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

Gordon Watson: on 7/4/18 at 10:36am UTC, wrote From Ian Durham. Mar. 16, 2018. Hi Gordon, I will have to read your...

Ian Durham: on 3/16/18 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote I left you a brief reply over on the forum for my essay.

Gordon Watson: on 2/28/18 at 21:00pm UTC, wrote Thanks Juan, Let me rephrase my position in your terms: Locality is...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 2/28/18 at 19:30pm UTC, wrote Non-locality is established by experiment and it is a consequence of our...

corciovei silviu: on 2/27/18 at 12:13pm UTC, wrote Mr. Watson, please accept my apologies for not being able to grade your...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/27/18 at 4:44am UTC, wrote Dear Gordon, I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to...

Gordon Watson: on 2/27/18 at 0:13am UTC, wrote Dear snp, My thanks for your comments and support: I wish you well in this...

Gordon Watson: on 2/26/18 at 12:40pm UTC, wrote Thanks Brian, please take your time; thanks too for not letting another...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss. by Gordon Watson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:49 GMT
Essay Abstract

What is fundamental? In reply, we derive quantum theory from the premiss of true local realism, the union of true locality and true realism. (True locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein. True realism insists that some existents may change interactively, after Bohr.) The truth of our premiss (its consequents agree with quantum theory and observation) advances modern science (and common sense) by exposing more realistic fundamentals. Much remains to be done — but we are surely at the end of beginning.

Author Bio

A mechanical engineer, and holding math to be the best logic, the author's essay — 'Can this description of physical reality be considered complete?' — was a finalist in FQXi 2013.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 21:24 GMT
ERRATA: In ¶8.2, "Bayes' Law (10)" should read "Bayes' Law (11)".

Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 00:54 GMT
Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 00:41 GMT
NOTE: From first principles, and with the help of others, my work establishes the general validity and utility of (in my terms), Malus’ Law, Bayes’ Law and Born’s Law under the premiss of true local realism (TLR).

It thus opens the way to a "neo-classical" quantum theory (in the same way that special and general relativity are sometimes called 'classical' theories).

My essay is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Boris, I'm replying here because your comment is currently missing.

NB: if you saw me in the penthouse of Towerblock-101, that's because I am the Chief Maintenance Mechanic there, 24/7. The basement, where the foundations are exposed, is where "I live, move and have my being" -- even sleeping there beneath my desk.

Thus, relatedly, my essay begins with two axioms and a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:55 GMT
ADDENDUM: in-part prompted by the last line of your [Boris'] essay.

Dear Boris, captured by your opening paragraph and your Cartesian emphasis (and being, as you know, a Maintenance-Mechanic specialising in FOUNDATIONS) -- [oops, caps = Freudian slip] -- I was delighted to see you using [see my essay] Born's Law on your p.6. And more intrigued when I saw your closing line: "Physical space...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Gordon, I worked as a fitter for 20 years, but only on measuring instruments, then I became an engineer. Now I'm a Russian pensioner. I had a tractor. I was happy when in the spring and autumn people plowed the land. Recently I have stolen a tractor and to forget about it I decided to actively participate in the contest FQXi, but my activity here is not welcome. My comments have been removed...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Dear Mr. Watson,

I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics. And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism.

This is particularly important now that quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 07:20 GMT
Dear Alan,

1. Many thanks for this: "I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics." For it's on this foundation that I hope we (with others) might build a productive collaboration.

2. My thanks too for this: "And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism." But here I'm more cautious: my little qualifier...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 19:58 GMT
Gordon,

Great essay! You identified the same most fundamental area as mine, and certainly found the end of the beginning of the end of what Bell called the "the action at a distance sillyness". I couldn't read all of it as I didn't recognise the symbols but that's probably only due to it not being my first language.

I hope you'll agree my own essay closely agrees with yours and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:38 GMT
Thanks Peter,

It's good to see that we’re on the same map when it comes to resolving Bell's “action-at-a-distance” dilemma and related matters. My "neo-classical" foundations are intended to support fundamental classically-based research like yours. For -- under an old mantra of mine -- reality makes sense and we can understand it. However, let's now see if we can get onto the same...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:44 GMT
NB: This post was formatted correctly in preview. I've reported it for correction.

Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 04:43 GMT
Dear Gordon Watson,

Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me. Nonetheless, I intend putting you on top of the community list for the moment, because I am unhappy with lacking readiness to fundamentally clarify the issue of entanglement.

Kadin predicted the end of quantum computing. Szangelois mentioned DQC1 as a quantum computer that doesn't need entanglement at all.

I also appreciate your hint to the more easily readable paper by Fröhner: Missing Link Between Probability Theory and Quantum Mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér Theorem.

Was Dirac possibly wrong when he believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"?

If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 07:11 GMT
Errare humanum est. I have to apologize for misspelling Szangolies and Del Santos.

However, I was perhaps not wrong when I supported Gordon Watson's and Fröhner's contribution.

So far, I cannot finally judge John Hodge's "opposite approach" because I didn't yet read his essay. While I tend to agree with van Flandern's criticism of Poincaré "desynchronization", I am sure that in reality there is no supersonic acoustic wave speed greater than the speed of sound. According to my knowledge, the propagation of light in vacuum was also never measured to exceed c.

I am of course well familiar with frequencies in excess of a resonance frequeny in an electric circuit. Propagation is different.

Let me reiterate that I hope for a clarification: Joy Christian, Rob McEachern, and now Traill, Peter Jackson, and Alan Kadin are questioning well established tenets that relate to entanglement. Del Santos and Szangolies are taking the opposite point of view. If I understand Gordon Watson correctly, he shares the intention and the approach of Fröhner to find a mathematical solution. I consider my own suspicion much more radical and invite all of you to show in what I am wrong.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 23:25 GMT
Thank you Eckard, hope this helps:

EB: Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me.

GW: With every pointed critical comment most welcome, I will whole-heartedly welcome your suggestions.

nb: my preliminary notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 15:11 GMT
Gordon,

I still consider your essay deserving maximal attention as amonition against mysteries.

I wrote: ... Dirac possibly ... believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental.

You added in parentheses [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] after "it".

I agree on that the R-F theorem shows that probability is just a mathematically equivalent option of interpretation.

However, my "it" referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:36 GMT
I take the opposite approach. Quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern.

The STOE model and Hodge diffraction experiment (see references in my essay) suggest plenum wave speed much greater than light. Experiments!!

Therefore, there is no "local" effects. All experiments are non-local.

Therefore , our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 04:23 GMT
Thank you, John [John C Hodge = JH below]. I appreciate your pointed comments, all the more so for bringing your essay to my attention.

Reading your essay, it seems that our personal philosophies differ little, especially as we seek to understand the nature of Nature (by which I mean reality). I'd thus welcome the details behind your use of "the Reality principle" -- I recall only Freud's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
Gordon:

Thanks for your query.

I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance (ADD) and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance. Many experiments appear at local speed because they are close. For...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 12:38 GMT
Thank you, Hodge,

Q1. What do you mean by, and how do you use, "the Reality principle"?

Q2. Is something missing where I have inserted [.....?] below? Because otherwise your qualifying phrase is "impossible" (at the end of the sentence).

"I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance (ADD) [.....?] and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance."

Q3. And elsewhere (as I recall) you wrote that experiments should guide the mathematics. Do you have such mathematics for the Hodge experiment that you show on youtube?

Q4. Without such math, see Q3, why do you believe that conventional math will not deliver your results? [Let me assure you that they will.]

Q5. You write, "All experiments are non-local." Since you did not put non-local in quotes, what do you mean here?

Q6. Re Q5, since you dismiss infinite speeds, why would you not say that all experiments are, in your opinion, van Flandern-local? (As to the meaning of "local" see my essay for what I mean by Einstein-local; or google it under QM.)

Tks; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 00:13 GMT
I do not see any derivation of "quantum theory" in this work.

It must be recalled that quantum theory is nonlocal and this nonlocality is well established in experiment. The idea that nonlocality must violate special relativity because it implies superluminal propagation of influences is a common confusion. The nonlocality of quantum mechanics is fully equivalent with special relativity and its causal structure. So not only attempts to derive "quantum theory from the premiss of true local realism" are incorrect, but they are not really needed, because there is no contradiction.

Bohr's idea that properties of physical systems may vary due to interactions during a measurement are often associated with some kind of weird quantum mechanical behavior, but such variations already exist in classical measurements. Indeed when I use a mercury thermometer I am reading the temperature of the system after it has been modified by thermal interactions with the measurement apparatus. The thermometer does not read the temperature of the system before the measurement, except in the special case when the thermometer and the system were in thermal equilibrium before the measurement.

Entanglement implies the existence of a correlation between systems. And correlation is a function of interaction. I am not going to write here explicitly the full expression for the correlation g because it is relatively complex and latex script here is broken, but it is a function of the interaction Hamiltonian V: g ~ V|Psi> + higher order terms in V.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

Looking for "Juan Ramón González Álvarez", I only found a contribution to the bit/it issue in 2013. Apparently you didn't contribute to the current contest.

Why?

Is there really compelling evidence for immediate nonlocality? As an EE, I share the idea that the ideal electrostatic field of the charge of a sphere is to be imagined as endlessly extended in space. Does this mean nonlocality? Perhaps you published in viXra and Academia?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 15:08 GMT
Juan et al,

Eckard is correct, apparent 'non-locality' only arose from our inability back then to classically explain output. I agree Gordon's essay isn't a complete classical formulation, he doesn't claim that, but it's an important move in that right direction. I've also just read the excellent and far more complete Frohner paper in his references;

Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.” Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 637-654. On EPR it concludes; "quantum mechanics looks much like an error propagation (or rather information transmittal) formalism for uncertainty-afflicted physical systems that obey the classical equations of motion"

My own essay proves exactly that by experiment, logic and applying a different starting assumption to Bohr more consistent with Maxwell, the allowing QAM as 4 state OAM. See also Declan Traill's matching code and plot.

I recall liking your last essay, shame you didn't get one in this year.

Do comment or question on those strings

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
Thanks Juan [= JA below]. Welcoming your comments, some seeming ambiguities [or maybe typos] need to be resolved before we properly focus on technical issues. Let's see what preliminary agreements we can come to:

JA-1: "I do not see any derivation of "quantum theory" [QT] in this work."

GW-1: Under the classicality of true local realism (TLR) -- and without...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Gordon Watson,

Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

I look forward to your comments.

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 00:19 GMT
Kamal: Seeking to encourage you in your work, I'll reply at the second thread that you started below; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 04:38 GMT
Dear Gordon, I read your essay again. Remembered the Law of Bayes, with which I worked 10 years ago and the Law of Malus. Tell me what other law I need to remember to understand your essay. Probably, I'll have to read it again 5 times, such a deep meaning. But I have an offer to you as to mechanics to forget about the Law of Bayes and to look at the wave function as a rotation. This is possible, given that an imaginary unit turns a vector and any time argument with its participation creates a rotation.

Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 03:31 GMT
Boris,

Your mention of "wave-functions, the unit-imaginary and rotations" should take you to equation (21) in my essay AND the link [at #12 in my References] to the Riesz-Fejér paper by my friend Fritz Fröhner (1998).

So, for you, the next Law is Born's (named historically after Born's fumblings, c1926), whereas the Riesz-Fejér theorem [c1915; the R-F theorem, or RFT] derives more general results in a wholly classical manner (thanks to Fourier) AND WITHOUT MYSTERY.

As for Fritz's essay (unlike mine): that you will happily read more than 5 times for its depth.

Sincerely; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Gordon,

Для меня существует трудность перевода. Я в третий раз прочитал твоё эссе и теперь говорю, что оно и глубокое и тяжёлое. Только теперь я понял, какой разговор ты ведёшь и куда ты меня тянешь. Эту проблему я всегда обходил стороной. В New Cartesian Physics её нет, так как в ней принцип неопределённости Гейзенберга переделан в принцип определённости точек пространства, а волновая функция используется для описания его вращений и колебаний. Применение в физике безразмерных относительных величин, таких как фактор Лоренца и вероятности квантовых состояний связано с существованием в ней предельных значений: скорости света и постоянной Планка. Ты можешь применить свой опыт к рассмотрению физического пространства, которое есть материя.

Желаю успехов! Борис.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Gordon, I forgot to translate in English

For me there is a difficulty of translation. The third time I read your essay and now i say that it is deep and heavy. Only now I realized what conversation are you and where are you taking me. The problem that I always avoided. In New Cartesian Physics it is not, as it is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle transformed into a principle of definiteness of points of space and the wave function used to describe its rotations and vibrations. Application in physics, dimensionless relative quantities, such as the Lorentz factor, and probability of quantum States due to the existence in it of the limits: the speed of light and Planck's constant. You can apply your expertise to the consideration of physical space, which is matter.

I wish you success! Boris.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 01:12 GMT
Hi Gordon Watson

Very nice discussion...."What is fundamental? ...... The truth of our premiss (its consequents agree with quantum theory and observation) advances modern science (and common sense) by exposing more realistic fundamentals....." Best wishes...

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear snp [Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta]

Thanks for commenting thoughtfully on my essay and quoting one of its key components: my theory is driven by facts and evidence.

The truth of my premiss (in that its consequents agree with a thoroughly tested quantum theory and observation) thus advances science and commonsense; for I essentially refine much modern thinking via one...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 21:30 GMT
Dear Gordon Watson

Thanks for well studied comments on my essay

Your observations about truth do indicate that you are well educated and knowledged person... It is very nice that you work is based on experimental evidences from QM. Any study or work will be successful if it is based on experiments.

..............Your words....

From this recap, I trust you can see...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:13 GMT
Dear snp, My thanks for your comments and support: I wish you well in this contest, with your research and long into the future. Best regards; Gordon.

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 10:15 GMT
Dear Gordan,

Thanks for your email. I enjoyed reading your essay. Please read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf

Best Regards,

Kamal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Kamal,

Seeking to encourage you in your work, I wanted to clarify the calculating method that you describe in "Linear Polarization, Graphical Representation”, at page 10.

So this reply refers to your above first-thread ----

ie: "Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf ."

---- to first clarify an issue that arises from the essay you referred to here.

With respect to your calculation, I understand the Figures that refer to each result: but what are you calculating, please? And what is the significance of the 10cm wavelength? Also, from the geometry in your figures, it seems to me that there should a simple mathematical formula for what you were needing. So what was the purpose of the mm graph paper, please? And, to be clear, am I right in believing that the areas you measured were the non-opaque regions in each figure?

PS: Note that you have used Malus' Law, with each photon passing through two polarizers. In EPR/Aspect, each photon passes through one polarizer only. From my essay, ¶6, you will see how Malus' Law extends to the one-particle per one-polariser in each EPR/Aspect paired-test. So --- until I understand your method better --- I suggest it is this extension that you need to analyse in your work.  

With best regards; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 01:28 GMT
Correction: "... there should BE a simple mathematical formula ... ." GW

Bookmark and Share



Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 03:22 GMT
Dear Gordon,

This response is my reply to the comment you posted on my essay "A Fundamental Misunderstanding". I have also posted this response on my essay thread too.

In answer to your question "what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?":

Every particle detect or non-detect obeys normal, Classical Physics. Energy conservation is obeyed -...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 11:28 GMT
Thanks Declan, your prompt reply is appreciated. It's also good to see that we have some agreements; but I won't dwell on them for now. Instead I want to discuss what looks like (in my opinion) a serious point of disagreement.

Please note that I have no wish to discourage you -- quite the contrary -- because I think you have guts and brains; and perhaps it is me that errs. However:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 08:19 GMT
By GW, from Declan Traill's essay-thread:

.........

Declan, referring to my earlier suggestion, and seeking to continue our discussion efficiently, it would help me if you could post your responses on my essay-thread so that I get an alert!

Now, to be clear on a significant point of difference in our theorizing: ie, I point out that your theory is not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:37 GMT
Dear Gordon

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Steve, thanks for dropping by and alerting me to your absorbing essay.

The fuller story: "As high seas crashed about you, a black bottle smashed aboard. Seeing the now-revealed message, you transcribed it here as your opening paragraph: not realising that you had discovered the long-lost introduction to Moby Dick."

Thus does your poetic bent go on to reveal your wide-ranging...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 14:36 GMT
Hi Gordon,

The disturbance interpretation is very appealing, since it maintains our realistic view of beables. I will come back to that below on how I see it, in light of the interpretation I gave in my essay. First one note on your essay.

The formalism you use is not so transparent. However I think I got the idea. Where I see a problem is the link between formula (8) and (9). This needs more clarification. The source information (beta) disappeared. I can imagine, that this is because of the perfect correlation of the angular momentum (ref. 15.12). However from the observed polarization vector (ref. 15.10) the total information of the angular momentum (ref. 15.11) cannot be inferred completely. Hence the source (beta) should not disappear in the derivation of the conditional probability.

I will come back to the disturbance interpretation - how I see it - another time. Only so much: causes and effects are not as unambiguous as they seem and the condition for the possibility to make inferences from a measurement might depend on conditions not included in the description of the experiment (for instance the environment, which must be separable from the system).

Best regards,

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 21:18 GMT
Hi Luca, and many thanks! [nb: below, the superscript-function does not work with ±. I use "bold" to identify the start of my comments; not for emphasis.]

I agree: "The disturbance interpretation is very appealing, since it maintains our realistic view of beables."

I acknowledge that many agree with you: "The formalism [I] use is not so transparent."

But...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Luca Valeri replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:43 GMT
Hi Gordon,

I had a second thought on your disturbance argument. I think Bell presented the experiment and assumptions very well: the output depends of the setting a and the hidden maybe unknown variable h. The output is given by the function A(a,h). First of all the output is perfectly deterministic and second: it might be possible the polarizer disturbs the particle and whatever complicated mechanism creates an output that is only up, down. This disturbance does not matter for the whole Bell argument, since the disturbance has no influence on what happens on the other side B(b,h).

I think Bell argument is so simple and direct, that if someone wants to propose some alternative model, has to explain in simple language, what is wrong with Bells argument in order for the people to be ready to follow some new argument.

And now shortly to the disturbance interpretation that I find much more interesting. As I always understood the history of the interpretation of QM, Bohr might at the beginning endorsed some disturbance interpretation, but soon left it, while Heisenberg endorsed it a bit longer. As I see it, it was a kind of struggle to understand, what QM really wants to tell us. That Bohr did even criticize Heisenberg's description of the measurement disturbing the object and hence making the measurement of its complementary observable impossible can be found here.

For me there is a tension between properties of things, that can only be known by interaction and the relations that these interaction creates, and the necessity that these interactions are described by the undisturbed properties of the participating objects.

Good luck

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 23:25 GMT
Thanks Luca, this quick reply addresses what-I-take-to-be your main concern. [I will check the other matters that you raise.]*

I will welcome your detailed comments on any step that you cannot follow in ¶13 of my FQXi2017 essay. ALSO: please see hyperlinked Reference [21] -- ¶¶2.13a-2.28 -- in my essay. It is a DRAFT but I will welcome any and all discussion. Please recall that BT is valid for most "classical" systems and also for weakly-correlated "quantum" systems.

Note, from Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM) in the first thread above

"Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, neither rejecting nor endorsing AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness."

"Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in my theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay."

* PS: You write: "For me there is a tension between properties of things, that can only be known by interaction and the relations that these interaction creates, and the necessity that these interactions are described by the undisturbed properties of the participating objects."

Please explain "your tension" -- for it looks to me that we are in agreement; yet I have no strain! NB: I suspect that you are missing a related subtlety.

My thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 09:37 GMT
Gordon,

I was happy to accept that the linear expectation was already derived by others, and on thinking about it could see how it was derived (as I explained earlier with the hemispheres) so I saw no need to re-derive it in my paper as it is in the Wikipedia page anyhow.

Incidentally Alain Aspects presentation does show how it was calculated on page 13, with the sign() formula for A and B.

Regards,

Declan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 02:35 GMT
Gordon,

As I already showed you in my email correspondence including the correlation graph and model code, modeling the EPR experiment using Malus’s law does not give the correct correlation curve.

So whatever your maths shows, if you cannot model it and get the correct correlation curve then it is wrong.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 03:09 GMT
Declan, re the correlation graph that you sent me: please post the graph as an attachment. I would like to reply in detail with reference to that context. Thanks; Gordon

Bookmark and Share


Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:58 GMT
Gordon,

Attached is the correlation curve, and here are the Alice and Bob functions modeling Malus’s law that generated it:

function GenerateAliceOutputFromSharedRandomness(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector) {

var dot = Dot(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector);

var angle = Math.acos(dot);

var rand = Math.random();



if (dot > 0) {

if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return +1;

return -1;

}

else {

if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return -1;

return +1;

}

};



function GenerateBobOutputFromSharedRandomness(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector) {

var dot = Dot(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector);

var angle = Math.acos(dot);

var rand = Math.random();



if (dot > 0) {

if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return -1;

return +1;

}

else {

if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return +1;

return -1;

}

};



Regards,

Declan Traill

attachments: 9419AD67-D625-4CBF-880F-75AF534FD87C.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 08:44 GMT
Declan, thanks for attaching that strange (red-spotted) graph that you emailed to me. From your emails it appears you think it correct and that (somehow) my suggested remedy won't work. I'm hoping what follows (and further discussions, if necessary) may convince you otherwise.

I'm also hoping that you will now quickly spot the source of "the twist” in your graph -- when corrected, it will...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10:55 GMT
Gordon (Declan)

I'm leaving you two to sort that! We must of course explain the high non-detects, clearly near zero amplitude. And also both Aspect and Weighs' 'rotational invariance' - unexplained so the data dumped! Both computer codes and alorythmic sequence is needed as well as (apparently!) deriving the Hamiltonian!

I'm drawing a visual sequence, as that's how most brains best embed things. I've also posted this introductory aid memoir sequence in a few places to help; The Poincare Sphere was an important find (having already derived it from scratch last year!) Let me know if you think I've missed anything.

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 11:55 GMT
Peter, how glad am I (as previously explained) that I got out early on this stuff! Some thoughts.

Maybe:

1. Sketch it like the Figure in Fröhner that I referred you to.

2. Importantly, sketch each of your beables and interactions on separate sheets of A3 paper; in time sequence: so that details are not lost when you make slides for online display. Supported by 3D models.

3. Recall that, in Aspect and EPRB, the Detector unit-vectors a and b are in 3-space; not necessarily orthogonal to the line of flight.

4. Purely hemispherical or sgn models do not work.

5. Get familiar with the FEW QM models that deal with polarizing particle-field interactions.

6. NB: Understand the BB dynamics via GA and my vector-product approach.

7. Convert your coded scribbles (above) to complete sentences, with all abbreviations defined at the start.

8. Then, please, tell me again what your goal is.

8. Sorry if it looks like I'm saying, "LOOK; over there", as I sneak out .. .. .. ..

Good on you, hang in there, +++, and all the best; it's past my bedtime; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:19 GMT
Gordon

Please forgive a short comment. I'm traveling without computer, typing away on my phone. I read your essay, comprehended some of it ;) but happy to report that I support the notions of true realism and true locality. I have something further I want to share with you but am handicapped right now on this device. But if you find a discusion I am having with Peter Jackson then you can find it sooner rather than later.

Because I can't verify the rationale and conclusions of your math, I'll rate based on the discussion presented and your general deductions which I happen to share. I want to understand your work better but that will have to follow after competition close. I'm giving you a 9

You have done quite well in this competition. Very nicely done

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 10:25 GMT
Steve, thanks for voting openly and providing your reasons; these actions are much appreciated.

I'm hoping that many of us will adopt the same procedure for the next essay. So please have a look at my comments on Terry Bollinger's essay-thread. (I'll also put a copy below.)

Looking forward to further discussions when you are ready, with my thanks again; Gordon

Bookmark and Share



peter cameron wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT
Hello Gordon,

Welcome urging of Jackson/Bollinger/Traill has inspired a read of your essay. I've left comments on their threads.

We share a background in mechanical engineering.

First thought on looking at your abstract is the use of the word 'true' to describe your understanding. Has me laughing a little. Dangerous dance, that one. Good luck with it, hope to find it so at the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:29 GMT
Peter, thanks for the ESP and/or happy coincidence: I've just left this [below] on your essay-thread. I'll return here (maybe tomorrow) when I've had a chance to read and digest yours above. It will now make VERY interesting reading; hopefully absent any silly boo-boos on my part. My thanks again, more soonly; G [nb: the temptation to re-edit...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:18 GMT
Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.

Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.

Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!

PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G: I'll put this on your essay-thread.

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 10:01 GMT
This thought-provoking essay -- Brian Josephson's essay: On the fundamentality of meaning -- provoked the following favourable reponse from me:

Dear Brian,

Many thanks for your thought-provoking essay and my introduction to biosemiotics.* In return, there follows one of the just-mentioned thoughts: offered at the risk of my being scheduled as biosemiidiotic (if not wholly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Brian D. Josephson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 11:22 GMT
Many thanks for your thoughts re my essay -- so thought-provoking that as I'm pretty busy I may not have time to respond in detail on this Deadline Day, but I'm letting you know as requested that I have looked at your comments. I see that like others you were caught by the dreaded anonymising bug, but your giving a link to this essay page in what you wrote circumvented the problem!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:40 GMT
Thanks Brian, please take your time; thanks too for not letting another FQXi bug beat you! Gordon

Bookmark and Share



Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 10:44 GMT
My voting suggestions/comments from Terry Bollinger's thread:

Fundamental as Fewer Bits. Please, at minimum, add your own comments there re Terry's voting ideas! His essay is pretty good and worthy of comment too. GW.

.......................

Terry, some quick short notes as I work my way to your essay:

1. FQXi Essay Contestant Pledge = Suggested FQXi Voting...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Gordon,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 12:13 GMT
Mr. Watson,

please accept my apologies for not being able to grade your essay earlier.

I shall be back with further comments and maybe with a little chat (as I emphasize with your humor)

anyhow I rated you know, just to see what it would have happened in case of...

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Ian Durham wrote on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 17:24 GMT
I left you a brief reply over on the forum for my essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 4, 2018 @ 10:36 GMT
From Ian Durham. Mar. 16, 2018.

Hi Gordon,

I will have to read your essay, but I will say that you can't really "refute" Bell's theorem. It's just a theorem. What you seem to be presenting is an alternate view, i.e. that Bell's derivation of his inequalities used a certain set of conditions that you think does not capture all of reality. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but that doesn't mean Bell was necessarily wrong either.

Anyway, I will try to get to reading your essay soon.

Ian

Thank you Ian, I look forward to your response; Gordon. Jul. 4, 2018.

Bookmark and Share



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.