Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jamina Jamina: on 9/29/17 at 8:53am UTC, wrote The study of logical error was focused on the errors caused by the lack of...

daisy walker: on 8/26/17 at 13:29pm UTC, wrote I am a professional writer and I have also read before about...

En Passant: on 5/1/15 at 22:56pm UTC, wrote Gordon, You assessed my last comment in 4 sections. I will not argue with...

Peter Jackson: on 4/25/15 at 9:53am UTC, wrote Gordon, Thanks for the compliments and comments on my thread. It does...

Peter Jackson: on 4/21/15 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote Gordon, Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only...

Gordon Watson: on 4/21/15 at 8:30am UTC, wrote En, taking your paragraphs in turn; some thoughts: 1. My essay is about...

En Passant: on 4/21/15 at 6:34am UTC, wrote Gordon, Yes, I have some familiarity with probability. But I was never...

Gordon Watson: on 4/21/15 at 1:40am UTC, wrote En, in your forum you say: "Since this is about your essay, I will transfer...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Lorraine, Thanks for sharing,we speak about our main global..." in Till Next Time

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, re. your ""one huge mistake"- they are describing non-existent..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "They are proud, because they have solved some problems, which are..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 19, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Nature's grammar, mathematics, settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein by Gordon Watson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gordon Watson wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 21:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

Ever-truthful (never lying or misleading; which is handy), in accents ranging freely from big bangs to whispers (which can be tricky), Nature counsels us in many ways and sometimes nicely: yet just one grammar, mathematics, governs all her languages. So begins a prologue to her lesson here: Nature in truth responding to FQXi's (2014) theme -- Trick or truth: the mysterious connection between physics and mathematics -- via that tricky Bell-v-Einstein context. First uniting classical and quantum experiments on bosons and fermions under just one language, Nature reveals neglected laws: laws that settle Bell-v-Einstein in Einstein's favour and quietly shape the realistic philosophy of most working scientists and their concept of spacetime. Seeking to keep pace with her we proceed as follows: 1-Truth, 2-Analysis, 3-Conclusions, 4-Appendix A (Language), 5-References, 6-Technical-endnotes. With Nature presenting maths as the best logic, and little more than undergraduate maths required, newcomers best begin with Appendix A -- especially the modelling in Table A1 -- questions, critical comments, error-corrections, etc., being very welcome here.

Author Bio

Gordon Watson -- BE(Hons) UNSW; an engineer with history of success across many disciplines -- holds maths to be the best logic: hence his special interest in bringing mathematics to bear on perplexing problems in any field. Supporting Einstein's local-causality over Bellian nonlocality, his essay -- "Can this description of physical reality be considered complete?" -- was a lucky finalist at FQXi in 2013.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 21:11 GMT
PLEASE: THIS THREAD is RESERVED for the AUTHOR'S USE ONLY

to collect his mistakes, error-corrections, clarifications ++

(including extracts from key discussions) for easy access by readers.

Thank you; Gordon Watson

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 21:14 GMT
PS: Friendly reminder: Please start the discussion via this thread or a New Post -- and NOT the one above -- knowing that questions, critical comments ++ are welcome here. Thank you; Gordon Watson

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 11:30 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I just read your interesting contribution. As the mathematically inclined are wont to do, there is a heavy use of symbols to convey meaning. I note that these symbols are interpreted in Table A1, perhaps it would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols. This I understand may however interrupt the flow of a mathematical speech.

I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 11:31 GMT
*Someone I will be willing to suggest as a referee is Armin Shirazi,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for you helpful suggestions; one excuse and some actions follow:

1. As you rightly say, it "would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols." Alas I had no authority to interrupt the flow of the opening speech: delivered, as it were, by Nature herself. And where I do later intervene … there's work to be done.

2. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 10:53 GMT
I will be asking Armin directly to fault the math in your essay. That is, if he can.

Your limited need from SR is just fine. It will not remove from the proof you have put forward showing Einstein was right and Bell was wrong.

Regarding what Hugh asked, can an extended point outlive the Universe itself? Just food for thought. According to Euclid's definition and how it came about...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Permit my ignorance, if that is the case. Regarding the discussions and controversies generated by Bell's theorem, EPR paradox, etc why is it that the scenario cannot be depicted by Alice and Bob both receiving one of a pair of socks, such that if Alice finds out she has detected the Left sock automatically she can with certainty know that Bob has detected the right sock and vice versa?

If that can be so, why is so much energy, ink and math being dissipated on the subject?

If the scenario cannot be so depicted, what are the experimental or theoretical reasons why it cannot be so described?

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 06:26 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:

2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 06:48 GMT
Many thanks Akinbo,

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 14:00 GMT
Gordon,

Essay(AB|CQ) = 1!. This was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible. If I had named the essay, I would have titled it "Bell's Inequality, revision 2.0 - The Missing Pieces".

I assume that you have read Dr. Klingman's essay. If not, you should - no, you MUST. You and he are on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Gary,

Addressing your key comments (some seeming typos fixed):

1. Essay (AB|CQ) = 1 was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible.

Please see #4 below as added motivation to check the physics in detail. Please ask questions as the need arises (privately if you wish); no...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 14:45 GMT
(This is a repost from a reply in my forum)

That some serious stuff! :) You're defining new things that I would want to have whole conversations about to really understand. Maybe others could take to it a little easier, but that may be the hardest essay in this contest for me to understand. I did not make it past some of your initial definitions :( ... even though they were all math...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 07:53 GMT
Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

… all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

So I hope you'll be back...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear Mr. Watson,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 01:26 GMT
Hi Joe,

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Now: from your new essay, you might be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 04:04 GMT
Dear Joe, v.2 follows (based on that lodged at your Forum):

……….

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

………...

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Mr. Watson,

Respectfully, abstract "nature" has nothing to do with reality.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 11:25 GMT
You are deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth.

Best Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 22:55 GMT
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

Welcoming your comment, I returned to your Essay, thinking that I had missed your reference to, or discussion of "exact definitive questions of Universal Truth".

I found the word "Truth" in the title of your essay, but nowhere else: thus I found no combination "Universal Truth".

So, if you would clarify MY "deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth," I would be very happy to respond. For I continue to maintain that my essay represents a true picture of four important experiments and thus: the true connection between the mathematics and the physics therein.

Sincerely; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Sujatha Jagannathan replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 16:32 GMT
As far as you did not understand the meaning of "Universal Truth" you will "deviate from the definitive questions and my paper as well."

- Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

If you would be so kind as to provide "the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth", I will be pleased to respond re any deviations.

For example, noting that such questions are not provided in your essay: We might then productively discuss my "deviating from your paper" in the context of "those exact definitive questions".

Thanks, Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Sir, After reading the abstract, I was expecting this to be a joke. Then after reading it that opinion was confirmed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 21:30 GMT
Dear Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

Thanks for reading my essay and now being part of 'the joke'.

PS: Harry, I recall that one of your many essays refutes Einstein's theory of relativity on 12 grounds (based on maths, physics, philosophy and experiments). Alas, as you've seen, the essence of 'my joke' is that it is not so easily refuted.

Thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



En Passant wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 14:43 GMT
Gordon,

While reading your essay, I found a piece of unused space (white space). It is at the bottom of page 5, right under section 3.6. Surely you could have mercifully inserted a few words of plain English in there – even if you had to wedge it in edgewise. It would provide a much needed respite among the hieroglyphics (admittedly, section 3.6 already provides a few seconds to catch one’s breath).

Well, that is my take on it. And yeah, we likely agree on “Universal Truth” (you would probably say that “that’s not even a proposition”).

My rating will exceed what you have “enjoyed” from the readers so far, but it could have been higher. Please have mercy and consider the reader.

En

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gordon Watson wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 23:21 GMT
En,

Thanks for your comments and the spirit in which they are offered. Those 11 pages of unused white-space in your own essay would certainly have come in handy! Nevertheless, I thought my limited use of white-space was justified given that: (i) My essay had to begin with precise definitions of its terms and symbols. (ii) It is expansively written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic. (iii) With its heavy mathematical content, it's meant to be read critically!

Moreover, my theory was not developed for fun. Rather, it arose in response to widely-recognized difficulties associated with John Bell and "nonlocality". Further, it is not without some signs of progress: for we now find many Bellians (and prior avoiders) back-peddling from their earlier positions.

En, given the similarity of our conclusions and the rarity of such challenges* to Wigner's position, I'd welcome any deeper and more critical analysis of my work.

* For easy comparison, here's a conclusion from my essay (p.5; the piece that you cite):

3.6. We therefore close with a happy snapshot of Wigner’s (1960:14) views and our own:

… “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

… Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to whispers [like the whisper of an apple falling], but just one grammar, beautiful mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws.

Here's yours: "There is no mystery. Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it."

There is no mystery. [...] inserted for clarity. Thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


En Passant replied on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 02:48 GMT
Gordon,

Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn’t anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren’t capable of following your logic. It’s just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 03:12 GMT
Thanks En; some good points, and much appreciated. But this one is strange: I don’t recognize a single “symbol” in your essay.

Please, En: Probability P is defined in Table A3 of my essay. Surely, in top-level Finance, P is in play every day?

PS: To be clear, the concrete and abstract elements of the unified experiment (particles, detectors, etc) are given in Table A1.

Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 01:40 GMT
En, in your forum you say: "Since this is about your essay, I will transfer it to your page." Alas, it's not clear where you wanted these next matters discussed so I brought them here (with some minor edits).

EP: "In the meantime, if you have time and the inclination, you can look up two comments that I have made on other people’s pages. They will give you a strong indication of the reasons that motivate my essay, and (potentially) provide philosophical “grounding” for all realist views."

GW: As "well-grounded realists" we appear to be in close agreement.

EP: "One is on Peter Martin Punin’s page, so if you go there, look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 04:55 GMT."

GW: Our agreement continues!

EP: "The second one is on Marc Séguin’s page. You should look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT. I intend to continue the discussion (which did not end with Marc alleging that we both make comparable assumptions, but I let him off the hook) on Punin’s page. His position, being Platonist, subsumes the MUH. Being an engineer, you should like my comment on Marc Séguin’s page, as it involves a bicycle chain analogy. That’s all I will say on my page."

GW: Close agreement continues BUT big difference re your pocket calculator analogy! As in all of the whole real big wide world, maths is running under every bonnet and bang and banana-skin. In the pocket calculator case, the battery runs flat due to the calculator's maths (ie, Nature's maths)* and that "streaming electricity" of yours!

* In your terms, given your work in Finance, let's call it Nature's accounting: which brings me to back my essay! (And ditto that bike.)

Hoping this helps; cheers: Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 14:20 GMT
Hello Gordon

I skimmed your paper with great interest, happy to see local realism defended (I think) in such a technical way. I say "I think" because my brain has no capacity to go through all the impressive-looking logical equations and statements you have used to buttress your conclusions. In this contest Edwin Klingman shows how Bell made a basic mistake in his Theorem. In my essay I argue that local causal discrete realism prevails at the micro structure of the Universe where physics and mathematics essentially coalesce into the smallest most basic building blocks of everything. I base these ideas on my Beautiful Universe Theory - I value your feedback.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 23:53 GMT
Hello Vladimir,

And, Yes: I defend local realism in a technical but very elementary way. Further, from reading your essays, I'm sure that your brain is quite capable of understanding my "logical equations and statements" for they involve little more than high-school maths and logic.

Moreover, if you want to study my work in detail, I am happy to hold your hand and answer any questions. In this way we might see the extent to which your beautiful graphics could be applied to important local-realistic results which are proven experimentally and/or consistent with accepted quantum formalisms: though my work refutes any claims or interpretations invoking nonlocality in Bell-test experiments.

As for your essay in your link above: I've sent you some personal comments on your notation there. I'll comment further on your current essay on your forum. It is clear that your work is beautifully presented and much more adventurous than my own.

PS: Regarding Ed Klingman's work, I am satisfied that it is nonsense! Apart from my own analysis (some of it lodged in his forum), you will see that he cannot address Cristi Stoica's elementary challenge (Cristi being a highly-ranked essayist here). Further, under David Mermin's well-known examples of Bell-tests with Red and Green lights, Aspect's experiments are essentially isomorphic to Bell (1964), etc. Yet, again, Ed has no answer!

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Ted Erikson wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 14:27 GMT
FYI:My Essay 2408 error corrections @

Chicago Section AAPT

Spring Meeting 2015 - Glenbrook South High School

April 11, 2015

8:15-8:45

Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:50-9:00

Welcome and Introductions - John Lewis - Host

9:00 -9:15

Dimensionless Dualities

Ted Erikson - R/E UnLtd. - sdog1@sbcglobal.net

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 06:13 GMT
I liked the quotation at the bottom of the last page of the essay:

"On one supposition we absolutely hold fast; that of local/Einstein causality: 'The real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former,' after Einstein (1949:85)"

What people don’t realise is that the problem with local-realism is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 06:15 GMT
Sorry, anonymous was me ... somehow I got logged out by mistake

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 08:54 GMT
Thanks for your comment and the source for Pawlowski ++.

In relation to my essay, I'd like to be clear about this sweeping comment of yours; my edits shown thus [.]:

"You have to realise that not all elements of mathematical models are necessarily parts of the “real factual situation”. What [some] people call “realism” is actually idealism. The [foolish] realists assume also the existence in reality of items which don’t have to be there. Hidden variables. They’re not just hidden - they are mathematical fictions!"

We agree. For I specifically define realism in terms of beables (things which exist, after Bell). Thus, from my essay, per paragraph 2.1.

"Taking care with analysis to ensure that no step here is negated by experiment, our approach – per Appendix A – is based on commonsense local realism (CLR).

Taking care with Nature, we hold a consequence of realism to be: ‘at all times, the set of beables possessed by a system fully determines all relevant probabilities,’ after Gisin (2014)."

So (in the quantum experiments Q1/2 and Q1 in my essay), λ and λ' -- correlated by the conservation of total angular momentum -- are termed "hidden beables" in that they cannot be known by us!

Bell (1976) suggested the term uncontrolled instead of "hidden" in that they cannot be manipulated at will by us. Either way, to be very clear: I certainly have neither use nor call for mathematical fictions.

With my thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Richard Gill replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 11:31 GMT
I cannot follow your math, Gordon.

Akinbo Ojo wrote as a kick-off "As the mathematically inclined are wont to do, there is a heavy use of symbols to convey meaning. I note that these symbols are interpreted in Table A1, perhaps it would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols. This I understand may however interrupt the flow of a mathematical speech."

Mathematics is not a flow of symbols. Sure: formulas are pictures and a picture speaks a thousand words. Formulas represent ideas. Formulas and speech should blend together, each supporting the other. Dirichlet pointed out that the essence of mathematics is to replace computations by ideas.

In computer programming, there is such a thing as "literate programming" which means writing your code in such a way that a human can understand what is going on, as well as the computer. A famous mathematician explained how to give a good talk: imagine you are going for a walk in the forest with a friend. I suppose that just occasionally, you might write some symbols in the dirt with a stick. I am trying in friendly words to say that I think that "this essay is not an essay".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 14:25 GMT
Gordon,

Reading your essay and the above comments it's clear to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we we currently approach and analyse 'nature', or rather 'describe the evolution of the universe'.

Your essay is hopelessly out of place and lacking in application of scores, only 9 in total averaging 5. It's clear identification of one of the most confounding...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 22:58 GMT
Hi Peter, and thanks for getting in touch, etc; and for me so fortuitously with you following Richard with the same points.

Certainly I agree with your analogy about receivers and senders. So please do not hesitate to enter your own difficulties in this thread of yours as you follow my dialogue with Richard. That way we two crackpots (under the widely accepted definition of that term) can...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 16:48 GMT
Gordon,

Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only penetrating a) so far, which I think is incorrect. The particles approaching the splitter will be random +/-, so even if ALL are reversed at a normal SG splitter the outcomes will still be random! It's the strange nature of randomness (Alex Soiguine has a couple of useful papers on that). The (rather complex) diagrams in my...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 25, 2015 @ 09:53 GMT
Gordon,

Thanks for the compliments and comments on my thread.

It does appear you've seen the 'width' of consistency rather than the depth of deriving non-local state reduction using the key circumvention of Bells inequality, as you don't mention that part. I think it's a shame all seem to want to work only alone. I responded to your comment there, reproduced...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


En Passant wrote on May. 1, 2015 @ 22:56 GMT
Gordon,

You assessed my last comment in 4 sections.

I will not argue with any of your assertions. I am after much bigger fish. I have a firm belief that what is standing in the way of progress in today’s physics is “entanglement.”

If there ever existed a more preposterous idea in the history of science, I would like to hear about it. It even leads to billions spent on QC (whose “speed-up” is contingent on the concept of entanglement).

“Entanglement” is the number one problem in physics today. I could not have said it any more plainly. Just think what all would have to change if the concept of “entanglement” were to be abandoned.

I also don’t like strong AI. If that were possible, we could lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. Think of it like this. Regardless of the means, how could it be possible to make something think better than you can? It is utterly preposterous.

I will make you an offer. You present me with a business problem you are facing, and I will propose a solution. I don’t want any compensation (nor any recognition – I want to remain anonymous). I will sign a non-disclosure if that bothers you.

Not to be condescending, but I have met many Managing Directors. They were Directors, but hardly (or, better said, barely) managing. That may not apply to yourself, so don’t take it personally. In my experience, only 1% of all managers were good at their jobs. Incompetence reigns. At all levels.

En

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


daisy walker walker wrote on Aug. 26, 2017 @ 13:29 GMT
I am a professional writer and I have also read before about Bell-v-Einstein by Gordon Watson but today I really learned unique and creative things by reading this conceptual post. I do the job at academic writing firm who offer Best Essay Help Online at an affordable price.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jamina Jamina Jamina wrote on Sep. 29, 2017 @ 08:53 GMT
The study of logical error was focused on the errors caused by the lack of implied conditions 192.168.0.1

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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