Dear Alan Kadin,

Thank you for entering your first-class essay in this is contest. I am in full agreement with almost everything you say. Most particularly with your emphasis on nonlinearity, typically masked by Hilbert space linearity.

You focus on replacing the QM physically unreal linearly polarized (LP) superposition of R and L wave functions for a photon, with...

view entire post

Dear Alan Kadin,

Thank you for entering your first-class essay in this is contest. I am in full agreement with almost everything you say. Most particularly with your emphasis on nonlinearity, typically masked by Hilbert space linearity.

You focus on replacing the QM physically unreal linearly polarized (LP) superposition of R and L wave functions for a photon, with physically real circularly polarized (CP) photons. The analog for particles is the superposition of 'spin up' and "spin down' states with striking formal resemblance to the QM LP model of the photon.

A nonlinear internal circulation of flow within the local field that is sustained and has the approximate behavior of a (non-point) local peak intensity can, FAPP, be conceived of as a 'particle' (or at least a dipole) in the localized wave. This intrinsic spin of the local particle then has more the character of the CP photon, and does not require a local B field for its definition, although a local B field will cause the spin to align or anti-align with the field, as per Stern-Gerlach, and as per your treatment in figure 7.

In my essay I begin by showing how counting-based measurement leads to Hilbert-space-like feature representation, and conservation of these features yield eigenvalue equations. This, as you note, has led to a fascination with the (admittedly fascinating!) math, at the expense of physical realism.

I then focus on Bell's theorem and a local physical model of magnetic dipoles that yields exactly the same results as quantum mechanics and as experiment. This, of course, is what Bell claims to be impossible. I suggest that Bell was confused and mis-identified Pauli's provisional precession eigenvalue equation with Dirac's fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation with the result that he (mis-)interpreted the SG scattering, an indirect measure of spin, as spin itself, thus requiring only two possible outcomes, an obvious conflict with the observed scattered distribution. Bell's constraint guarantees that no local model will work, but is a meaningless quantum mechanical artifact, as you say.

I hope you read my essay and I look forward to your comments. I find your essay a marvelous contribution to this contest.

In particular, in your figure 7 you state that "each spin will rotate into alignment with measurement field". This represents a decrease in precession-based energy and a corresponding increase in the deflectional energy. I've solved this energy problem and show that it yields measurements of deflection that violate Bell's theorem, supposedly impossible. Bell's imposition of constraints on these measurements, based on his oversimplification of the physics (he assumes precession remains unchanged) is not a basic part of quantum mechanics, but has nevertheless been used to banish the most fundamental reality: local realism. As you note, this admonition has become virtually religious dogma, and must change if physics is to advance.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

Your essay was quite refreshing after a lot of dull essays. Your argument that quantum mechanics constitutes a mechanism for real continuous fields to behave as discrete particles is interesting and important. We can view it as micro manifestation of macro systems or particles within particles like the different internal systems including bacteria in our body or fish and other...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Your essay was quite refreshing after a lot of dull essays. Your argument that quantum mechanics constitutes a mechanism for real continuous fields to behave as discrete particles is interesting and important. We can view it as micro manifestation of macro systems or particles within particles like the different internal systems including bacteria in our body or fish and other creatures in the sea or planets and asteroids in the solar system, extended to the universe. If we picture this way, all quantum systems including spin, superposition, entanglement, duality, tunneling, etc., have macro equivalents. Regarding complex numbers and extra-dimensions, kindly read our essay in support of your view.

For example, since measurement is a process of comparison between similars, a wave, which is perceived as a moving packet, cannot be measured by (compared with) any known unit. It is real, because, reality is whatever exists (has a limited structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (knowable) and communicable (describable using a language). A fish can also exist in the wave, which guides (pilots) the fish. If two opposing waves neutralize each other, there is no way of knowing their state thereafter - both are spread out everywhere. This is an example of superposition. Two ends of a robber band or a pair of socks are examples of entanglement, which, contrary to common belief, do not last over infinite distance. Movement of Mercury and Venus on their axis is macro examples of spin. The internal structure of Jupiter and proton are equivalent.

Regarding two-slit experiments, we have repeatedly wondered why no one has conducted the experiment with protons instead of electrons. That would show the fallacy. Though we know much about electrons, we still do not know what an electron is. This ignorance leads to fantasy. Energy always provides thrust. It pushes. There is nothing like pull – it is always push from the opposite direction. Then how can energy or particles (God particle!) ‘bind’ to provide mass? Did you ever wonder why strong and weak forces ‘bind’ and electromagnetic forces and beta decay move out from higher concentration? While other interactions are either intra-body or emanate from out of a body in a monogamous pattern, why gravity is inter-body treating them as point particles and behaving polygamous? With your bent of mind, we request you to think about these.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Alan Kadin,

Does math hinder or help physics? The title of your essay says math hindered the development of QM, and is followed by an articulate express argument. (Some other essays seem to argue implicitly that math is a sub-optimal intermediary medium for physics.) I hope you will not mind some comments despite my knowing little about QM.

Math is helpful (and sometimes...

view entire post

Dear Alan Kadin,

Does math hinder or help physics? The title of your essay says math hindered the development of QM, and is followed by an articulate express argument. (Some other essays seem to argue implicitly that math is a sub-optimal intermediary medium for physics.) I hope you will not mind some comments despite my knowing little about QM.

Math is helpful (and sometimes indispensable) when it describes, explains, summarizes, condenses, provides insight, predicts, etc. Math is unhelpful when it obscures, is irrelevant, inapplicable, makes the conceptual thread hard to follow etc. An example would be 20 pages of equations of no discernible meaning, that no one will have the strength or interest to check. Another example would be A + L = P, meaning actors with lines create a play; plus and minus signs do not of themselves invest ordinary words with insight.

Let’s take your title now. Your diagnosis and cure may be right. I propose another possibility (which does not exclude your approach). The complexities and seeming incongruities of the mathematics of QM (such as the many worlds hypothesis, entanglement and the two slits experiment) might not be a failure of mathematics. Rather, apparent shortcomings might be a clue that a crucial postulate, assumption, theory, picture (as you say), conceptual reference frame or unknown unknown is missing. This suggests looking not outside mathematics but for better mathematics.

A paradigm example is Ptolemy’s Almagest, a stupendous mathematical and astronomical achievement. Ptolemy wrote summarily that obviously the earth does not rotate on its axis, as some other astronomers had suggested, because clouds would appear to move at high speeds in the sky in a direction opposite that of the spinning earth, and birds, unable to keep up, would fall out of the sky. If he had the concept of inertia he might have come to a different conclusion.

Perhaps a question raised by your interesting essay is: are we missing something?

Regards,

Bob Shour

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Alan, (I am really sorry about the length of this, but give it a chance)

I just opened your essay page this morning and it said different things from what I had expected.

(Not being a Physicist) It would be remiss of me to say technical things about your model. But perhaps I can comment on a theme that motivates (you can correct me here, if you wish) your essay. It is your claim...

view entire post

Alan, (I am really sorry about the length of this, but give it a chance)

I just opened your essay page this morning and it said different things from what I had expected.

(Not being a Physicist) It would be remiss of me to say technical things about your model. But perhaps I can comment on a theme that motivates (you can correct me here, if you wish) your essay. It is your claim that…”On the contrary, it is argued here that pictures of real objects moving in real space provide the proper basis for physics, and that mathematics merely provides quantitative models for calculating the dynamics of these objects...” (Btw, I did read the whole thing.)

As I went through various observations I could make regarding your main thesis, it became evident that those would be the same that I made yesterday on Ken Wharton’s essay page. Being the author of it, I felt sanctioned to copy certain parts of it here.

“…perhaps physicists’ intuition ought to be given greater weight… The reason for that is that in the absence of patterns, paradigms, structures, etc. that make sense to us and which we can manipulate in our minds, physics may become a (proverbial) victim of its own success.

Here is how it would work. Say that things get so esoteric that only computers can generate theories and proofs (by now you know where this is heading), and humans can no longer see why any of it makes sense, nor can they follow the proofs. Computers may propose new theories, but those will still have to be tested against the real world. Given that there can be a myriad of computer-generated theories, and that we will not know which ones to follow up on first, it will present us with various quandaries. Experiments take time, and may only get more expensive in the future. We will not be able to afford to test all of the new theories, nor be able to pick only viable ones for experimental confirmation.

Unless we come up with a ToE to program the computer with before switching to autopilot, we will become dependent on the computer to divine the correct theory solely from mathematics. I am extremely skeptical about any claims that “mathematics alone” can figure out the universe without checking with it (the universe), and I am not getting on an airplane without a human pilot sitting somewhere near the front.

I would also like to draw your attention to a part of Sophia Magnusdottir’s essay. You may have already seen it. She proposes that an “analog” method might obviate the need for mathematics in at least parts of physics, perhaps even those not well matched to known mathematics. An example might be adiabatic “computing” already in use. This could certainly work in principle, but since you will still have to measure at least the relative “scale” between the two systems (one being the subject, and the second being the solver) to get the result or prediction you are after, it may not provide all the tools to do physics.

Your central point appears to be unassailable. For at least any foreseeable time horizon, mathematics will be indispensable for physics.”

I think all readers would benefit from going to Ken Wharton’s essay page (and, for that matter, to Sophia Magnusdottir’s).

This next part is solely to follow up on your response to Ed Unverricht:

Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 21:33 GMT: “…Within my picture, all spin-zero particles must be composites of two particles with opposite spin, similar to a meson which is a quark-antiquark pair. That would suggest that what has been detected experimentally may not be the desired Higgs Boson…”

Alan, you have some company in your contention that the putative Higgs Boson might not be what it is purported to be. Now, you may not want to be associated with some of them, but they deserve a second look. Already, on Wednesday, 04 July 2012 13:41 (European time), almost immediately after the big Higgs announcement, Peter J. Carroll (on www.specularium.org/component/k2/item/58-higgs-or-not) made this statement (among others): “This particle could well consist of a composite entity like a top-antitop meson rather than a truly new fundamental particle.”

Now, I have to warn you, you will be turned off by Carroll’s other interests – but you ought to look for the “diamond.” Carroll has some interesting physics, and less interesting “magic.”

Now, for a more comprehensive argument “against the Higgs” you ought to look up Eli Comay’s webpage(s). At the very least, you might discover that he is really smart.

It is easy to label those with whom you disagree “cranks.” Yes, some people’s systems are internally inconsistent, and/or not based on reasonably established facts about the world. But if a model or theory is internally consistent and not convincingly contradicted by “facts” (which can keep changing), the most one could say is that he/she was wrong.

Calling proponents of coherent and consistent ideas cranks would be like calling Bohr a crank should his ideas be disproved or simply superseded in the future. Bohr was a serious scientist, and I am quite sure he was sincere in his quest to find the “truth” about our universe.

En

view post as summary

Dear Alan,

There is indeed no indeterminacy in the motion of wave packet. As you mentioned The motion of a wave packet is completely deterministic, with both position and momentum being arbitrarily defined (no uncertainty principle!).A wave packet must be spread over at least about a wavelength, but the center of energy follows a definite trajectory. The standard textbook proof of the...

view entire post

Dear Alan,

There is indeed no indeterminacy in the motion of wave packet. As you mentioned The motion of a wave packet is completely deterministic, with both position and momentum being arbitrarily defined (no uncertainty principle!).A wave packet must be spread over at least about a wavelength, but the center of energy follows a definite trajectory. The standard textbook proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical identity about waves, and provides for uncertainty only if one assumes the orthodox statistical interpretation.

As you metioned : In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, the wave represents a statistical distribution of the locations of a point particle that is associated with the mass. In an alternative “pilot-wave” interpretation (suggested by de Broglie and refined by David Bohm), both particle and wave are real, and the wave guides the trajectory of the particle.

I have mentioned that even in Copenhagen's interpretation,statistical probability is nothing but the measure of observer's ignorance. The Indeterminacy,Uncertainty also stem from the same. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle inequality was derived directly from the mathematical framework itself.Schrodingers differential euqation describing the trajectory of so-called probabilistic wave functions is itself fundamentally deterministic! mathematics is indeed responsible for this quantum mechanics. The fact is the incompatible blind application of mathematical structures in the physical scenarios. There are certain laws of invariance behind mathematical and physical structures both. There should be match between their intrinsic characetristic otherwise it leads to wrong applications and result.Thats the case of orthodox Quantum mechanics.

Thats what my Mathematical Structure Hypothesis sates that mathematical structures and physical world both are creations of Vibrations.

Probability, Randomness, Complexity are the measure of human/observer's ignorance.

As you have written : If quantum mechanics provides the microscopic foundation for matter, where does classical mechanics come from? In the orthodox theory, the microscopic world is comprised of indeterminate, entangled superpositions, associated with quantum coherent states. The macroscopic classical world consists of realistic, deterministic trajectories without superposition or entanglement. The interface between these two domains is rather fuzzy. Classical physics is believed to come about via interaction of a given quantum system with a classical measurement apparatus, causing decoherence, i.e., loss of microscopic coherent degrees of freedom. Exactly how this occurs has never been made clear, and the logic seems rather circular; if everything is ultimately quantum, how is this classical apparatus initiated?

In contrast, in the realistic theory described here, there is no quantum-classical separation.

The big question before dealing with our above classical trajectoties on microscopic level is -what is Matter & how it is linked with observer's(human) Mind. What are micro and macro? They all are fundamentally linked with Russells' paradox geometry where A larger set can exist within smaller set B and vice versa. This is possible in a peculiar geometry where internal and external,micro ¯o are merely the geometrical effects. Mind and Matter are simple question of Vibrations. Mind at very low rate is Matter and Matter at high rate of Vibration is Mind.Please see my essay or the links attached here.

Anyway, what's take on what governs the structure of mathematical equations itself which are used in Quantum mechanics/physics,which causes these fundamental paradoxes issues.Richard Feynman once said that -The next great era of human awakening would come ,today we don't see the content of euqations.

Whats your take on the geometry of consciousness(paradox of self-consciousness) as David Bohm said that without peeping into this we can't understand quantum aspects e.g.bell's locality-at-distance?

Anyway you have written great essay.

Regards,

Pankaj Mani

view post as summary

Dear Alan,

As a fellow conscientious local realist I very much enjoyed reading your essay. In many ways I thought it might serve as a nice prelude to my own.

However we differ seriously on at least one important point, which unfortunately suggests that we differ on crucial details: For I am certain that the view expressed in your Figure 4 is false.

Certainly the related...

view entire post

Dear Alan,

As a fellow conscientious local realist I very much enjoyed reading your essay. In many ways I thought it might serve as a nice prelude to my own.

However we differ seriously on at least one important point, which unfortunately suggests that we differ on crucial details: For I am certain that the view expressed in your Figure 4 is false.

Certainly the related text has two related typos: in the second paragraph, p.6 of your essay, cos²θ should read cos²(θ/2); sin²θ should read sin²(θ/2); for we need to take into account the spin s= 1/2 of the subject spin-half particles. Otherwise you are discussing the isomorphic photon experiment (spin s = 1); see next para.

Let us agree that the proposed experiment has not yet been conducted. Nevertheless the proposed experiment is isomorphic with one that E-L Malus conducted with beams of photons circa 1812; whence Malus' Law for light. Further, the proposed experiment is equivalent to one-half of the experiment C_1/2 in my own essay.

In my essay you will see that the proposed experiment can be expressed and addressed in wholly classical terms, devoid of any reference to excited or ground states: ie, in your proposed experiment, the spin-half particles leaving SG1, en route to SG2, are all polarised spin-up. It is therefore certain that the outcomes will be distributed as follows: Detector 1 will record cos²(θ/2) and Detector 2 will record sin²(θ/2) of the outcomes; spin-up and spin-down respectively.

Note that my "certainty" is not based on dogma; rather it is based on (i) the unified boson/fermion experiment Ω considered in my essay, (ii) classical considerations alone (since the SG1 outputs are accepted as given), (iii) local-realism alone!

Hoping these remarks might lead you to reconsider your position in the "local realistic" spectrum, I really would welcome your critical comments on my own essay; especially as many find it difficult to understand -- (eg, see recent valid comments by Richard Gill and Peter Jackson; following an earlier one by Akinbo Ojo) -- and I'm working on improvements.

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

view post as summary

“Not A Pilot-wave”

Hi Alan,

I support you in the argument to take off the blinders. Although I was never told to shut up and just accept the math, I was told that maybe I couldn’t understand it. Fair enough, but I remember staying up all night throwing forks and spoons up in the air and pretending I was in an elevator so that I could understand the equation that I knew would be...

view entire post

“Not A Pilot-wave”

Hi Alan,

I support you in the argument to take off the blinders. Although I was never told to shut up and just accept the math, I was told that maybe I couldn’t understand it. Fair enough, but I remember staying up all night throwing forks and spoons up in the air and pretending I was in an elevator so that I could understand the equation that I knew would be on the exam next day. I passed and Jimmy Haight my best physics teacher allowed me on the ski team where I learned more about gravity.

I agree that as you say “a more natural way out of this dilemma is to dispense with the point particle entirely, and obtain the discrete particle nature from purely wave phenomena”.

That is what I did when I considered there might be a model of matter that explains both relativity and quantum mechanics. It is a rotating wave similar to your “helically rotating electric field vector corresponding to a circularly polarized (CP) electromagnetic wave”. I have attached the general picture with the planar wave fronts arrayed around the axis of rotation which is in the forward (translational) motion of the rotating wave.

Note how the planar wave fronts incline in accordance with EM (wave front and electric + magnetic fields must be perpendicular to motion of wave). That exhibits phenomenae described in the Special Theory of Relativity (Lorentz invariance) and furthermore when accelerated exhibits phenomenae described in the General Theory of Relativity.

Of course when one considers the rotating wave (or field), then it logically explains gravity with required binding energy plus expansion of the universe and slowing of time. There is no need for the cosmological constant. I’m pretty sure I got the math right now on the Gkl derivation from the rotating wave.



The inclined planar wave fronts of the rotating wave (or field) look similar to a propeller (or vanes of a jet engine). If you fly a plane in a tight circle and the propeller spins only ½ the way, then it looks upside down. It will take the plane two trips around to get the spinor propeller back into the original state. I suspect that is a valid reinterpretation of the “Balinese Dance” or “Feynman Plate Trick” and the helical rotation would thus be an inherent requirement.

Good math makes good physics. I get a thrill of ah ha when the equation suggests a physical model and the physical models speaks back. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If one can dream up many dimensions, then one can look at alternative models, but certainly through the eyes of trained physics and math. My suggestion is to develop a special forum on the classically rotating wave (or field). It would be a work in progress with various specialists examining various attributes. There is also the technical application as well. I think there is already a patent application on the EM Propellor.

I got to go for my jog and think. That “mysterious angular momentum of spin” and “dark energy / dark matter” are beckoning. I’d love to one day run past Einstein’s house in Princeton and then maybe go on to Greece. I bet Dirac would enjoy your article.

Bill Christie

view post as summary