSLR paper [reference 2]. However after several months of examining that path, I became convinced that your math did not solve the Bell problem, and yours is, in fact, a non-local approach as you depend upon bringing both Alice's and Bob's remote settings into your local calculation, as does quantum mechanics. As I am only interested in a local model, this disqualifies your approach as far as I'm concerned. As to this paper, I have properly credited all the contributions and sources.

After developing my computer simulation, I realized that it is Bell's insistence on suppressing the physics by imposing the ±1 constraints that is at the root of Bell's error. As you continue to apply these constraints, your model does not resemble my model in any way, nor does it address the problem. You have a formal, non-physical, approach that yields a non-local calculation of Bell's theorem.

As witnessed on other threads, when the code from models is introduced, all physics discussion goes out the window and the topic focuses on coding. My objective is to provide enough insight into the physics that others, skilled in both physics and computing, can independently generate the same results by following the logic I lay out, without being influenced by whatever code I have used. Bell's theorem must be discussed at the level of physics. It is not a math problem, per se, nor does your mathematical approach, devoid of physics, solve Bell's problem.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your interesting Essay. I have a couple of comments:

1) I did not know Korzybski's work, thanks for pointing out it. I will take infos about.

2) Although I am not sure that the main claims of the Essay are correct, I find the work interesting and important within the debate determinism/randomness, classical/quantum physics. I find indeed the randomness of quantum mechanics to be neither completely satisfactory nor the final physical answer concerning our understanding of the world. More, the reading enjoyed me. Thus, I will give you an high score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:25 GMT

Dear Christian Corda,

Thanks for reading my essay and responding. I'm glad that you have discovered Korzybski. His 'map' and 'territory' is always a good distinction to keep in mind.

I'm even more pleased that you both enjoyed my essay and found it important in the context of the issues currently debated in physics.

The issue of Bell is far too complex to be understood and decided on the basis of one essay, so I am not surprised that most of the serious physicists who have looked at my essay remain "unsure". That is quite appropriate. What I hoped for was to introduce the idea that, whereas Bell's math and logic have been tested for 50 years, his oversimplified physics has been accepted without question, because it agrees with the 1925 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck view of 'spin' and with Pauli's simple constant-field eigenvalue equation. As Jonathan notes above, the problem has a "self-concealing nature" that must be seen through before progress can be made.

And I hoped that, by showing that a local model that takes the inhomogeneous field into account actually yields the quantum mechanical correlation unless the physics information is thrown away by enforcing [unreasonable and unrealistic] constraints, it would catch the attention of serious physicists, who might then be stimulated to wonder how this is so, and thus begin the process of looking beyond Bell's overly-simply physics model. Valid math and logic applied to a faulty model, based on faulty assumptions, produce faulty conclusions, such as "no local model can...".

Thank you very much for reading and providing very valuable feedback to me.

I wish you the best also.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eugene,

As you have mentioned in your essay :FQXi asks why math is so ‘unreasonably’ effective in fundamental physics.

The above feature extraction is based on distances obtained from these simplest math operations, and these math operations are easily constructed from physical structures ( atoms, molecules, DNA, proteins, cells, organisms, neural nets, and logic machines )...

view entire post

Dear Eugene,

As you have mentioned in your essay :FQXi asks why math is so ‘unreasonably’ effective in fundamental physics.

The above feature extraction is based on distances obtained from these simplest math operations, and these math operations are easily constructed from physical structures ( atoms, molecules, DNA, proteins, cells, organisms, neural nets, and logic machines ) that can function as gates, implementing AND and NOT logic operations, which can be combined to count to produce integers and to add to produce distance maps and then compare distance maps to get difference maps (gradients) from measurements. The nature of the process of making math maps is thus rooted in the physical universe.

Math maps imposed on the physical territory form the substance of physics."

This is because mathematical and physical structures both are creations of Vibration as my Mathematical Structure Hypothesis states. As you have mentioned that Math maps the physical territory and mathematical operators structures,but even mathematical structures are mapped by some laws of invariance.The best example evident is the Riemann Zeta function structure which lies at the boundary of mathematics and physics.It can be deciphered that even certain laws of invariance maps the mathematical structure itself. So, mathematical structures are not only maps but their intrinsic structures are also mapped by certain laws of invariance.Its not mathematics explaining physics or physics explaining mathematics rather their intrinsic laws of invariance,order,symmetry match each other and thats why even Bell's locality-at-distance is also valid for mathematical structures because they are also creations of vibration like physical reality. Bell's locality-at-distance fundamentally exists because we are so addicted to the phenomenon of causation but the truth is that Time,Space & Causations are like the glass through which Absolute is seen.In the Absolute there is neither Time,Space or Causation;which I have described.

Anyway your essay is great.

Regards,

Pankaj Mani

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT

Dear Pankaj Mani,

Thanks for your comments. We seem to agree that the math maps physical structures and that "math maps on physical territory form the substance of physics."

I will look at your essay on vibration. As I tend to a continuum-based interpretation of reality, vibration certainly plays a significant role in my physics, but I will study your essay and respond on your page. I have some difficulty envisioning Bell's non-locality as purely vibration-based, although for the photon-based experiments I do not rule this out.

Thanks for your kind words about by essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for commenting on my wall and inviting me to read your essay. I just read it, and I have some questions. I apologize if they may seem naive to you.

1. Is there a typo in your proof of the energy exchange theorem, in the box at page 4?

2. Is theta the angle made by the particle's magnetic moment with the external magnetic field? This is what I understand from page 4. Or is it the angle between a and b, the directions in which Alice and Bob measure (this is what I understand from page 6)?

3. Do the two particles share the same theta?

4. When you apply the energy exchange theorem, what are the two modes M0 and M1? Are they the particle and the magnetic field of the SG device which measures its spin? Or they are the two particles?

5. Could you show me more precisely where you derive the Bell correlations from your theory?

6. Is your theory local? If so, where exactly you explain locally the correlations?

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica (link to my essay)

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 23:09 GMT

Dear Cristi Stoica,

Thank you for reading my essay, which I know is in conflict with your current view. Thus I'm really grateful to you for making the effort. I will try to answer your questions.

1. Yes, there is a typo in my energy exchange theorem, as I note above on Mar 15, 2015 @ 00:19 GMT. My essay posted on Jan 9 and I tried to submit a corrected version on Jan 10, but the [correct] FQXi policy is to not change essays after they post. It is an obvious typo and has not seemed to throw anyone off, as it is cancelled in the same line.

2. Also, as discussed in one of the many comments above, the angle θ (with one exception) always refers to the local angle between the spin and the magnetic field in the local Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Only in the figures on page 7 [where θ is shown as the horizontal axis) does θ represent the angle between Alice's setting a and Bob's setting b, which is the angle that appears in the QM correlation, -a.b. I apologize for any confusion. In Stern-Gerlach sources the angle is usually θ = (λ,B) while in Bell sources θ = (a,b).

3. No, the particles do not show the same θ. The local θ in Alice's device is θ = (λ,a) while the local θ in Bob's device is θ = (-λ,b). Only the local θ has relevance for the local physics that leads to the non-±1 scattered deflection.

4. The energy modes M0 and M1 are local. M0 is the θ-dependent precession energy associated with configuration -λ.B that is initially not aligned but vanishes when the spin λ aligns with the local field. M1 is the θ-dependent vertical component of the kinetic energy that did not exist when the particle entered on the horizontal axis with only horizontal velocity. Thus the precession energy vanishes and the deflection energy appears locally, and the local conservation follows the Energy-Exchange theorem. And as the deflection is θ-dependent, this dependence can be seen in the measurment data, but is not present in the [incomplete] quantum mechanical formulation, hence is 'hidden'.

5. The theory [based on energy exchange] calculates a local deflection for Alice denoted by A(λ,a) where both the spin λ and the setting a are randomly generated. Similarly for Bob. These produce scattering or deflections represented by the local θ-dependent position of the particle on the detecting screen. A(λ,a) is read from Alice's screen (as calculated by the theory) and B(-λ,b) is read from Bob's screen, (also calculated by the theory.) It is these two values that are multiplied in pairwise fashion to produce the correlation. But the definition of the expectation value also contains the distribution of values AB, so, as A and B are calculated for 3,000,000 sets of random numbers, the distribution of the results is determined by computer, not from a formula, but from actual data, in a multichannel-analyzer-like analysis. This is used to compute the correlation shown on page 7. The basic formula or definition of expectation value is

< AB > = SUM [ p(AB) (AB) ]

6. Yes, my theory is local, in that critical settings a and b never appear together, unlike quantum mechanics where a and b do occur in the expectation value. Of course a goes into the calculation of A(λ,a) but it is combined into a product term and cannot be factored out, so it is not present as a in the result. [Just as, if a = 4 and λ = 9, the product term 36 implicitly contains both a and λ but they cannot be explicitly factored out.] Nor is b factorable from Bob's numeric result B(-λ,b). Thus only the [computed or measured] numbers,not containing a and b, are used, and yet, given the physics of energy exchange – based on local conservation – the correlation that results is -a.b. Mine is the only theory that is truly and provably local.

The above is a very subtle point, and if you still have questions on this point I will be happy to try to answer them.

Thank you for your best wishes, and especially thanks for taking the time to read and study what you viewed ahead of time as almost certainly a waste of time (kind of like perpetual motion).

My best wishes for you Cristi,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 18:09 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for the answers. Although you provided detailed answers to my questions, I still don't get it. I think I need more details. Could you please show me the formula by which Alice and Bob calculate A(λ,a), and what are the inputs? Then how to calculate from these the expectation value, so we can see if we get the same correlations as QM? Perhaps if you have a concrete example, that would be great. Sorry for not being able to find these myself, I also looked in your references [2,3], but I missed them.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 02:08 GMT

Dear Cristi,

I am grateful that you are making the effort to understand my theory, and will try hard to assist you. It is only people like you who can actually end up accepting my theory.

Before describing the local deflection formula, let's discuss the inputs. Alice will input a, representing the orientation of her Stern-Gerlach magnetic field axis, and Bob will input b, the orientation of his device. The spins input to each are assumed to be random, and denoted by λ for Alice and the anti-correlated spin -λ for Bob.

ALL of these parameters, a, b, and λ are generated as random unit vectors in a Bloch sphere.

As you now understand, the local angle θ = (λ,a) between the local spin and Alice's (any) local SG device initially precesses, then aligns with the field, and the energy of precession is exchanged with (converted to) a vertical component of velocity, hence kinetic energy. The vertical deflection is shown to be proportional to θ, with a contribution x = X(1-cos θ) as given in my equation (4).

Now consider that the maximum force of the gradient on the dipole occurs when the dipole is aligned with the field, and this can be shown to be X where X is the first term in parentheses in equation (4). This occurs when θ = 0. So the maximum deflection will occur if the particle enters the device aligned with the field and will be X. If the particle is initially not aligned, then the deflection will be less than maximum by the amount x (eqn 4). Thus the maximum minus the θ-dependent contribution is

X - X(1-cos θ) = X cos θ.

This is the θ-dependent deflection Bob and Alice will calculate according to my energy-exchange theory. [ Noting that Alice's angle θ = (λ,a) is different from Bob's angle θ = (-λ,b)].

This formula yields a number, essentially, X cos θ, which will be sent to the statistical unit which accepts Alice's number A(λ,a) [and similarly Bob's number B(-λ,b)] and stores them as a pair for later statistical processing. As I emphasized in my previous answer, although the number was "derived from" a and λ it does not contain a or λ and therefore Alice's a and Bob's b are never present in one place, as they are in the quantum mechanical calculation of the expectation value. Thus the model is truly local.

So Alice's A output and Bob's B output, neither of which are +1 or -1 as Bell requires, are multiplied to obtain the number AB, and we ask what is the 'average' or 'expectation value' of the ABs?

The definition of this expectation value is

< AB > = Sum [ p(AB) * (AB) ] over all i

where the sum is over all ABs. [I calculate this expectation value based on 10,000 random spins for every pair of settings a and b.]

Now the AB values are easy – they are computed by simply taking Alice's deflection reading and Bob's and multiplying the two together to obtain AB. But what is the probability distribution of these ABs? As the 10,000 spins per pair (a,b) are generated randomly, the AB values cannot be calculated by a closed form analytic formula, but they are very easily grouped into bins in the manner of multichannel analyzer measurements, and from the distribution of the numbers in the bins, a probability distribution is easily generated. This is the p(AB) for a given AB over all ABs, 10,000 per (a,b) in the case shown in figure 7. This is done for 300 different values of the angle (a,b) which is labeled θ in the figure.

To summarize: if all spins entered the SG device aligned with the local field, the gradient-based force would be maximum, and the deflections would all go to the same point on the screen, normalized to +1 or -1. This is what Bell assumes. From this simple model Bell is unable to derive quantum correlations.

But the spins do not enter aligned. They enter with a random orientation, so the deflection is not maximum, X, but is proportional to the angle between the spin and the axis, and is X cos θ. This, not +1 or -1, is the deflection A (or B) sent by Alice (or Bob) to the statistical unit. For a given pair of settings (a,b) 10,000 spins are calculated, and 10,000 numbers AB are generated, and plugged into the sum, weighted by their probability p(AB). This entirely numerical procedure produces the correlation shown, -a.b, which Bell claims to be impossible.

It is a very simple classical model, which produces the quantum correlation, based on the 'real' physics of the inhomogeneous field (i.e., nonzero gradient) instead of Bell's 'unreal' constant field model which does fail to produce the quantum correlation.

Let me thank you once again for giving my theory this much attention. I am honored.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (2 not shown)

Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 09:18 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your detailed explanations, and for taking time to guide me in your theory. You said that "the AB values cannot be calculated by a closed form analytic formula", which is something that I did not expect. Since I don't have the algorithm by which you do this, I can't say more.

On the other hand, I am thinking at a way to test your theory against standard Quantum Mechanics.

If I understand well your explanations, to calculate A(λ,a) you only need to know the angle θ = (λ,a), and to calculate B(-λ,b) you only need the angle θ' = (-λ,b). This suggests the following experiment.

Suppose that Alice is in Vienna, and Bob at MIT. Consider that Alice has a particle prepared in λ, and Bob one in -λ, which are not entangled (I understand that you don't accept entanglement). Alice chooses the vector a, and Bob the vector b. What does your theory predict? Will they obtain the same correlations -a.b? Because if they will do, this would be different from the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, and this would be an experimentum crucis. What do you think?

Thank you for your patience to explain me all these.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 04:19 GMT

Cristi,

I suspected that the lack of a closed form solution would come as a surprise. There are two aspects to this. First, bringing A(λ,a) and B(-λ,b) into one expression technically makes the solution 'non-local', as there is no physically real local situation where both a and b are known. This is a major part of the definition of the problem, i.e., Bob and Alice have free will...

view entire post

Cristi,

I suspected that the lack of a closed form solution would come as a surprise. There are two aspects to this. First, bringing A(λ,a) and B(-λ,b) into one expression technically makes the solution 'non-local', as there is no physically real local situation where both a and b are known. This is a major part of the definition of the problem, i.e., Bob and Alice have free will (~random) and do not share information about settings.

Second, since λ is inherently random, I do not believe it is possible to calculate the probability p(AB) in closed form, although I may be mistaken on this point. It is definitely not the simple 1/(4*pi) that describes the random λ weighting factor.

I believe, if one possessed very well calibrated Stern-Gerlach devices, that the experiment you propose would work. But I think an easier test is the one I describe below at 20:32 on March 17 in my reply to Alma. This involves only one particle, prepared by one SG device and fed into a second device oriented at an angle θ from the first device. The output from the second device should vary with θ as my theory suggests. This is different than quantum mechanics, as quantum mechanics cannot predict individual outputs, and different from Bell as he claims no θ-dependence exists. I intend to pursue this experiment, and I'm searching for other differences to explore and test.

Cristi thanks again for treating this theory seriously. I do not believe I have made any mistakes in logic, physics, or math, in which case Bell was simply wrong in his assumptions and therefore in his conclusions. I know I have a long way to go to convince the physics community, but it begins with being taken seriously and with discussion of the theory and potential experiments. I do not expect to convince many people that Bell is wrong with my essay. My hope is that I will convince a number of people that Bell may be wrong, based on my analysis. This would represent a very significant change from today's situation, in which Bell's [erroneous, IMO] conclusions are stated as fact.

Thanks again for your time and effort and my best wishes to you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

hide replies

Dear Edwin,

Sorry for taking so long to come back but this isn’t a facile topic. I had to read your paper a few times, revisit both Bell and SG and then go through (almost all) the comments, since I had some questions and I suspected I can find the answers there (and I did). I can say it was an interesting and exciting read so I felt motivated to put some effort into understanding...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

Sorry for taking so long to come back but this isn’t a facile topic. I had to read your paper a few times, revisit both Bell and SG and then go through (almost all) the comments, since I had some questions and I suspected I can find the answers there (and I did). I can say it was an interesting and exciting read so I felt motivated to put some effort into understanding it.

I think your writing style is both enjoyable and clear, though I’m sure that you would have been more comfortable if you had a couple of extra pages, option that was taken away by the contest rules. I think that if Scientific American or any other magazine would want to write an article for the public, they could because everything you present is a problem of logic. Surely some readers have problems with the physics because it’s difficult to imagine moving scenarios, but a short animated clip can very easily show how and why precession and deflection in magnetic fields influence where a particle lands in an experiment. When I started I wasn’t very familiar with the topic, but right now I have at least a feeling of understanding or intuition, so you shouldn’t be worried that your paper would be unclear for most readers; I know you mentioned this was a concern for you.

I will shortly outline my key take-aways to check my understanding. You are noticing that Bell starts with quantized spin so we revisit the experiment which established that. We start with a formulation of the movement of an uncharged particle through a magnetic field and show that there exists energy exchange between the particle’s precession (magnetic moment) and the deflection on the field gradient, and thus the trace of the real spin is preserved (I mean real as in 3D coordinate system of real numbers) through the position of the particle on the SG screen. So in a set of two anticorrelated particles, one shouldn’t expect to find two values of spin, but any two opposite values of spin, a more general result meaning that spin is not necessarily quantized. The usual entanglement correlation is due to conservation of the original angular momentum of the particles from source to screen. The SG quantization depends on the length (and strength?) of the field generated by the device.

What hasn't been asked before, and therefore I can ask now without asking you to revisit the same topic time and again, is about the experiment you mention close to the end. You said that theta-dependent scattering should be testable; are you referring to the Alice and Bob setup in page 6 (a spin correlated SG pair) or do you have something else in mind? If you do have something else in mind, do you develop it in another paper? I’d like to try to read it. To rephrase, what is the experiment you'd like to do if you would receive funding? Also since my understanding is that the same correlations can be obtained with a classical model, do you expect to find any difference between an experiment you might set up and a Bell experiment? I know that in your setup you can calculate the results in advance but what I mean is, will the shape on the screen be different or should the result look the same? Should the reasoning allow you to make different predictions from Bell or SG? Again, if you develop a setup anywhere else, I’d be interested to try to understand it.

Warm regards,

Alma

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Alma Ionescu replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 11:15 GMT

I realized that I forgot to ask you something. I tried to search online for new revisions of the SG experiment but for me it proved impossible to find relevant information. Upper on the page in the comments, there’s mentioning of a serial SG where particles are prepared in one spin position, then go through a second field and still end up in both the upper and the lower half plane. Do you know if that experiment has ever been performed and what’s the result? I know you did a lot of research on the topic, so I tried to find answers to my questions in the references you used in the other two papers but couldn't; there’s just too much information. If you encountered a paper that acts as a hub and points out the most known SG type experiments, can you please tell me which one is it?

I know you already have lots of comments and I’m sorry to burden you further but you made me curious and you're very nice and answer everyone.

Alma

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 16:01 GMT

Alma,

If I may interject, it is frustrating finding reference to SG experimentation and I've noticed that there is often more about deflection of electrons than there is about neutral atoms with a magnetic moment. I think in searching, one must be aware that the focus is on the typical shaping of the magnets themselves which produces an inhomogeneous field intensity, whereas uniform magnets...

view entire post

Alma,

If I may interject, it is frustrating finding reference to SG experimentation and I've noticed that there is often more about deflection of electrons than there is about neutral atoms with a magnetic moment. I think in searching, one must be aware that the focus is on the typical shaping of the magnets themselves which produces an inhomogeneous field intensity, whereas uniform magnets with flat surfaces facing each other produce a homogeneous intensity at least throughout the region bounded by the surface area of the faces.

But electron streams behave differently than do neutrons (or neutral atoms) which possess a magnetic moment, and the Quantum Mechanical standard model treats electrons as point particles because the electrical charge does not exhibit a pole. The 'negative' charge is uniformly spherical so it doesn't present a differentiated directional attitude at any time in crossing the field, it will be deflected the same amount relative only to magnetic field intensity in accord with Faraday's right hand rule. Like in a cathode ray tube. Also, science lacks a general definition of 'charge', positive and negative are merely operational definitions and though the inverse square law holds true in experimental measurement, there is no theoretical basis that limits the intensity of charge and so mathematically it goes to a singularity of infinite intensity. So it gets treated as a point particle.

"Spin" is a property of the electron point particle which has no correlation to a classical physical rotation. It is a measurement function that can be used to establish an ad hoc directional attitude in the otherwise homogeneous spherical negative charge field of the elusive electron. IF (!) there is a physical rotation experienced by an electron giving rise to a magnetic dipole moment, that magnetic moment is overwhelmed by interaction of the charge field and the directional field of the magnets. And IF (!) it exists and persists it aligns as if it were the same as the axis of the ad hoc measurement schemata, and consequently has no 'wobble' which would precess.

So electrons are not what were used in the original Stern-Gerlach experiments that John Bell referred to. S-G used neutral silver atoms which possess a magnetic dipole moment which precesses. Good Luck finding reference to S-G type laboratory studies of that sort. SG magnet arrays seem to be used primarily for electron traps. Cheers jrc

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Alma Ionescu replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 17:10 GMT

JRC,

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why you mention electrons. I explicitly mentioned uncharged particles so, worst case scenarios, I was thinking neutrinos or you haven't read my comment :)

All of my 2 questions to Edwin are genuine and I am not making any assumptions. I asked what kind of experiment would he make should he receive funding and if he can point me out some direction for further reading. I'm sure he would gladly answer the first and if he won't answer the second I guess I'll just remain curious, tough luck. I did spend a lot of time trying to understand his work (because it's very interesting) and reply to him and I am sure he does rather appreciate it. Thanks for wishing me good luck in finding SG type experiments. Cheers Alma

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Edwin,

Your thorough and well-presented technical argument is something I need to spend more time with. But the point of the essay is very interesting and probably worthy of a good deal of discussion. When I began studying mathematics I was most intrigued by, what my teachers often called, counter-intuitive results. I enjoyed the fact that a formalism of our own making could produce these kinds of surprises. There was some non-obvious thing about the relationship between mathematical thought and intuition. This relationship is even more interesting when one recognizes the crucial role mathematical intuition plays in developing mathematics. And so while I very much enjoy the way you use mathematics to bring a physical idea more in line with our intuition, I think I will be slow to accept that the counter-intuitive ideas are incorrect.

I do appreciate your comment on my essay and hope we find opportunities to continue to communicate,

Best,

Joselle

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 20:52 GMT

Dear Joselle,

Thank you for reading my essay closely. As you state in your essay,

"Statistics is not only intuitive, but part of our intuition. Biologically, the brain seems to be good at a kind of statistical calculation."

As I indicated, this is quite compatible with my own understanding of the brain and consciousness. But you state specifically that when you began studying mathematics you were most intrigued that your intuitive grasp of mathematics could lead to counter-intuitive results. Thus you think you "will be slow to accept that the counter-intuitive ideas are incorrect."

I think perhaps I should state more clearly that I am not opposed to all non-intuitive results of math and physics, only those that do violence to such powerful intuition as local realism. This is the most basic intuition of nature.

On the other hand I am thoroughly convinced that quantum physicists and other physicists are missing some fascinating physics exactly because non-linearity is non-intuitive and thus few can employ their intuition to profitably exploit non-linear phenomena. This is, perhaps, a matter of degree, but it is still significant from the aspect of physics. For an example of this, I refer you to the figure on page 4 of my 2013 FQXi essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information. The curve becomes almost 'straight up' at a certain point. This does not happen with linearity, for which our intuition is finely tuned.

So I highly value non-intuitive non-linearity and hope to extract real gold from this field. At the same time I reject non-locality for the physics reasons I describe in my essay. I hope this makes you a bit more comfortable with my approach to intuition.

Thank you sincerely for reading and communicating,

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Alma,

Thank you for the effort you have put into understanding my theory. As you note in your essay

"Mathematical physics is only as good as physical insight."

The mathematical physics surrounding Bell is primarily logic-based and is based on very simple physics that leads to a contradiction. You note in a comment that "it's easier to find a certain logical theory – one only needs a brain – than build the LHC – one needs a bit more than a brain."

Fortunately, answering the physical questions underlying my theory will not require an LHC-size expenditure of money or effort, and, from my perspective, it will have greater payback than LHC has had. The Higgs has been assumed for years, and now supposedly exists, although proving 'zero spin' should be interesting. SUSY has also been assumed for years and apparently doesn't exist. So years-long assumptions in physics do not always imply much for reality. The 50-year long assumption that "local models cannot produce QM correlations" can be overthrown by just one model that does produce QM correlations, as I have shown. But, in the spirit of FQXi, one must ask whether I have just played another mathematical trick on physicists. That is best answered by experiment, which you focus on in your comment.

As John noted, and as you had correctly qualified in your comment, Stern-Gerlach is based on uncharged particles, as the interaction of charged particles with the magnetic field is so strong as to effectively swamp the signal (deflection) from magnetic moment interactions with the field. Like me, your brain may decouple from your fingers, so that when you thought neutron, your fingers typed neutrino. I mention this because neutrons are uncharged but do possess spin and magnetic moment, the moment deriving from the charged quark constituents. Neutrinos are, as far as we know, fermions with spin but not possessing a dipole moment as they are not constructed from charged constituents. Thus neutrinos perfectly exemplify Dirac's fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation, but Pauli's provisional spin eigenvalue equation, based on the interaction of the moment with the constant field, does not apply at all. Very interesting. If that was a typo, thank you for making the typo.

Referring to the iconic postcard [p.3] it is obvious that the distribution of deflections [positions on the detector] cannot be characterized as a "point", +1 or -1. But the question is "What causes the distribution?" The assumption, for 90 years, has apparently been that variations in temperature, hence velocity, of the atoms is responsible for the data spread. Thus the key to an experiment to test θ-dependence of deflection is to 'fix' velocity, which should not be overly difficult.

If, as I assume, and as fits the facts, the spin of the particle exiting the SG-device is aligned with the field, then one can "prepare" a known spin, say 'up' in the z-direction. One must then select particles with very tightly controlled velocity and input such particles to a second Stern-Gerlach apparatus, oriented it angle θ to the z-axis, and obtain precise position measurements from the second SG-device. By varying the angle θ and comparing the deflection observed to that predicted by my theory, it should not be difficult to determine whether my theory is confirmed or not.

One assumes that, using 2015 technology, it will be possible to obtain much better results than did Stern-Gerlach in 1922. There is anecdotal evidence that it was Stern's cheap cigar whose sulfides were responsible for oxidizing the silver atoms and making them visible. We could probably do it today without the cheap cigar.

As you mention Alice and Bob, I should clarify that only one spin is needed to prove θ-dependence, whereas two (anti-correlated) spins are required for the EPR correlation test. Thus my experiment requires one SG-device to prepare the known spin, a filter to restrict velocity input to the second SG-device and a sensitive detector of position.

Alma, your bio implies that you are a non-physicist. It is fascinating to me (and very admirable) that you could work through my essay several times, and all comments above, and obtain the understanding you evidence in your comment. Contrast this with world-class experts some of whom are participating as authors in this contest who apparently will not look, let alone comment. This speaks to the social control of the established institutions, who control funding, and publications, and do not like rocking boats.

Your third paragraph in your 10:22 comment above is very well stated and proves that you clearly understand my theory. I would modify only the statement that "the spin is not necessarily quantized" [which is correct] to state that spin is a vector with magnitude and direction. The magnitude is quantized, but the direction is not. In a constant field the projection of spin on the field axis is also quantized, but this changes in an inhomogeneous field.

Your second question is the harder of the two to answer. There are very many quantum textbooks available, most of which present the classical Bell picture of precessing particles described by Pauli's eigenvalue equation and then generate the simple qubit eigenvalue equation, [see my endnotes, page 11] and go from there. In my references [2] and [4] I include more specific references. I think you might either start with my reference [2] or perhaps with, JR Stenson, 2005, “Representations for Understanding the Stern-Gerlach Effect”, thesis BYU, both of which are available online free.

Let me repeat how pleased I am that a non-professional-physicist can read my essay, understand it, summarize it in a brief paragraph, ask intelligent and relevant questions that had not been asked before, and look for further information. That has brightened my day.

My very best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 22:47 GMT

Dear Alma,

There are so many interesting questions and comments, for all of which I am grateful, that I believe I missed a key question in your Mar 17@11:15 comment.

You first look for new revisions of the SG-experiment and have not had much better luck than I in finding such. It appears that from Aspect's 1982 experiment on, most, if not all experiments have been photon-based, which is another can of worms that I have not yet analyzed, as there are very significant physical differences despite the simplistic +1 and -1 logic applied. Binary counters subsume the θ-information that is quite evident in the Stern-Gerlach position-based results.

But you also mention

"Serial SG where particles are prepared in one spin position, then go through a second field and still end up in both upper and lower half planes."

You are very astute to catch this. You ask if I know whether that experiment has been performed and what is the result?

What you are describing is the scheme invented by Richard Feynman and used to develop spin-based quantum mechanics in his 1964 Lectures in Physics, vol III. It is also used to introduce quantum mechanics in JJ Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics and more recently by John Townsend in A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics, wherein he states, on page 7 that this "modified SG device" was "introduced as a thought experiment" by Richard Feynman.

It is my belief that this is still only a "thought experiment". Moreover, Feynman often stated that the fundamental mystery of QM is captured in the "two-slit" interference experiment, and he was apparently trying to construct a spin-based analog of the two-slit interference experiment. Therefore, in my opinion, Feynman assumed that the quantum mechanical treatment of spin paralleled the two-slit quantum mechanics and proceeded to present this modified SG device as if it were true!

I have recently begun questioning this in terms of my theory, and am currently developing a simulation based on energy-exchange physics to try to model this.

I consider it entirely possible that Feynman just got carried away with his analogy and made up this physics which has been accepted as gospel for lo these 50 years. [You read it here first!] I believe it may be possible to actually perform a version of this experiment, and, although it's too early for me to be sure, I rather expect his physics to fail.

Feynman was such a genius, and so sharp-witted and sharp tongued, that I'm sure no one called him on this, as the analogy is almost perfect. But is it true? Stay tuned.

Thanks again for your exceedingly valuable questions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alma Ionescu replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 20:25 GMT

Dear Edwin,

A pleasure to read your answer! Thank you for your very kind and encouraging words :) I was just as happy as you that I was able to follow through the argument; otherwise I would have been in a delicate position when it came to commenting, haha

It’s very true that I sometimes type something else than I had in mind, and usually a word that’s similar to the one I want...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

A pleasure to read your answer! Thank you for your very kind and encouraging words :) I was just as happy as you that I was able to follow through the argument; otherwise I would have been in a delicate position when it came to commenting, haha

It’s very true that I sometimes type something else than I had in mind, and usually a word that’s similar to the one I want still in this case the neutrino was a joke; I chose it because it’s uncharged but similar to the electron in that SG doesn't work for either, (or at least not with the effect intended by the experiment because they are elementary particles) since neutrinos oscillate between flavors in magnetic fields, disoriented. If I read between the lines correctly, you’re thinking of differentiating between Dirac and Pauli spin with neutrino physics? I’m not necessarily expecting an answer here because I realize you might want to keep the idea to yourself instead of making it public before having the chance to work on it. I certainly hope to read it at some point, even if neutrino experiments are difficult to implement right now.

Thank you for describing your SG model! Is the distance between the devices important in implementing it? I mean obviously it wouldn't be a kilometer, but you probably considered an optimal distance for the setup and how it changes the expected landing spots.

“The magnitude is quantized, but the direction is not.” Thank you for the clarification, as to me it’s another confirmation that I managed to understand the theory. It’s what I had in mind when I referred quantization because it’s obvious from your treatment that it’s the direction that you discuss and not the interaction strength. I also realize that I presented SG and Alice and Bob experiments a bit like they are the same thing; in your work it’s adamant that they are not. It’s my effort to try and save space that is to blame.

“…the scheme invented by Richard Feynman and used to develop spin-based quantum mechanics…. It is my belief that this is still only a thought experiment”. That’s exactly why I asked. It wasn't clear to me (and couldn't find any reference) that the setup ever went beyond a gedankenexperiment. It would be very interesting to see it done (and to see how the local theory behaves versus the canonical one), all the more that the experiment is, as you remark, not awfully expensive and SG type experiments are such rarae aves.

Thank you for the references as well! The internet is both a blessing and a curse because there is so much information available online but so difficult to decide a place to start.

Yes, Feynman was quite the character and quite the genius and the one who said that no one understands qm. To a character such as Feynman, that must have been such a romantic idea, isn't it? A very human thing to do. Just like today's experts who, trapped between fighting for grants and raising children and achieving their yearly publication quota, raised themselves by their schools in the spirit of Kelvin's rigor, are less open to novelty than they once were.

Warm regards,

Alma

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 04:03 GMT

Dear Alma,

After I posted my last reply I re-read your comment and saw that you said "worst-case scenarios, I was thinking neutrinos…" which implies that neutrinos was not a typo. But it was too late to change my remarks. I continue to like your brand of humor.

You ask if the distance between the devices (an experimental test of my theory) is important. I don't think so. Distance traveled can amplify the apparent deflection, but I am assuming strong enough magnetic fields that this should not be needed.

I very much appreciated your bringing up Feynman's gedankenexperiment, as I am cautiously optimistic that this may be a significant difference between QM and the classical local model, and, as such, a very important test. As I noted, I will first try to simulate it.

Your final sentence correctly uses the word "trapped". Fortunately, I have been independent for long enough that I am not trapped, and therefore can afford to break taboos.

Finally, I do not expect to convince many people that Bell is wrong with my essay. My hope is that I will convince a number of people that Bell may be wrong, based on my analysis. This would represent a very significant change from today's situation, in which Bell's [erroneous, imo] conclusions are stated as fact. I believe that time and effort spent on understanding my theory will call Bell's physical assumptions into question and I have faith that once the questioning begins, the right answer will be forthcoming.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hello Edwin,

As far as the testing of Bell's theorem, you clearly have more intricate knowledge than me. I only know the old school IAAAD arguments of Bell, Bohm and Vigier etc. However, it strikes me that you are claiming the eliminating the +/- 1 eigenvalue restriction allows a local theory to explain the results of Aspect and other related experiments. This does not rule out that it may still be a non-local quantum potential that also explains the results. It may just be that Bell's inequalities are no longer able to determine whether interactions are local or non-local. I am quite prepared to believe that.

Congratulations on a very thought provoking essay.

Regards

Neal

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 02:42 GMT

Hi Neal,

Thanks for your comment on my essay. I have analyzed Bell's model extensively. Bohm's model was essentially spin-less, and his 'quantum potential' would seem to go against your position on fields. As I indicate on page 9 of my essay, it is important to keep in mind that the linear momentum |p> and the intrinsic angular momentum |s> are connected only by a tensor product, which is just a trick for keeping them operationally separate while appearing to be 'joined at the hip' into one state vector |ps>.

My position is that Bell's inequalities are meaningless, as they are derived based on a simple physical model that begins with a contradiction, and goes downhill from there. If your theory is correct, then the entire universe is "non-local" (IAAAD) so Bell is small potatoes. Else, Bell is non-local in an otherwise local universe.

Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for your response to my questions on your thread.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your patience with which you answered my questions.

You wrote "I know I have a long way to go to convince the physics community, but it begins with being taken seriously and with discussion of the theory and potential experiments."

I think you should be the one to make the effort to explain and prove your theory, and I think I know what you should do....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 03:56 GMT

Cristi,

You've been more than fair in critiquing the work that generally goes against your beliefs, which is admirable. I will respond to your points below.

1. If by "calculation of the angles" you mean "derivation of the formula", I agree. As for the hundred and 34 page reference, I wrote this after understanding the physics of energy exchange, but before I built a model and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Ed,

I had to think for a while, before I could answer the deep questions you asked on my essay page, but I finally replied briefly and I copy my reply below, as it is a self-contained unit.

JJD

Jonathan said:

You give me quite a lot to think about. I think the biggest determiner of what (Math) fundaments find expression in Physics is that structures must be consistent both internally and externally, both globally and locally. That is; a form must agree with itself, and also with the space or universe it inhabits, including any fields the space or its forms might contain.

I see self-agreement of this type and the self-similarity in fractals to be harmonious concepts. There is an internal symmetry to the star-like sunburst shapes, for example, but they conform at the periphery to the surrounding space. This reflects a similar sensibility to your comments, as what is observed from the macro scale is always an inexact symmetry, but asymptotic to an exact and ideal symmetry at the core.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Following further thoughts and the light thrown on the subject, I will be posting a follow up where I left off above.

I may also be posting on a more public forum for others to comment, but not sure about that yet.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 05:29 GMT

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

I'm glad you've returned. I will respond in-line above. -- Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

I am re-posting this entry from the general contest forum here, because my reply to Sylvain Poirier relates directly to your essay, and I speak in defense of your ideas. More broadly speaking; this also offers support to Michael Goodband's contest essay and some of the ideas expressed by J. Christian, but I felt the comment I'm replying to was overly dismissive. Briefly; he claimed that both you and Kadin are in denial because "local deterministic realism has been refuted."

Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan J. Dickau said:

There is a sensitive dependence..

Precise definitions of 'local' and 'realistic' are required, and must be applied consistently throughout, because points that are close initially or appear identical, diverge later as any line of reasoning is followed. This could allow two different conclusions, with no logical missteps, because the bounding surface is a chaotic attractor.

Did you grasp that Ed Klingman is using Dirac's criterion Sylvain, instead of Pauli's? If you accept Dirac's formula, it naturally follows that Pauli's criterion in QM has a restricted codomain - which is only reasonable if the Physics of the experimental setup demand it. This is what Edwin Klingman calls into question, and changes the outcome if all other logical steps are the same.

So while, in some limited sense, local deterministic realism has been refuted, this does not speak to all of the subtle questions raised by EPR, and only applies if we use precisely the same definition used by Bell. I do not question that you may be correct; but I am universally skeptical of claims that various principles are decisively proved or refuted, and I look for further evidence that affirms or calls these claims into question.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 05:38 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

I appreciate your comments here and on other threads. And you do it so well, with the same insight that showed when you labeled the problem 'self-concealing'.

If there has been specific argument about facts, I have missed this. Instead, I'm accused of being a "denier", which is the current approach one takes when one wishes to dismiss another's arguments. More specifically, I'm accused of denying "established truths". Of course the only relevant truths that have been established by experiment is the fact that Bell's model, on which he bases his conclusions, fails to agree with either the quantum mechanical predictions or with experimental results. Bell concludes from this that no local model can produce quantum mechanical correlations but my essay presents a local model that does just this.

No one is arguing with me about the fact that Bell assumes the precessing particle, leading to an inherent contradiction with experiment, is precessing in a constant field and produces no deflection, while the experiment is based on deflection.

Akinbo Ojo said it best when he asked for a short list of "established truths" that must not be opposed according to the particular critics "professional way of doing physics."

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I'm a little jealous that you haven't made it around to my Digital Physics movie essay yet. Don't you have the time to thoughtfully comment on every essay? :)

Also, all this talk of Bell's Inequality without mentioning Leggett's? Are you familiar with that experiment? Any thoughts on that?

Jon

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 06:47 GMT

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your lighthearted comment. When I first reviewed your essay, I did not find that much physics to remark on. But after seeing a number of your comments on other threads I decided to go back for a second look, but had not done so yet. Having quickly glanced at your essay again, let me say that I find your set of questions at the back very worthwhile. I believe it is hard for most people to ask good questions and yet a properly phrased question can lead to new insights.

I made similar movies in the 70s, so I understand your urge, but mine had only minor local success [i.e., local colleges, etc.] I wish you the best of luck with yours. It's a hard field to break into.

I have not extensively studied Leggett's inequality. I reject his two-state version for the same reasons I describe in my essay, it is physically unrealistic – at least for Stern-Gerlach experiments. And I have not analyzed photon-based experiments to the same level that I have SG experiments. I have not studied Leggett's N-state version. I believe it gets into "quantum decoherence" arguments and I am not impressed with this program. Most such arguments also depend on counterfactualism, about which I also have severe reservations. Finally, I tend to agree with Bell when he noted that the only thing impossibility proofs prove is a lack of imagination.

Did you have any reaction to my arguments in my essay?

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Mr Klingman:

You have a very impressive resume - your understanding of physics is quantum levels above mine (pun intended). But let me take the role of Simplico to your Galileo and make a few notes and ask a few questions about your essay.

We're on the same path when you say that "math is the map and the physical world is the territory." And there are many maps, some of which describe the territory very well and some (to jump to your conclusion) apply the wrong map to the territory.

I did notice your thought that "Multiverse maps point to no observed territory. Nor do string maps." I have thought this to myself as well, but these theories seem like sacred cows and that to suggest they might be incorrect seems akin to blasphemy. I glad that someone who knows a lot more about this than I do seems to believe the same thing.

Now onto your main thesis, the discussion of Bell's theorem. What I know of this theorem comes from the book "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav (1979). He summarized the theory as two particles A & B head off in different directions. If the spin of particle B, which is now far from A, is changed, then particle A also changes its' spin accordingly. And it seems to do this instantaneously (faster than light). This created quite a stir in the "New Age" community as providing evidence that everything in the Universe is connected.

So, based on this, does your theory accept or reject this ? Is there truly a communication faster than light ? And, perhaps most importantly, can we test it ?

That's my Simplico view.

Jim Baldwin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 07:15 GMT

Dear Jim,

I very much enjoyed your essay and recommend it to others. As you note there is considerable overlap in our views. You are also correct that not everyone recognizes that multiverse maps point to no observed territory, but, on the other hand, quite a number of us do. And yes, for many they are sacred cows.

I'm familiar with Zukov's book (or was in 1979) and, in short, do not require entanglement to realize that everything in the universe is connected. The gravitational field, for example, connects everything in the universe. But as far "instantaneous" connection, as implied by entanglement, my theory rejects this. If you view the figure at the bottom of page 6 in my essay, the difference between Bell's local model [the straight line] and quantum mechanics and experimental results [the cosine curve] is shaded. It is the shaded area that represents 'entanglement'. Bell concluded [based on the failure of his own oversimplified local model] that no local model could produce the cosine curve [mine does, see page 7]. Thus there had to be "something" to explain reality [i.e., the cosine correlation] so entanglement was invented. If my local model produces the cosine curve [it does] then the shaded area vanishes and there is no need for entanglement. I have not yet analyzed photon-based experiments sufficiently to draw the same conclusion, but I expect that will be the case.

The issue of "communication faster than light" in terms of entanglement, is a little more complex, and people argue over the exact meaning of 'communication', but my theory rejects entanglement in the Bell sense, at least where it relates to Stern-Gerlach experiments.

Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for entering your excellent essay in the contest.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin, your essay is excellent and very stimulating to read - it offers a fascinating approach to Bell's theorem and to reclaiming the intuition of locality. I really liked how you gave a fresh analysis while covering all the technical background very informatively. It reminds me in many ways of the style in your other essays and comments. My essay also addresses intuition and "changing the map" via different representations. Also, I discuss how non-locality can instead be understood as the physical manifestation of superposition expressed through alternate universes and invoked from a self-referential operation, and I back this up technically. Your focus was a little different, and I like your take on expanding what otherwise was considered to be restraints in measurement theory - your ideas are very inspiring.

Thoroughly a great contribution to the forum and I rated this very highly, the top. Please take a moment to check out my essay and to rate it as well.

Thanks, Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 18:26 GMT

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your very kind remarks on my essay.

I very much enjoyed your essay. While ordinarily I tend to think of coordinates as simply a labeling convention, your discussion of inertia and the fact that "Any mathematical representation still depends on physical assumptions, and changing the mathematical representation changes the physical explanation we use." And, per gravity, changing the physical assumptions changes the mathematical representation of space-time.

This perspective certainly applies to Bell's theorem. When one changes the physical assumption from "precession in a constant field" to "scattering in a non-constant field" the representation changes from Pauli's provisional binary map to a continuum-based scattering spectrum, with consequent changes in correlation.

Your treatment of computation is excellent, beginning with "every finitely realizable physical system can be perfectly simulated by a … computing machine…" My Automatic Theory of Physics explores this point and [page 10 in my essay] I show how the automaton's 'next-state-address' corresponds to the physics 'potential' by linking the canonical automaton to Feynman's QFT kernel.

Your explanation that undecidability of self-referential statements can be traced to endless loops that destroy causality is excellent. Your further discussion of half pulses, not gates, and your insights for future research are fascinating. Thank you for your essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Alan/Edwin,

I am sorry to “borrow” your respective essay pages to make the following points (and I sincerely hope it does not affect your ratings adversely).

Mathematics is our investigation into our own brains (codified in the language of mathematics). It requires great creativity for it to be fruitful. Physics, then, would be the attempt to express (explain) in a “language” (usually mathematics) how things behave in the universe.

Let’s not forget that the referents of “mathematics” and “physics” did not exist prior to human existence. We get to define what those terms mean.

Much is being made of the success of mathematics (being taken to its logical conclusions) in “predicting” certain results that are later confirmed by experiments (or aligned with physics theory). This should not be a surprise. It is not mathematics alone that derived the said conclusions. The terms (i.e. qualities) at first established to have mathematically valid relationships are just “rehashed” (using mathematics) into new physical relationships. Those physical relationships existed prior to that, and the mathematical “machinations” simply converted the already known relationships into ones that existed in physics, but had not yet been expressed in their new form.

I am only writing this for those who can understand it. Please don’t ask me to explain it.

You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without “end”) will work in the long run.

Soon, our garden will melt, and I will be busy interacting with the universe “first hand.”

En

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 02:01 GMT

Dear En Passant,

You make a very interesting observation:

"You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without “end”) will work in the long run."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

En Passant replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 00:27 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Considering your response to my comment, I will “improve” upon my comment.

If the universe was not what we ordinarily call deterministic, it would have disappeared by now.

I am sure this will invite many contrary opinions.

En

report post as inappropriate

En,

That sounds true to me but I don't think you can prove it. Wait, where have I heard that before?

Best Regards,

Gary Suimpson

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dr. Klingman--

A truly excellent essay! Congratulations. I have always loved Korzybski's dictum, "The map is not the territory". I think that you applied it perfectly to the question of the relation between physics and math. Maps are merely tools to aid in our navigation of the terrain. Just so, math is a tool to aid in the navigation of our physical world. In terms of the Big Picture, I align with you.

As to the issue of Bell's Theorem, I confess that your grasp of quantum mechanics (QM) far exceeds mine. So, permit me to ask the proverbial stupid questions: How does your energy exchange model handle space-like entanglement situations? Do space-like correlations entail more-or-less instantaneous exchanges of energy? If so, how does that work, especially with respect to Special Relativity?

I suspect that you have already answered these types of question someplace in your ~300 posts and threads (which has to be some sort of record and leaves me overwhelmed!). If so, just point me to the right thread and I'll take it from there.

Once again, a great essay. I really liked you diagrams, too.

Best regards,

Bill.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 19:28 GMT

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your very positive comments. I'm glad you enjoyed my essay as much as I did yours.

As I understand your question, you are interpreting energy-exchange as a global phenomena between remote particles. Instead, it is a local exchange between two modes of the particle: the precession-mode (rotational) energy and the deflection-mode (linear) kinetic energy. [Think of molecules that exchange energy between their own vibrational and rotational energy modes.] As the dipole moment aligns with the field, the precession energy vanishes, while the particle is accelerated up (or down) and this component of kinetic energy increases. This exchange of energy correlates with the output of the Stern-Gerlach experiment; the particle is scattered in an inhomogeneous field. So there is no energy exchange between remote particles, only between modes of each local particle. The amount of energy exchange depends upon the initial spin direction, i.e., upon the angle θ between local spin and local field, hence the output position is θ-dependent. Bell suppresses and does not consider this θ-dependent physics.

As a result of the θ-dependent physics, the position of the scattered particles varies, and is not +1 or -1 as Bell insists. Thus the correlation between Alice's and Bob's outputs does not yield Bell's straight line, but instead yields the cosine curve -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics and found by experiment.

Entanglement was invented to explain the difference between Bell's local model and reality (the end-to-end correlation). But my local model does not differ from the real correlation, hence there is no need to either invent or invoke entanglement. Therefore, local energy-exchange between local particle modes and the lack of entanglement for my local model means that there is no 'instantaneous' global (end-to-end) exchange of anything, hence no need for entanglement, hence no special relativity issues.

The remainder of my essay examines why Bell ignored this θ-physics, and I concluded that, by assuming a precessing particle in a constant field instead of a particle scattered by a non-constant field, he applied the wrong (Pauli's provisional) eigenvalue 'map' to the physics problem. It's complex, and as Jonathan Dickau remarks, a "self-concealing" problem. So most of the analysis of Bell's theorem for 50 years has focused on probability, math, logic, and counterfactualism, and simply accepted that Bell's 'constant field approximation' was correct. But it is not appropriate, and thus one should not draw such hugely non-intuitive conclusions as 'non-locality' from an inappropriate approximation.

Thanks for putting the effort into understanding a complex essay. [It's not as if your own essay was simple!]

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

William T. Parsons replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 16:46 GMT

Hi Dr. Klingman--

Yes, you correctly interpreted my question. Thank you for taking the time to provide an answer. It was very clear. I wish you all the best.

Bill.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 02:43 GMT

Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I have responded as you asked on your essay page.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

EEK,

Well researched worthy of scientific publication. Addresses a thorn in everyone's side i.e. non-locality.

- You integrated well a few FQXI questions in the body of your discourse.

- My take on bell's experiment; Once one addresses a single photon polarization, this polarization becomes a quantum number which, under the constraint of the analyzer (measurement) must assume only discrete values: 0 or 90 degrees... Other values are to be rounded off to these two values... My understanding of QM.

very good job,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 03:04 GMT

Dear Marcel,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting so graciously. As you imply, most Bell-type experiments are performed with photons, which I've not yet analyzed in equivalent detail. But Bell's basic model was based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment on particles in a magnetic field, and all references that I've seen in the literature state that "no local model" can yield the quantum correlation. Thus, while I've not yet analyzed photon experiments, I have shown that the general statement about local realism in the physics literature is incorrect. One might hope this would cause physicists to ask why they have been wrong for 50 years about particles, and perhaps not be so absolutely certain about photon-based experiments. That doesn't seem to be happening.

I still consider your essay on the logic of the substantial universe to be one of the best ever.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 19:37 GMT

Dear Doc,

I'm taking a bit of a break, I have a low saturation point, but look in on a few things. Analysis of Aspect type 'photon' experiments opens the classical vs. Quantum can of worms, and either way is structured on the premise that the Planck quanta is indivisibly a fundamental energy action quantity, and a lot of times theoretically taken only as the energy term instead of erg...

view entire post

Dear Doc,

I'm taking a bit of a break, I have a low saturation point, but look in on a few things. Analysis of Aspect type 'photon' experiments opens the classical vs. Quantum can of worms, and either way is structured on the premise that the Planck quanta is indivisibly a fundamental energy action quantity, and a lot of times theoretically taken only as the energy term instead of erg sec.

Constantinos Ragazas presents strong arguments to support the case that the 'quanta' itself is in reality an empirical experimentally derived; least observable average. I haven't digested it enough to comment ontologically, but at present think it must go to co-incidence of the hyberbolic function Minkowski identified with Lorentz and the parabolic function of the natural exponential function, which is observed when the EM wave is 'stopped' in an absorption event with a relative rest entity in the atomic structure on a detection device. His conclusions are quite disruptive of both Classical and Quantum, because he shows that it is the rapidity trigometrically in any wave that distinguishes the frequency in a continuous flow of energy and that a range of energy content can be carried in any given frequency, which averaged over is what theoretically we ascribe to a 'photon' experimentally.

So without a rational waveform that we can differentiate as a single wave of specific energy/frequency, and without reliance on the 'quanta' as a matter of expedience lacking source rationale, as we now do with the post hoc/proctor hoc assumption of the quantum leap, Aspect experiments have to be treated with a skepticism you'd find in any towny bar. It's a trick bulb. Now, cutting a deck to pull an Ace, IS simple physics!

If you have time, you (and others) might like to take a look at a Master's Thesis on Rubidium experiments, cited by Steven Sax, by Amir Waxman which can be found at: http://www.bgu.ac.il/atomchip/Theses/Amir_Waxman_MSc_2007.pd
f

What is found is that staged half-pulses of laser light produce a discretized photon result in the target Rubidium atom. But what may be of interest in your arguments and to distinguish measure systems between Q & C, is that in their protocols the Waxman group specifies 'free precession' but which in the co-ordinate system called 'spin', the axis of precession intersects with the intersection origin of the orthogonal. That does not allow +1,-1 antipodes on the sphere surface to float as is observable in free precession of the wobble of the N&S magnetic poles of the earth, which tracks an ideal axis that does not intersect 'dead sphere center'. Natural precession in a particle can not be constrained to a hypothetical symmetry of an abstract measurement scheme.

The sun just came out, I'm going to do some messy yard work so I can focus on something that doesn't need much, and so I won't get in the way of what's floating around in my head. I need the well-being of being physical, too. best-jrc

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 23:36 GMT

Dear jrc,

I agree that Aspect opens a can of worms, and the θ-dependence that is visible in the SG deflection measurement is subsumed in the "binary" photon count. Which means it will be even harder to convince Bell's followers that the model is oversimplified.

As for Constantinos Ragazas' treatment of Planck's constant, I too am very impressed, but I too am unsure of its ontological implications. In my view of physics, the basic quantum is that of action (energy x time) and this is a very basic ontology, not a mathematical theorem. I haven't sorted these issues out to my own satisfaction.

I have tried to interpret the "staged half pulses" and have not found the descriptions sufficient for this. Perhaps the 87 page thesis you linked to will explain it better. I'll also try understand your comments on 'precession'. I'm actually working on precession now with regard to Stern-Gerlach models and energy exchange, in order to better define the experiment to test my theory.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman,

Your essay does a good job addressing the subject and of suggesting experiments that could contradict Bell’s theorem. There is ample reason to question the long standing reign of Bell’s conclusion. I do have a question which I will post in responce to your comments on my essay.

Sherman Jenkins

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 23:05 GMT

Dear Sherman Jenkins,

Thank you for reading my essay and responding as you have. I have responded further on your essay page.

My best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your kind comment in my blog.

I always enjoy reading your erudite essays that combine humanity and science. Yes, we do have similar worldview that I think is simply logical, rational and shockingly simple. I agree with you that reality is a brute force one cannot ignore: you put it bluntly: "The physical world does exist, as anyone can prove by jumping from a high place." Another I also believe in: "Specifically, what should we do when map logic conflicts with our physical intuition? I believe that the physical world can be trusted."

I know community find my essay is too abstracts with many Chinese, Shakespearian and Greek philosophy that difficult to understand but actually it is so simple based on reality as it is like yours. I believe in nature is infinite, thus, everything is paradoxically true like both local and non-local communications and events of nature. I describes this phenomena in KQID. Therefore, your conclusion that Bell's non-local entanglement could be explained also in local causality make sense to me. I believe this is correct. You have done great work and path a new insight of nature as it is.

Let us work together to make our world a better place for all, including aliens, cyborgs and self-conscious robots and androids. I would like to visit your Caligornia sunny hut and together every morning we declare: we are in paradise! I voted your piece the highest score possible and good luck my friend.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 20:48 GMT

Dear Leo,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your gracious comments. I agree that we share what is essentially a simple view of physical reality, as both real and trustworthy. Your essays always celebrate the infinite goodness of this marvelous world with classic wisdom and with modern concepts, which sometimes makes it hard to grasp the specifics of your ideas in a short essay, but the overall idea is quite easy to grasp. We live in Paradise.

My warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

It is nice that Edwin Klingman confirms Bell's theorem: when, in his local hidden variables model, he forces a reduction of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) to binary (+/-1) he sees correlations which satisfy Bell's theorem bounds.

I think he should take a look at the state-of-the-art experiments done with photons. Where the outcomes certainly are binary: a detector either clicks in some time...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 21:02 GMT

Dear Richard Gill,

Thanks for your comments. It's good to hear from you. You are quite knowledgeable about Bell's theorem, and you have grasped a major point of my approach, which is that my theory does confirm Bell's theorem that quantum correlations cannot be matched when Bell constrains the outputs A(a,λ) and B(b,-λ) to ±1 .

My further point is that this mathematical restriction is non-physical, based on Bell's oversimplified model, at least in the case of Stern-Gerlach-based experiments.

Of course you are correct to observe that I should also analyze photon-based experiments, which I hope to do in the future. I am currently attempting to model my proposed SG-experiment and I'm working with others to perform the experiment.

Thank you for including the links to the Christiansen and Giustina experiments, with a brief overview of these. I'll check them out.

I also appreciate your comments on the last 50 years of Bell's experiments and I agree with you that it is likely that a new experimental era of Bell's experiments will make a lot of the discussion of the last 50 years superfluous.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Richard Gill replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 11:59 GMT

Thanks Edwin for the appreciation.

Bell's theorem (the inequality part) is mathematically speaking a complete triviality. Hence (of course, IMHO) your model confirms that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. Yes. The theorem is about binary outputs.

Some people identify "Bell's theorem" with a metaphysical statement about non-locality of QM. For...

view entire post

Thanks Edwin for the appreciation.

Bell's theorem (the inequality part) is mathematically speaking a complete triviality. Hence (of course, IMHO) your model confirms that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. Yes. The theorem is about binary outputs.

Some people identify "Bell's theorem" with a metaphysical statement about non-locality of QM. For sure, I believe that the metaphysical consequences are the astounding thing. But, depending on your inclinations, there are a lot of rather different conclusions which can be drawn. The theorem does not, in my opinion, show that QM is non-local. Non-classical, yes; but non-local, no.

A present day conventional statement of Bell's theorem (the metaphysical one) would be that quantum mechanics is incompatible with locality + realism + no-conspiracy. So if you want to keep QM you still have a choice of three items, (at least) one of which must be rejected. Personally I prefer to reject "realism" which is actually a misnomer - it's a rather idealist standpoint.

Bell points out in his wonderful Bertlmann's socks paper that there are four possible metaphysical stances or positions to take on those consequences. One of them, which he matches to Bohr, is "so what?". Or even "I told you so". That's the one which corresponds to rejecting realism. Bell himself tended to reject locality. He had no sympathy at all with conspiracy (super-determinism). Then it could also be the case that QM is wrong! (That makes four.)

Later Bell admitted that there was a fifth position possible: that the definitive experiment can never be done, because quantum mechanics itself prevents one from creating the required initial conditions. How to create a quantum state of two subsystems far apart, well localised in time and space, which one can moreover measure rapidly and close to ideally.

They've been trying for 50 years, getting close now, but there's still quite a way to go ...

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 01:04 GMT

Richard,

I'd like to address several of your points:

a.) The essential triviality of Bell's inequality, based on binary outcomes.

b.) The metaphysical implications: realism, locality, logic (or conspiracy).

c.) The meaning of your fifth case, "that QM is wrong?"

To avoid a very long comment, I will limit this comment to a.).

I certainly agree that (the inequality part) of Bell's theorem is, mathematically speaking, a complete triviality. And, as you note, my local model of spin in a non-constant field shows that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. As Tim Maudlin repeats above in many different ways, "the theorem is about binary outputs."

The question (to a physicist) is what is the relevance of the theorem about binary outputs to physics? The implication seems to be that QM predicts ±1 and that the QM correlation agrees with experiment. Is that true?

My interpretation of Bell's model is that he applies the wrong quantum mechanical map, Pauli's equation, which is applicable only to a constant magnetic field. The correct QM map would include the deflection energy in the Hamiltonian and would produce a split continuous spectrum of outputs (as observed in Stern-Gerlach), not a binary output. My local model does produce this continuum, and the values are correlated as both QM and experiment imply.

The first objection to this might be simply that "the binary model of QM works!" But is that a consequence, or is in an obvious coincidence?

The question is whether the 'binary' (±1) nature of Bell's (mis-)interpretation of Pauli has anything to do with the correlation? I believe it does not.

Where, in the QM singlet-based expectation value (see eqn (1) in my essay) does the binary nature exhibit itself? One might claim, and even believe, that the sigma-dot-a and sigma-dot-b must be ±1, but the same correlation is obtained from measurements yielding the X cos(θ) values that my model produces.

Discussion of Bell's theorem seems to assume a quantum mechanical 'calculation' based on actual measurement values (assumed identically equal to eigenvalues.) But that is not how the calculation is performed. Instead, the formal QM expression is written down [see the singlet eqn (1)] and the formalism assumes that the correct eigenvalues are being measured. Then, the usual approach to calculating the expectation value [see Peres, page 162 or JJ Sakurai, page 165] is based on an identity that is essentially a geometric relation, independent of the values of a or b or sigma-dot-a, etc.

What is often forgotten is that (per MJW Hall) Bell's theorem includes the physical requirement of perfect anti-correlation when a = b. This implies normalization, since the -1 correlation must obtain, whatever the actual energy eigenvalues. [In fact the 'numbers' are E = ±hw/2, not ±1. I.e., normalization is built-in.]

I think that it is difficult, on a physical basis, to prove that the expectation value -a.b derives from the binary nature of the Stern-Gerlach measurement. And, having briefly looked at the links you provided above, it is also difficult for me to relate the rules:

'+1' stands for "one or more detector clicks",

'-1' stands for "no detector clicks",

to any underlying physics, whatever the statistical significance.

But, as I have noted, I have yet to perform an equivalent analysis of photon physics [equivalent to my SG-analysis]. On the other hand, Bell's derivation, description, and explanation of his model is primarily in terms of Stern-Gerlach, so I don't think SG can be just 'written-off' as some seem inclined to do.

Thanks again for your observations,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I don't doubt your conclusion that "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem". But I partly disagree with your map/territory analogy, and I disagree with what you say about numbers. (However, I'm glad we both seem to agree that consciousness is fundamental and physically real, and that there is no...

view entire post

Dear Edwin,

I don't doubt your conclusion that "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem". But I partly disagree with your map/territory analogy, and I disagree with what you say about numbers. (However, I'm glad we both seem to agree that consciousness is fundamental and physically real, and that there is no platonic realm!).

You say that math maps cannot necessarily be trusted, that math maps are "imposed on the physical territory", and that "the physical world can be trusted" to verify or disprove the math maps. Seemingly, your implication is that the nature of the underlying physical world black-box can't ultimately be known. This is what I would dispute - because we ARE reality, we are not separate from reality.

So I contend that every math map is actually somewhat like the territory. I'm not referring to particular mathematical equations, but to the general form of mathematical equations. They are always about 2 basic things: variables/parameters/categories, and relationships between variables/parameters/categories. It's no accident: we ARE reality, and we subjectively experience reality as having this type of fundamental structure. I contend that we can trust that fundamental physical reality has this general TYPE of structure: (what might be described as) categories and relationships.

The other comment I would make is about numbers and counting. I see counting (of things) as being an inherently complex many-step procedure which involves sophisticated comparisons and distinctions of things that are being counted and included versus things that are not being counted or included. Using our sophisticated comparison and distinction abilities, and using our sophisticated knowledge of the properties of materials, we are able to set up machines (e.g. computers) to represent numbers, and to represent counting.

I consider that the apprehension of reality always occurs at a granular, subjective level, rather than at an overall, universe-wide level. So I assume that both counting and computer-like representations are far too sophisticated to be occurring at the foundations of reality (i.e. at the particle level). I consider that there must be maximal simplicity at the foundations of reality, and that the subjective apprehension of categories and relationships is about as basic as you can get. Another issue is that categories of reality like mass cannot be represented by the "counting numbers".

Best wishes,

Lorraine

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 01:46 GMT

Dear Lorraine,

As you rightly note, we agree on the big things, and the small things will work themselves out.

From my imposition of mathematical 'maps' on physical 'territory', and my trust in the physical world to tell us (in essence, by answering our experimental questions) which maps are valid and which are not, you seem to conclude that I imply that the nature of the underlying physical world cannot be known.

As a physicist, developing theories to communicate models of reality to others, that is probably a reasonable conclusion. But as a living individual with consciousness, experience, and intuition, I have a personal understanding of the underlying nature of reality. One of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, said that, in essence,

"More can be known than can be proved."

I generally agree with your third paragraph. As for numbers and counting, I believe you are looking at a level above the actual physical phenomena that counters "do". As I understand biology, there are number of "counting" operations that occur at the protein level. And silicon counting chips are really quite simple, despite that they did not evolve but were designed by complex consciousness. But I think your last paragraph conveys what you're trying to say here. I did not mean to imply that individual fundamental particles count. But I don't think that many particles must be put together before a primitive count, applicable to local circumstances, can occur. The more generalized counting, as performed in computers and brains are of course very high level, as you insist.

Thanks very much for reading my essay and for giving me these comments.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Thank you for the well-written and interesting essay.

In Einstein relativity, an object must be local, meaning a particle cannot be at one location one moment and a different location the next moment going faster than light in the process. Quantum mechanics is non-local, meaning a particle can be anywhere in its associated matter wave (some locations are more likely than others). Bell’s inequality shows that (if quantum mechanics is correct) a local unknown variable cannot exist. Some non-local variable can exist and stay true to Bell’s inequality. Some feel that is non-local variable in the form of entanglement could be instantaneous. Although instant communication is not disallowed by Bell’s inequality it is not require by the inequality, instant communication does violate relativity and has not been found experientially.

All the best,

Jeff Schmitz

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 20:58 GMT

Jeff,

Thank-you. That is the most comprehensible concise statement I've read about the Bell controversy. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 22:04 GMT

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your thoughtful comment. I agree with your statement about relativity being local. The question of the non-locality of quantum mechanics is less clear and would appear to be interpretation-dependent. A key question is whether the wave function is ontological or epistemological, which, according to my endnotes quotation from Matt Leifer, is currently not known. My own opinion is that the wave function is ontological, and further, is induced by the linear momentum of the particle, |p> providing both real particle-and-wave aspects, as opposed to particle-or-wave. In this perspective, although the actual location of the particle may be known (quantum mechanically) only probabilistically, it is in reality relatively local. My picture is 'Bohm-like' but is not identical to Bohm's.

Of significance in this picture of a local particle-plus-wave is the particle's spin |s>. As I point out on page 9 of my essay the standard QM wave function |ps> is actually a tensor product |ps> = |p> x |s> which is a mathematical trick to keep these separate entities joined-at-the-hip while making sure that the mathematical operations on the entities remain separate. Although the same quantum formalism is applied to linear momentum |p>, and intrinsic angular momentum, |s>, I do not perceive spin as inducing the deBroglie-like "matter-wave". Much of the weirdness of quantum mechanics is actually associated with the treatment of spin 'as-if' it also had an associated matter wave.

In other words, I view quantum mechanics as a powerful statistical theory of real particles, not an essentially mathematical, almost non-physical, and rather mystical phenomenon. I agree with jrc that you have concisely summarized the prevailing perspective on QM. If, as I propose in my essay, Bell's model is actually oversimplified, then it is not clear what physical significance Bell's theorem actually has. Of course until I can treat the case of photons, most physicists seem reluctant to doubt Bell. As you noted in your response to my comment on your page, "a useful model is a wonderful thing".

All the best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am doubly glad that you did vote, because I had read your essay early on, and neglected to rate it, so I am happy to do that now that you brought it to my attention..

I just couldn't think of what more to say. Though our mathematical methods differ widely, there are many physical principles on which we agree.

All best in the competition,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Many thanks for the encouragement. I see that part of your voting strategy is to vote late. You are a wise man:-)

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you very much. Not just do the 315 postings concerning your essay so far clearly demonstrate the by far dominating interest in your essay. I also appreciate the very numerous and utterly helpful comments on essays by other contestants. Here you did not just address the essence quickly and precisely. You even decided to read some essays again after a while and provide an even more expert judgment.

I see you the uncrowned king of the contest.

All the best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I don't know if a post after the conclusion of the contest will reach you, but I am hoping it will.

In retrospect, your essay was the most substantive for me because it dealt with quantum entanglement. I have a speculation about the role of dual reference frames in reference to entanglement. Might you care to read it? It is posted on ResearchGate as Entropy, Dimension, Reference Frames. I would be interested in your views because your article seemed to be skeptical about the 1982 experiment in a learned way, and because some of your comments in the article seem to resonate with ideas in the RG article I posted.

Best wishes

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate