CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss. by Gordon Watson
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:49 GMT
Essay AbstractWhat 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 BioA 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
Author Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 21:24 GMT
ERRATA: In ¶8.2, "Bayes' Law (10)" should read "Bayes' Law (11)".
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
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 Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.
So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism,
true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for
true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.
The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is
true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.
NB: 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 the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.
PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic.”
Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
view post as summary
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Gordon Watson,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
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
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 thus a work-in-progress and (with due acknowledgment) I expect that progress to continue via comments and critiques here.
That is, as at ¶12.3 of my essay: I'm seeking to harness the power of the FQXi essay contest and its comment system to advance collaborative partnering.
To that end, I am planning to regularly update my essay by including additional developments and explanatory material, together with a new section: "18 - Reply to criticisms, etc."
Readers interested in that progress may email eprb@me.com --- subject line: FQXi update --- and I will send a PDF of the then current version.
Thanks, and with best regards,
Gordon Watson eprb@me.com
view post as summary
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
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 consequent premiss: true local realism. I then study EPRB, identifying beables and interactions in a related notation.
There follows --- from first principles, in my "neo-classical" terms and concretely --- the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (the last thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem).
Though not shown (for space reasons, and from any good textbook), the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law (now concretely established, as above; and without mystery) to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.
Reproducing the correct results -- without mystery -- you can thus see that we are well on our way to reformulating QM ++ from elementary fundaments, absent mystery.
With thanks for your comment, more may follow on its return; I write here from recall.
Gordon
view post as summary
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
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 is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it."
For this line triggered a corrective recollection from my years of teenage rationalism (as yet undiminished)! Though, at that time, I was not aware of (and therefore was independently following, in my terms) Descartes' Dictum (DD):
"Never accept anything for true which you do not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and bring nothing more to your judgment than what is presented to your mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt."
For I immediately recalled, from the KJV English Bible --- Acts 17:28 --- For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
My own translation, from the Greek [so keen was I to understand such things] was: "In God we live, emote, and develop [our will and intellect]."
And when I looked for those poets, I found a related verse from an invocation to Zeus! As google now tells me: Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter. His name clearly comes from that of the sky god Dyaus of the ancient Hindu Rigveda. Zeus was regarded as the sender of thunder and lightning, rain, and winds, and his traditional weapon was [electromagnetic] the thunderbolt. He was called the father (i.e., the ruler and protector) of both gods and men.
Thus, in this way, we arrive at a true fundament; in my view suited to the rationalist and the religious alike. It goes something like this: "God: in whom we live, emote, and develop our will and intellect; and, as a certain poet has said, From whom we are all related."
I look forward to your comments on this joint enterprise.
As for your ideas re Descartes ideas, I must (at the moment, subordinating space and mass to God) invoke DD.
With my thanks and best regards,
Gordon
view post as summary
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
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 not only from your page, but also from the pages of other participants. There is a conspiracy of ignoring against me here. This I now need to go through.
When I was young, under the influence of Descartes, I realized that space is matter and, if we take equal volumes of my body and empty space, as it seems to us, then matter in both cases will be the same. I believed this and did not take seriously other theories.
You, probably, to satisfy your thirst for knowledge of the world, began to read various modern theories and filled your brain with new speculative concepts and now you try to build from them your idea of the world. In this representation there is no identity of space and matter of Descartes. When the head is crammed with modern theories, it is very difficult to agree that space is matter. It needs to be done at a young age like me.
We met with you that matter is space, and space is the body of God. And for this you can put both you and me 10.
If the believer ask, where is God? He will answer - in heaven. When you look into an infinite space and think that this is the body of God, then the question should arise, but how does it work? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our mass are the result of its action. The space contains information about changing the world.
I wish you success! Boris
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Boris,
As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.
To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).
Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.
Cheers; Gordon
hide replies
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Gordon Watson, your deep reasoning needs a deep mind. However, the fundamental must be simple and understandable, it must save our thinking, taking into account the limitations of the human resource. In the "skyscraper", about which I write in my essay you live on the top floor, because you do not want to descend to what is the basis of life. Before establishing the intricacies of quantum states with living phenomena, one must know the essence of quantum mechanics. New Cartesian Physics, which I discovered, argues that the cause of quantum phenomena in the existence of the pressure of the universe, which overcomes the space, to begin fluctuations. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, serves as the foundation for the birth of life. Look at my essay,
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
post approved
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
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 quantum computing (exponentially massive parallelism) comes directly from quantum entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.
You might be interested in reading my essay,
“Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.
Best wishes,
Alan Kadin
view post as summary
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
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 "true" is missing, and I suspect we might presently differ re the nature of entanglement and its definition [see my essay]. However, given the quality of your own work, I very much look forward to discussing this -- confident that agreement is likely.
3. As for quantum computing: and the mainstream one-day starting to question the foundations of quantum mechanics? In that Bell's "theorem" didn't lead more to water, I doubt much else will lead them through a change of religion to a refreshing drink!
4. And you certainly got this right: "You might be interested in reading my essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I look forward to discussing
prevalence waves, wavepackets, and physical waves where -- bypassing
probability and all its confusions [eg, see Qbism] -- I have here used my preferred term. Thus I seek to understand objective prevalence waves [say, simple cos
2] via a theory of prevalence amplitudes and wavepackets.
5. As for GR, I am still in the basement, cleaning up the more elementary foundations. But (at the risk of being misunderstood), I am bold enough to suggest that we can together strengthen your position, as follows:
5a. You say:
"something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century."5b. I'm inclined to say, respecting its outstanding history:
classical physics itself should be restored. Thus, for me:
(i) Planck's quantum of action is classical. For, as EPR made clear, [from ¶3.1) in my essay], (iii) “The elements of physical reality ... must be found by an appeal to the results of experiments and measurements [the latter, in our terms, often better described as tests].”
(ii) Bohr's "disturbance insight" is classical. As per EPR above: Malus (c1810) taught us that classical light-beams are disturbed by interactions.
(iii) And so on: special relativity is classical; and from my essay, what I call Malus' Law, Bayes' Law, Born's Law are classical; in short, true local realism is wholly classical.
(iv) What more might our opponents require of classical mechanics and its modern developments?
PS: Though I cautiously use scare-quotes -- [I call it "neo-classical" -- hoping those who think about such matters will see my stubborn code for
classical -- your work [almost; it's early days] inclines me to join you under the neoclassical banner. Certainly it's food for thought.
6. You say: "QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime."
I say: please see Fröhner; LINK via #17 in my References. The R-F theorem there says that periodic angular distributions entail discrete angular-momentum distributions, hence discrete outcomes of spin tests: the classical rules for linear and angular momentum holding, not just on average but case by case (as in EPRB). See also the spinor wavefunction in his eqn (69).
PS: Hoping this helps, I'll post it on your essay-site too.
With my thanks again; Gordon
view post as summary
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
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 indeed sorts and finds the end of the middle. as I've specified before, the old & logically problematic 'excluded middle' is replaced the 'Law of the Reducing Middle' which is a Cos
2 curve peaking each side produced entirely classically as the Rev Bayes, John Bell and now yourself foretold.
Now to tackle the 'end'. I suspect this may the trickiest bit as, as Chandra Roychoudhuri describes in his essay, current "sillyness" (J Bell 19__) is so deeply entrenched not only can't the 'see' out but we have to winkle it all out and up against gravity. Might it be a better idea just to bury the lot? Bill McHarris's essay implies more rapid funerals are needed to move on (after Max P) so that may achieve the aim at a stroke. It may take many of us working in unison!
Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!
Best
Peter
view post as summary
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
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 course to the same safe harbour.
You write: "I couldn't read all of [your essay] as I didn't recognise the symbols ...."
O Captain, my captain: eqns (1)-(3) chart the stormy waters, with ¶¶4.1-4.2 written expressly for keen sailor's like you. (And here be no dragons! Rather, here we come to my comment about "the mathematics".)
With every pointed critical comment most welcome, my [cough] lovely notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about q for qon, a quantum particle? [Just kidding?] Have a look again (sometime) at ¶4.1 and the little exercise there for diligent sailors; knowing that we're on a steady heading to a safe haven and more conventional representations -- see eqn (21).
So that's why I'm keen to see: (i) your representation of the beables in your work; (ii) the interactions; (iii) the outcomes; (iv) all wrapped up (eventually) in some math (by you or some shipmates, mate).
As for working in unison: I'm up for that, but tend to be a bit of a Lone Sailor given my current solo focus on showing how TLR (true local realism) takes us all-the-way to Shangri-La.
In response to this from you -- "Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!" -- I'll also put this as a comment on your essay-site. I'll also read the essays that you mention.
With my thanks again; Gordon
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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 the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). [ps: I've lived with such since 1989 when I first read about Bell's theorem, thanks to Mermin (1998); old habits die hard.]
Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about what's yet to come: a fancy-q for qon, a quantum particle; saving 4 syllables? A fancy-P denoting probability (subjective) and/or prevalence (objective) -- to thus rescue "probability" from much modern nonsense, eg, Fuch's QBism? (At the same time leaving ordinary P and q unchanged in ordinary physics.)
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 the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). [ps: I've lived with such since 1989 when I first read about Bell's theorem, thanks to Mermin (1998); old habits die hard.]
Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about what's yet to come: a fancy-q for qon, a quantum particle; saving 4 syllables? A fancy-P denoting probability (subjective) and/or prevalence (objective) -- to thus rescue "probability" from much modern nonsense, eg, Fuch's QBism? (At the same time leaving ordinary P and q unchanged in ordinary physics.)
Please have another look at ¶4.1 and the exercise there; knowing that we're on a steady heading to more conventional representations -- see eqn (21). And please make critical suggestions for improvement.
EB: I am unhappy with the lacking readiness to fundamentally clarify the issue of entanglement.
GW: Yes, me too, so thanks for this. Entanglement is nothing mysterious. Under the R-F theorem [and what I call Born's Law: see
the law of eponymy], the probability interpretation of QM needs to be more clearly understood. The entanglement brought about by angular-momentum conservation (with the added information that the sum for the two particles is zero), is a physical (and therefore a logical) constraint on all probabilities and observations. This has nothing to do with AAD [nonlocality], nor remote piloting, etc. Rather, if the total angular-momentum is zero in EPRB, then
λi =
μi pair-wise.
An arbitrarily-oriented polarising interaction with one pristine twin yields thus, by logical inference, a related equivalence-class for the other pristine twin. (And this conclusion, tested any time, always gives the expected result.) There is thus no need to invoke anything mysterious: rather, an understanding of entanglement is crucial to any non-mysterious understanding of EPRB, Aspect’s experiments, QM, and our world in general.
EB: 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 [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] is even more fundamental.
GW: Not to diminish Dirac, but to acknowledge R and F: for me, RFT is a more soundly-based argument, with applications beyond QM. For those who see mystery in the superposition of states, or in the preparation of superimposed states, RFT demonstrates this: the superposition principle is a mathematical tool (thus logical constraint), valid for all none-negative distributions; whether of probability, mass, charge, etc.
nb: under TLR, Planck's a quantum-of-action is not mysterious either. It is required for the description of extended particles (in contrast to mathematical points).
EB: Errare humanum est.
GW: And to our friends: Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.
EB: I cannot finally judge John Hodge's "opposite approach" because I didn't yet read his essay. ... 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.
GW: I expect to respond to John Hodge tomorrow.
EB: [Edited, as my response] If I understand Gordon Watson correctly, he [with Fröhner] is aligned with the power, centrality and generality of the RFT.
GW: Yes.
EB: I consider my own suspicion much more radical and invite all of you to show in what I am wrong.
GW: I will comment soon, but make this point now: I agree with the second sentence in your essay, but would ask you to reconsider some of your positions in the light of RFT; for many other statements in your pristine essay resonate-in-harmony [verschränkt = entangled] with mine.
PS: With my thanks again, and hoping to be helpful, I will post this on your site too.
Gordon
view post as summary
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 08:57 GMT
Eckard, [for completeness, this is the reply from your essay-thread]
Reading your -- "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" --
I took the "it" to refer to Dirac's opinion about the probability amplitude. Hence my comment in the...
view entire post
Eckard, [for completeness, this is the reply from your essay-thread]
Reading your -- "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" --
I took the "it" to refer to Dirac's opinion about the probability amplitude. Hence my comment in the context of the more fundamental R-F theorem.
I see now (and somewhat surprised by your accompanying doubt), that your "it" here "referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay."
Please, what is that radical doubt? I did not see such a thought in your essay; perhaps I am a less-doubting radical?
Thus: there is so much that I agree with in your essay, I truly wonder where your doubt arises. Are you referring to this: "Therefore, some putative pillars of science are suspected to be just semi-fundamental constructs on a shaky basis. Judge yourself." ??
I (see my essay) would strengthen you claim to this (and without doubt): "Some supposed pillars of science are false. Judge for yourself. See how far we advance by rejecting the ubiquitous and unqualified (but primitive) notion of REALISM in physics (it is NAIVE REALISM). That is: simply replace NAIVE REALISM by TRUE REALISM* (the insistence that some existents may change interactively), and see quantum theory derived classically." [Then, relatedly, there is Bell's theorem; as in my essay's Appendix!]
* With such true realism known to me since the age of two, with a photo for proof (me with my rail-spike-for-a-hammer beside a newly-fitted but now smashed porcelain toilet bowl), me having imitated the plumber who (10 minutes earlier) had gently tapped the bowl into the fresh cement with his own steel hammer! dink-dink-dink, I can still hear it! [Me, as ever, trying to make sure things are right ... kaboom.]
This story for you: some light-relief as to why you should, today,** NOT be tense and NOT harbour any doubt, radical or otherwise!
** Given your own analyses, with my essay.
PS: You say, "There is one reality." In agreement, I add, "Reality makes sense and we can understand it." Against Bell, I add, "Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery." To you, I say, "Only the impossible is impossible."
HTH; and loving your very deep essay,
Gordon
view post as summary
hide replies
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.
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
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 version. [As an aside, re your next-world-order: as a management consultant, specialising in fixing sick organisations for free, I practice and recommend benign-dictatorships: where overthrow is a vote-based and happy (because evolutionary) occasion.]
Thus, for me, it's truly good that you are taking the opposite approach to that which I take in my studies. Since, from such a position, we cannot both be right, I see here a chance to make real mutual progress. Thus, welcoming a clearer explanation of your position (and wondering if you endorse "infinite-speeds" sometimes associated with van Flandern), your claims give rise to several preliminary questions.
[I hesitate to say more right now. In relation to your comments here, let's first eliminate misunderstandings and ambiguities before embarking on trickier conceptual questions.]
............................
JH-1: "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."
GW-1a: If we take "your opposite approach" -- ie, accepting that "quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern" -- how does that make things non-local?
GW-1b: Why wouldn't we call such events "van Flandern-Local"?
GW-1c: As I recall, van Flandern himself held: "(i) EVERY effect has an antecedent, proximate cause; (ii) there is NO true action at a distance"; eg, see Wikipedia, from his seven principles. Since, unless I'm missing something, I could endorse the van Flandern position given here: please, how do I reconcile your position here vs. van Flandern?
GW-1d: In saying that an experiment "suggests" superluminal speeds, on what interpretative assumptions do you personally rely?
GW-1e: Relatedly, what is your definition of "realism".
GW-1f: If I understand you correctly, we could solve many of our differences by substituting van Flandern-Locality for Einstein-Locality. Since all my ideas are subject to development in the light of sound experimental outcomes, could you elaborate, please: which results of my essay [thus far] would not hold under van Flandern-Locality?
...............
JH-2: "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."
GW-2a: You use "local" in scare-quotes (for effects) but the non-local (for experiments) is not? Does 'local' have different meanings here?
GW-2b: In what way do you say that experiments are non-local? (See also vF in
GW-1c: above.)
GW-2c: "Experiments!!" Where might I find independent replications, please? From what you write, you are heading in a Nobel direction.
GW-2d: Wouldn't van Flandern himself say that your results are still van Flandern-Local?
GW-2e: Do I take it that your experiments find QM and QT unsatisfactory?
[To be clear: Since, in my experience to-date, I find Einstein-locality to be currently better supported experimentally than van Flandern-locality, you have here the basis for my current 'locality' choice.]
..................
JH-3: "Therefore, our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained."
GW-3a: Yes, we seem to agree: In my theory, I do not render the micro different to the macro; you seem to disagree?
GW-3b: Again, seeking to be clear: What does "the Quantum weirdness" entail for you; with examples to help me please?
GW-3c:: As mentioned above, I'd welcome the details behind "the Reality principle".
GW-3d:: Please, which of your essays give me your latest mathematical analyses?
............................
PS: John, with my thanks again, I will post this on your site too, hoping it will be helpful when I comment there, on your essay.
With best regards; Gordon Watson
view post as summary
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
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 example, an observation which appears to show a photon colliding with other matter is not the model because of the speed of the reaction is so fast as to fool the instruments.
Start by refering to your paragraph 2.0 (i) The STOE model suggests (postulates) that hods (smallest matter particle causing the gravity effect, one component of the universe) causes the plenum (like Space of GR or ether, etc. another component of the universe) in contact with the hod to deform/warp - the gravity effect. The plenum deformity/warp/wave causes neighboring plenum to deform (like waves in water). The warps cause other hods to move. NO ADD everything is by contact -Hods do not and cannot "touch" (share any common space). GW-1b
2.0(ii) There is no boundry between differing scale observations. We're in one universe as the STOE takes as fundamental. Better /more efficient to take macro models and apply them to big (cosmolgy) and small (quantum) scales.
GW-1d, GW3b So, examples of quantum weirdness observation (experiments) are single photon (or very, very low intensity) at a time in a diffraction experiment, entanglement, quantum eraser (no time reversal wave either), van Flander's measuring the direction of gravity and light being such that gravity leads light by 8 minutes, and the Hodge Experiment. The idea Newtonian model also assumes that gravity effects of a planets position in the solar system effected by other planets' instaneously (otherwise, Newtonian mechanics does't work).
GW-1e The issue becomes to find a model that no experiment rejects (as in my essay). So, "real" or "realism" is not adressed. Real (as most use the term )is a metaphysical/religeous concept. My interest is finding useful models to aid human survival. We don't need to know what is really real, only experimental results. Observable beable (?)
I started to think about light diffraction experiments because this and Young's experiment are the very fundamental base of all models of the quantum world. The science community had worked on wave models of light and were hung with experments that were weird (too much ad hoc stuff and too many possible alternatives to the Schroedinger equation). I developed the hod/plenum model based on several experiments (vanFlander, Shapiro delay, etc.). The simulation program produced what I initially took to be a problem. The paths of the photons crossed just past the slit. I worked for over a year thinking this was a major error. Then I saw a paper about walking droplet in a diffraction-like experiment. (see Bush, "The new wave of pilot-wave theory", Aug. 2015, Phy Today, p. 47 and references therein - Fig. 5(c)). This suggested the Hodge Experiment which I did. (see photon: http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 (paper) and
Hodge Exp video -12 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI )The experiment is easy for an amateur to do.
BTW If you have access to a Photon counter, repeating the experiment with such equipment would be a step forward.
Now for some responses to your response not yet covered:
Not "infinite speeds" , no infinites in the universe. But very fast- 10^7 c.
I've experience as a turn-around division manager. I'm thinking and writing a book suggesting a 3rd US Constitution. some is on my web page. I think the framers of the 2nd (current) Constitution get a lot correct - they rejected the Bill of Rights. But had no provisions to allow the bill of rights or other abuses of the uninformed electorate.
Mutual progesss - Agree. That is why I'm writing an essay about your comments so long as experiment guides the way.
Van Flandern- I use his experiment results, only. I don't know what "van Flander local" or "Einstein local" means. All observations are a result of actions occuring through a plenum which have speed >>> speed of light. The Shapiro observation suggest speed of light change for differing plenum densities rather then time dilation. I reject van Flandern' idea of creation and demise of the stuff (hods and plenum) of our universe. I noted in my essay that all observation we know about have a source of energy entering a process that the provides energy to another process. Stack the processes end to end to reach an source of stuff into the universe and an sink (thermodynmic terms) of enegy from our universe. Our universe cannot be adiabatic - no process in the universe is totally adiabatic.
GW-2a, GW-2b quotes because others use the term that is, to me, meaningless. All actions involve a plenum, therefore, plenum speed.
GR-2c published replecations. That is a problem. So, do the experiment yourself. I have difficulty thinking that even if another did the experiment with photon detectors, they would not publish because it would be too disturbing to the status quo - hence, their career like Halton Arp's career would be ruined (book - "Seeing red").
GW-3d Each paper topic has its own math. Hodge, J.C., 2014a, Universe according to the STOE, IntellectualArchive,
Vol.4, No. 6, P.6 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan.,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648 . has the overall observation math.
Hodge, J.C., 2016a, STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction
and that replaces QM, IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, 2014,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 . has the latest postulates. My goal has been to use existing (with the exception of the predicted Hodge Experiment) to determine the fundamental characteristics of the plenum and hod to produce ALL the obseration of our universe.
Hodge
view post as summary
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
John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 07:21 GMT
Gordon:
Response to your question of 15 Feb.'15
Q1: The older term I used was "the one universe principle" and its corollary that the universe is fractal. Therefore, the quantum world should have analogs in the Newtonian world without weirdness. In addition: since we learn from birth many characteristics of our scale, these become instinctual - more: they become the very definition...
view entire post
Gordon:
Response to your question of 15 Feb.'15
Q1: The older term I used was "the one universe principle" and its corollary that the universe is fractal. Therefore, the quantum world should have analogs in the Newtonian world without weirdness. In addition: since we learn from birth many characteristics of our scale, these become instinctual - more: they become the very definition of what is logical.
Q2: The [AAD] is meant to show that "AAD" will mean "action-at-a-distance" in the paper. So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen. Note "local" is here defined as less than or equal to the speed of light (see later questions). I think it's common to put definitions and symbols in parentheses immediately after the word. I don't understand what you expected to see there?
Q3 experiments should guide the physics models/theories and the appropriate math should be used.
The photon model with the math:
The initial which showed how incoherent became coherent. However, although the slit simulations were encourging, the trace of photon paths left something to be improved.
Photon diffraction and interference
IntellectualArchive, Vol.1, No. 3, P. 31, ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, July 2012
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=597
improved math simulation
Single Photon diffraction and interference http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1557
Light diffraction experiments that confirm the STOE model and reject all other models
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1578
some evolution of the model happened
video based on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI
Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light
IntellectualArchive, Vol.4, No. 6, P.11 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
Hodge Experiment distinguishes between wave and particle caused diffraction patterns
IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P. 7, ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1712
STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM
IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P.1 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719
another video based on this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI
Hodge experiment (continued) of interference with a slit in a transparent mask rejects wave models of light
IntellectualArchive, Vol.6, No. 5,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1862
Hodge experiment (continued) with opaque strips and about the Afshar Experiment
IntellectualArchive, Vol.6, No. 6,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1872
Q4: Conventional math does deliver with the unconventional STOE physics postulates. Little about the STOE physics postulates is conventional.
Q5: The model is that all matter interactions are through the plenum and that the plenum wave effect is faster tha light ( faster than light means non-local). Therefore, any experiment performed involves an influence the happens at faster than light speed.
Q6: ? sure if you wish. But my meaning uses instantaneous in the simulation as an approximation. I see little difference in what we can measure between 10^7 c and instantaneous except to say that infinite speed like infinite anything is physically disallowed in the STOE. When the math yields an infinity, something is wrong with the math or the model.
However, diffraction observations on solar system or galactic scale may be possible where speed of gravity would be important. We have to think about what to look for.
Thanks for the query.
Hodge
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 08:43 GMT
Thanks Hodge, but re this,
from you: "Q2: The [AAD] is meant to show that "AAD" will mean "action-at-a-distance" in the paper.
So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen. Note "local" is here defined as less than or equal to the speed of light (see later questions). I think it's common to put definitions and symbols in parentheses immediately after the word. I don't understand what you expected to see there?"
You write:
So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen.Here's what I expected:
Two of the things Bell's inequality shows are:
(1) His assumptions do not agree with reality; being experimentally false.
(2) His claims, thus, have nothing to do with realityPS: You can see Bell's theorem refuted classically on p.12 of my essay. You can see the EPRB-expectation derived classically on p.7.
All the best; Gordon
hide replies
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.
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
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
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
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 mystery -- we find the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born; plus real dynamic functions in 3-space that the Bell-literature does not. All of this from TLR and EPRB, totally absent any nonlocality [NL] -- see your next.
Without recourse to Born, TLR also provides the correct answers for Aspect's experiments, GHZ, GHSZ, etc. Thus TLR links to QT at the most fundamental level by using Malus' and Bayes' Laws in quantum contexts. We can then validate Born's Law in these experiments; THEN continue on to similar validation in double-slit experiments [DSE], etc.
See Fröhner in my references for ongoing (deeper) connections to QT. Thus, from such links, do you not now see QT derived classically? If your answer is in anyway in the negative, how come?
JA-2: "It must be recalled that quantum theory is nonlocal and this nonlocality [NL] is well established in experiment.
GW-2: ?? To recall NL I would need to recall conflicted interpretations, typically associated with the colloquialism "collapse of the wavefunction". There is no such collapse in my work, hence no such NL. So what does your claim mean? Where is the NL in QT (as opposed to interpretations)? And what experiments are you referring to, please? And what, in them, do you define as NL?
JA-3: "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."
GW-3: ??? How do you define locality AND NL? How do YOU clarify matters for people with such "confusions" please?
Gordon: to be continued.
view post as summary
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:43 GMT
Gordon to Juan; continuing:
JA-4: "So not only attempts to derive "quantum theory from the premiss of true local realism [TLR]" are incorrect, but they are not really needed, because there is no contradiction."
GW-4a: "Incorrect"? Please: what are the errors? And as for your claim re "no contradiction" -- please -- be sure that your answer to GW-3: is clear.
I agree with the thrust of your comment re "Bohr's idea ... " and "Entanglement implies the existence of a correlation between systems." But, since the implications go far beyond that: GW-4b: How do you define entanglement in technical terms?
JA-5: "And correlation is a function of interaction."
GW-5: ?? Is this a typo? Why is the primary twinned-pairwise-correlation in EPRB not already existing as the PRISTINE particles leave the source: ie, existing before any interaction?
JA-6:[/b ] "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."
GW-6: LaTeX is working again, so I'd welcome the full expression; or attach it.
HTH. With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon
PS: FQXi -- note formatting errors; no bold, and see JA-6: [/b ]
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 01:06 GMT
Responding to Peter Jackson (above) -- with thanks -- re:
"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. ... ."..........................
PJ,...
view entire post
Responding to Peter Jackson (above) -- with thanks -- re:
"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. ... ."..........................
PJ, imho, Eckard has it wholly correctly and your are partially correct. That is, in relation to my work, I often talk in terms of my "neo-classical" approach: but that's because many others see QT (with its quantum) as a non-classical theory. However, in my terms:
my theory is wholly classical.
Background to this engineer: I hold fast to three classical mantras:
(i) Reality makes sense and we can understand it.
(ii) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated outcomes without mystery.
(iii) Only the impossible is impossible.
Background to my theory: Wholistic Mechanics (abbreviation WM; logo w@m, pronounced
wham) began in 1989: against Mermin's "Spooky action at a distance; mysteries of the quantum theory" (Britannica's GBWW 1988).
WM is a wholly classical theory that brings QM into the classical family of physical theories: WM = unification = {classical mechanics, QM, special relativity, general relativity}.
As for the logo (poorly rendered here) its origin is this:
Preparing for my initial phone-call to David Mermin, I pictured two separating particles 'w
i' and 'm
i' and used the analogy of entangled twinned “worms” separating — w
i (
womanly, heading toward womanly Alice's locale A*) and m
i (
manly, heading toward manly Bob's locale B*) — ie, heading in opposite directions from their common source, a one-off twin-producing worm-egg @ [see its spin]. Thus each twinned-pair is correlated by their common DNA and anti-correlated via their sex.
And while most analogies are unsuccessful in explaining entanglement, those with a nod to mysteries have difficulty rebutting the arguments with our worms. Thus, if Alice finds pristine 'w
i' to be a female, is it any wonder [whatsoever] that she knows Bob will find a male if he does the related test. Likewise, if Bob tests pristine 'm
i' for its DNA, is it any wonder [whatsoever] that he knows the DNA Alice will find if she does the related test; and so on! Of course, QM with its entanglements entails many more correlated relations: and GHZ worm-eggs produce triplets; GHSZ worm-eggs produce quads; etc.
Now, to be clear: I see my role at this stage to be the one advocating for CLASSICAL approaches (like yours; against all others who use non-classical approaches) to understand and reformulate QM, without mystery.
[ps: Alan Kadin uses the term neoclassical; perhaps like I have used "neo-classical". I believe that Alan (with many others on this path to reformulation) will deliver a classical theory if he is successful. Moreover, I do not see WM's basic classical principles being negated by such. Comments welcome.]
Cheers; Gordon
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 11:36 GMT
At 3009 I tried to explain why I consider this statement a tautology.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 00:35 GMT
Eckard, from me, via your essay-thread: GW. -------
Dear Eckard: above you wrote:
"Gordon Watson wrote: -- "Reality makes sense and we can understand it." --
In my understanding, this is a tautology because I am merely distinguishing between mysticism and conjectured reality of anything including the also comprehensive notion of the physical universe."
My use of that phrase is an affirmation that links to your statements: "There is only one reality;" and "Causality [see my use of -- "interactions" --] is most fundamental to reality." Thus, as in my essay, my efforts to understand begin with the premiss of true local realism (TLR)* in spacetime.
"Not curiosity, not vanity, not the consideration of expediency, not duty and conscientiousness, but an unquenchable, unhappy thirst that brooks no compromise leads us to truth." G. W. F. Hegel.
* TLR: true local realism is 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.
All the best; Gordon
Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 19:30 GMT
Non-locality is established by experiment and it is a consequence of our universe not being composed of independent components. The interaction energy is non-local and this generates non-local correlations among particles: the total quantum state is not given by a simple product of the states of each component. In quantum theory we have non-local interaction U(R(t)), whereas special relativity only deals with local interactions U(r,t).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
Enta
nglement is when there is correlation among components and the total state |AB> is not separable. Correlation depends on a power series of the interaction U
If there is no interaction then the particles are isolated and there is no mechanism to correlate their states. Since interactions are nonlocal, correlations are nonlocal as well.
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 21:00 GMT
Thanks Juan,
Let me rephrase my position in your terms: Locality is confirmed by experiment; it is a consequence of our universe containing independent components which are correlated (eg, in EPRB, paired-particles are correlated by the conservation of angular momentum). Without any reference to (nor use of) nonlocality (nor nonlocal interaction-energy) -- and consistent with SR -- we can therefore calculate the correlation that will be revealed when such particle-pairs are tested by Alice and Bob. Experiments [will/do] confirm our calculations: to thus resolve Bell’s AAD dilemma and confirm the “silliness” (of his and his follower’s position) that Bell foreshadowed (as late as 1990). QED.
I will welcome you comments on ¶13 in my essay: there you will see Bell’s theorem refuted.HTH; with my thanks again, Gordon
hide replies
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 04:41 GMT
Dear Boris,
Please note the the fundamental originality in my theory is to replace "realism -- which, even in physics, is naive-realism -- by true realism: "true realism insists that some existents may change interactively."
You then see that this elementary foundation (with true locality) already provides a classical basis for much of modern physics.
Thus -- as I have just replied to you (above) -- when I "put my mind to the consideration of physical space" I arrive at this::
As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.
To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).
Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.
Question: Do you accept true locality and true realism; eg, see ¶1.4 in my essay?
Cheers; Gordon
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 01:12 GMT
In the basis of New Cartesian Physics “true local realism”
Sincerely, Boris
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
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
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 realistic (but neglected) fundamental:
At the very foundations of physics, I simply do "what [in your terms] is clear to me" -- I replace naive-realism by true-realism -- to see even more realistic consequences follow.
From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.
Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.
But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and (as we agree) always with facts and evidence in mind!
In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.
So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!
Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible
to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly.
With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon
PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.
view post as summary
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
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 that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.
............... Thank you for the supporting comments...
..............Your words....
Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.
But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and (as we agree) always with facts and evidence in mind!
In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.
So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!
Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly.
With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon
PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.
.............. thank you for nice blessings and Good opinions expressed on my essay.
You have written a nice essay and I am giving a high score ...
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
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.
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
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
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 01:28 GMT
Correction: "... there should BE a simple mathematical formula ... ." GW
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
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 - why would it not be?
If a particle isn't detected is may be simply absorbed by a molecule in the apparatus or elsewhere.
(Questions: 1, 2, 2a) The reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this:
Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle)
where an incident photon will give a - result.
When both detectors A and B point in the same direction (or exacly opposite), the semi-circles overlap perfectly giving a correlation of +1 or -1.
As detectors A and B are rotated, the semi-circles' overlap decreases linearly to a minimum (90 degrees between A and b, giving a 0 correlation) and then increases to a maximum again (i.e. now giving a correlation -1 or +1 respectively). So the amount of correlation expected is a straight line from +1, through 0 and then to -1.
(3) Yes of course different experiment have differing detection efficiency, and different papers have different correlation results too, but there are no experiments with 100% efficiency; indeed the best efficiencies are still quite low, allowing for a significant non-detect count.
(4) What is GHZ? are you referring to a particular experiment/paper?
A single particle event doesn't prove anything. The correlation is built up from numerous events. To discount non-detects one would have to have very good (approaching 100%) efficiency, which no experiment yet has come close to.
(5) I am aware that the detection loophole has been used to explain the BT result for a long time, and I used to talk to Caroline Thompson about Physics in the past.
My paper is mainly about showing that the detection loophole is still a viable explanation as the so called 'loophole free' experiments using a Steering Inequality do not close the detection loophole as claimed. My model shows a clear violation of the Steering Inequality using Classical Physics via the detection loophole.
The two computer challenge is exactly the same as my model. The two functions for determining the results from A and B could easily be run on different computers
in different rooms - or even different Galaxies if you like. It will still give the QM correlation using a Classical model based on non-detects.
I don't have time at the moment to analyse and undertand your paper fully, but I did pick up on this excerpt:
"For us, EPRB entanglements arise from the pairwise conservation of angular momentum; as in (3). (ii) A logical necessity therefore follows: if the a-component of λi is known (say, via Ai = 1), then (if tested), the a-component of μi will certainly deliver Bi = −1."
Essentially it seems to me that you are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment.
Yes, there is no doubt of that - but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing
where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the samse angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!
Regards,
Declan Traill
view post as summary
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
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:
Imho, what you call "Classical" or "Classical Physics" is not classical at all.Thus your "reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this:
Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle) where an incident photon will give a - result."May I take it that this "classicality" is part of your own theory? Or do you have a source? And can you be more specific, please, and consider your "detector" to be built from a polarizer followed by an analyzer?
For it's true that Bell 1964:(4) uses a similar approach, but only by way of illustration: for I'm not aware of any classical textbook advancing such a theory. What's more I do not see how your idea works for the usual classical demonstrations that are conducted with three 'sandwiched' polarizers: where brightness measurements show good accord with classical theory without allowances for "non-detects"?
You should be able to do the classical textbook calculation and see that it yields an expectation of one-half the QM value; which is NOT the blue line: instead it will be one-half the green line.
Then, regarding this next point of yours [with my emphasis]:
"Essentially it seems to me [DT] that you [GW] are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment. Yes, there is no doubt of that -
but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the same angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!"
In reply, with Einstein-locality ensuring that no detector has any 'knowledge' about the other: in EPRB (eg, using Aspect's experiments) the probability of +1/-1 from each detector is 50/50, for all
(a, b); so there is no "knowing" required. And the related correlation is twice the classical correlation because pairwise "entangled" photons (ie, in the singlet state) are more highly correlated than pairwise correlated photons (in beams) correlated by linear-polarization only.*
Re the latter, I recommend that you do the classical calculation; re the former I would encourage you to study my essay and ask questions. For I am keen to see where we might disagree and where things might be improved; me noting that the only change I make to modern physics is to take Bohr's "disturbance dictum" seriously.*
* My own dictum: Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery; and correlated tests on more correlated things produce more correlated results without mystery.
PS: The GHZ I mentioned is [14] in my References; you'll see the 4-particle GHSZ variant of EPRB in [13].
HTH, with best regards; Gordon
view post as summary
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
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 classical.In your essay you write that Figure-1 shows the "Classical prediction in Blue." From your comments above, I take it that you did not derive that line yourself? And that you have no such derivation?
Here's what I find when I check the two sources that you cite in comments above:
You write: "It’s not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem: See the diagram in the overview section here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem"
But, in reply, please note the Wikipedia wording:
"The best possible local realist imitation (red) for the quantum correlation of two spins in the singlet state (blue), insisting on perfect anti-correlation at zero degrees, perfect correlation at 180 degrees. Many other possibilities exist for the classical correlation subject to these side conditions, but all are characterized by sharp peaks (and valleys) at 0, 180, 360 degrees, ..."
The best possible local realist imitation: insisting that it be bound by two points!* Best possible? Imitation? And presumably a naive-realist (see next).
You also write: "Also see this presentation by Alain Aspect on the EPR experiment:
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1
/pdf/Aspect1.pdf"
Please note that Aspect's slide is headed:
"NAIVE example of LHVT."*
Thus, so far, nowhere do I see a
classical calculation delivering your Blue line. (And my comments on the non-classicality of your attempt to MATCH the Green line remain.)
* PS: The benefit of classically deriving
one-half the GREEN line, based on polarized particles is that you can see that the tighter correlation under the singlet state in EPRB will deliver an understandably different (but related) correlation, without mystery.
HTH; Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
view post as summary
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
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 gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
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
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 knowledge of important themes and buzzwords: inviting me to an exciting universe of discourse based on ideas, thoughts, poetry, etc. Alas, for me (an engineer), devoid of mathematics.
It's this last aspect that I seek to address in my essay -- mixing my poor poetry with simple math --- prompting another alas: it's nowhere near as popular as yours.
So please bring your poetry and your heavy-duty know-how to bear on my essay: for I will welcome such to trigger corrections and improvements. Hoping it will help to bring out the best in you, here's some background info.
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 Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.
So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism,
true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for
true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.
The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is
true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.
NB: 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 the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.
PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic.”
Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
view post as summary
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
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
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 this next from you gives me hope for the formalism: "However I think I got the idea."
nb: the formalism is meant to be physically significant in that a beable is represented by the same physically significant symbol: objectively/ontologically in spacetime and abstractly/epistemically in the mathematics.
I thank you for this: "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."
Please note: I do NOT infer to the total information of the angular momentum; for (as you rightly say) such cannot be inferred completely under β. However, I can carefully infer to the equivalence relations: and here I use a weaker, more general equivalence relation than that used by EPR and many others (about which we seem to agree; which is good).
In addition, note that β in (8) specifies the conditions under which the related (immediately-preceding) argument must be interpreted. So β drops out when we interpret (8) correctly and arrive at (9). This is explained in ¶6.2-6.3; but let me add for greater clarity:
The physical significance of the argument in (8) is this. Under condition β (and thus using the equivalence-relations established under β, etc) we are asked to evaluate the (possibly-disturbing) interaction between a polarizer δ
b± and a polarized particle q(a-). And we need the probability that q(b+) is the outcome. But, via our equivalence relations, this interaction/probability is just that covered (already classically) by Malus' Law.
So we use Malus' Law, to write (9) immediately. And we write QED because our result is that confirmed by QT under β. HTH?
In reply to this: "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)."
Agreeing with EPR, every relevant beable must be included in our analysis. So if you follow the suggestion in ¶4.1 to Watson (2017d:§2) you will see that my (1)-(2) includes the beable of spacetime, here reduced to 3-space since time and gravity are not essential beables under β.
With my thanks again, I look forward to your further comments on my disturbance interpretation: and any other concerns, critiques, suggestions, etc. I cannot be offended and learn much from such.
Gordon
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 mirror one-half the Green line — so that you can then offer it as remedy to the many world-wide fallacies that attach to that misleading straight-line. Of course, as discussed, I would also encourage you to revert to formalism NOT modelism in this area: where the former is simpler (and far less misleading; see the equations below).
In a fairly obvious notation: α denotes Aspect’s (2004) experiment (s = 1). β denotes EPRB (s = 1/2). Subscript c denotes a classical variant of the quantum experiments: ie, classically, the particle-pairs are correlated under linear-polarisation only. Thus, classically under c, and from my theory under “entanglement” -- see my essay — we find:
The superiority of formalism over modelism then becomes clear. A physicist (thanks to Bohm), comparing (1) with (3) -- or (4) with (6) -- sees that the superior correlation of the quantum-source gives superior results,
without mystery (compared to the weaker correlation provided by the "classical" source). In other words, pairwise correlation under linear-polarisation is weak compared to pairwise correlation under the conservation of total angular momentum.
It follows that the so-called "classical straight line" -- from all your sources -- is misleading: and the related flawed analyses do not support profound claims. Which is not to discourage you -- it is rather to redirect you from a popular dead-end to some real-physic; perhaps beginning with you challenging and correcting the hard-straight-liners; including Aspect.
To that end -- since my theory reflects the end that you (and many others) are seeking; with just one commonsense refinement to modern physics -- I look forward to discussing where I too might be on the wrong track.
With best regards; Gordon
view post as summary
Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 09:24 GMT
Gordon,
Whilst the mathematical equations look nice, you cannot ignore it he modeling as that is the essential step to prove or disprove a theory. If you cannot generate the correlation curve using just Alice and Bob functions to determine detector results in a model of the experiment then you have nothing.
Regards,
Declan
report post as inappropriate
Author Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 09:41 GMT
Thanks Declan. Surely that 2-computer contest is still running ...
Trusting you've spotted the source of your erroneous twist; with best regards; Gordon
Declan Andrew Traill replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10:29 GMT
Yes but I think the contest doesn’t allow for non-detect results, only + and - results, making it impossible to do...
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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
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
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
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
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 end of this read.
Hadn't seen 'premiss' used before, was familiar with premise. Googled a little, tried to sort out finer shade of meaning, but i'm not particularly adept at that sort of thing and settled for liking your version, as it gives one the permission to be right or wrong, is in accord with much remaining to be done. And agree we are surely at the beginning. Feeling of sorta arrogant presumption in premise vs premiss. Tho premiss is almost too negative imo.
Regarding your TOC, i looked in some detail at first 3 sections, browsed 4-9, and looked at 10-17 in some depth at several places. Took a break, fed the woodstove, coming back to it with some vague idea of where it's going, tho short term memory is not adequate for complexity you present in a single pass.
1.1. thanks for the numbering. excellent practice. saw this also with Bollinger. very helpful for commenting.
1.2 agree. gotta do the math. that's what keeps one on the path, the reality check.
1.3.i what you describe here i would call the geometric wavefunction.
1.3.ii and here you describe geometric wavefunction interactions, as modeled for instance by the geometric product of geometric Clifford algebra. Please notice the emphasis on geometry (need fields as well).
1.3.iii yes. at the most fundamental wavefunction level reality can be described by interactions of the fundamental geometric objects (point, line, plane, and volume elements) of 3D Clifford algebra, endowed with topologically appropriate quantized electric and magnetic fields. Any brand of realism that negates/neglects this can be rejected as naive.
1.3.iv hmmmm. this is where it gets interesting. It seems to me that at this point one has to clearly define 'real'. Wish you woulda done that for us. Or perhaps you do in what follows. Nice short clear definition here would be welcome.
1.4 simplest thing for me seems to be to equate beable with wavefunction. How does that sit with you? And here would like more precise definition of cause and effect.
2. appears to be mostly a lead-in to EPR
3-9 the details.
10. imo to define and understand entanglement one has to understand the wavefunction and its interactions. This line of inquiry has been frustrated foreffingever by point particle quark and lepton models, with all those unintuitive 'internal' attributes tied up in symmetry groups and higher dimensions, giggle dizzy daffy stuff imo.
I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind), but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space.
Conventional Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches look at conservation of energy and its flow between kinetic and potential, but they don't look at what governs that flow, the impedances.
Trumpet player needs that horn to mechanically impedance match his lips to the room, to let us feel the force of his emotion and intellect. Computer at which i sit is electrically impedance matched at almost gazillion nodes. Otherwise it could not do what it does. Impdances govern amplitude and phase of the flow of energy.
In the world of the quantum impedances have been overlooked for an odd mix of reasons. The possibility that our web of Indra is woven together via the natural quantized impedance matches of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and photons? That this is what permits the entanglement that defines a quantum system and permits higher levels of emergence?
What governs the flow of energy in such systems are quantized impedances.
What set Michaele and i upon this path is mechanical impedances. When one does an arguably logically rigorous analysis of the two body problem, what emerges is a version of Mach's principle that yields a number for mechanical impedance. All massive particles have mechanical impedances, quantized by their mass, their Compton wavelengths.
Modeling a particle as an electromechanical oscillator then yields the conversion to electrial impedances. This approach can be applied to geometric wavefunction interactions.
So now we come to EPR. Quantized impedances are either scale dependent or scale invariant. The one exception (afaik) is the photon, which has both scale invariant far field and scale dependent near field.
Invariant impedances are inverse square. Associated forces can do no work, resultant motion is orthogonal to direction of applied force. All they can do is communicate quantum phase, not a single measurement observable. They maintain the phase coherent entanglement of the photon pair emerging from electron-positron annihilation, a coherence pre-existing in the eplus-eminus pair, phase rotating clockwise in the one and ccw in the other.
Each carries phase information from the annihilation in the form of their superposition, energy passing back and forth between the phases via Maxwell. Talk by Vaidman at 2013 Rochester quantum optics/information conference described in detail an experiment their group did proving existence of Wheeler and Feynman's backward travelling phase via 'weak measurement'.
In any case to understand wavefunction coherence, how this defines boundary of a quantum system, the role of quantum phase (tagging it as 'gauge' out of respect for Weyl's earlier mistake was a horrible pitfall for all that followed, made the obvious obscure) in entanglement both local and non-local,...
To have the geometric wavefunction interaction model that Michaele and i present subject to the intense logical scrutiny shown in your essay would be a most welcome opportunity. How do we build that bridge? Your formalism looks pretty formidable to me? Do you have any sense of where our gwi model is coming from? Wondering how much interest the Bollinger/Jackson/Traill/Simpson/... cabal might show in such an approach.
Agree at some not very complete comprehension level with most of what you present up to section 17.
regarding that section, imo such a discussion requires more precise treatment of reality/causality/observables/emergence/... in the context of the wavefunction and wavefunction interactions.
would like to understand more of what you're doing. Is it possible to continue these threads after the 26th? Only the possibility of rating expires at that time? Read somewhere in a comment that a few days ago someone commented on an essay from 2013, that commenting was still open there with his contributor code. Bug or feature of fqxi interface?
view post as summary
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
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 resisted].
...................................
Dear Michaele and Peter,
I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions! Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as you'll see) that it follows the mould of Philip Gibbs' lovely essay on "a universe of stories" as against my fondness for "a universe of dialogue" based on stories, poems, observations, dreams, etc. + MATHEMATICS -- such dialogue itself based on a universe of spacetime (a beable), full of beables and interactions -- the more especially when I see our shared fondness for GA, wavefunctions, interactions, observables (7x on p.1), ++++; plus a healthy avoidance of matrices, etc; ps, though I find avoidance of Bell's lovely term "beables"
(nb: in spacetime) not good for digestion; neither of food nor ideas;
nb: I also like inferables. [Breathing has now forcibly resumed; and with it the truth that much of your essay is currently beyond me.]
Re wavefunctions [WFs] -- and reminding you that (imho, if you like) math is the best logic -- please see Fröhner (1988:639), hyperlinked at Reference [12] in my essay; or via direct link to the PDF
Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.Fröhner's work is part of my theory [see essay at ¶11]; so re WFs, see particularly in the vicinity of this on his p.639: " ... Historically, the superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognised that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as a probability density. ..."
Re this from you: "The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent." I see that
"emergentia" is a favourite theme (at least on p.1): me being here forced -- similar to my distinctive use of "premiss" -- to return to the much more sensible Latin [subject to latin-experts] since the right word here --
emergency -- is misleading in plain English.
Though (please NB) maybe it does apply as a primary-concept that we should first sort out: me trusting that we agree with that fundamental and elementary premiss: TLR (true local realism)?PS: Regretting, with apologies, many other wiped comments (though they can be reconstructed in ongoing dialogues), I'll drop a copy of this onto my essay-thread; hoping you'll do likewise if/when you respond.
With my thanks again, and with best regards; Gordon
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
view post as summary
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.
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
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 so).
Seeking to understand (and give meaning to) your symbols, it seemed that you were in fact talking (somewhat in code) about me [well, certainly about some of my friends; but they can speak for themselves]. For, like them, I believe myself to be an element of the set X = {biological | spacetime}: renown for my
agency, as in
my doings, performances, actions; AKA getting things done.
Further, in accord with your thesis, I like to think that I do now take (from p.1) "proper account of the phenomenon of
meaning." For example: Having learnt to read at early age, I could give meaning to the symbols at the local bus-stop. It read: "BUS STOP. SIGNAL DRIVER." And though I only ever saw one driver per bus, yet I knew it was not a typo. For I also knew that "signal" had two meanings: and it could not be the common one, for it already said bus STOP. Thus did I see that they were reassuringly advertising the outstanding safety of each driver. [Only later did I learn, standing there, that the driver did not stop unless you waved (action); accompanied by great future insecurity (he might miss your action): whereas the one consistent message -- to my small mind -- lead to inaction by me, certain stopping by the bus, and an assured long-term security.]
All of which brings me to this next (p.1): "Meaning fails to show up in the world of physics simply because the kind of situations that physicists prefer to investigate are ones where meaning has no significant influence on the outcome." Yes, indeed! Consider the famous case of Bell's theorem: the meaning one attaches to REALISM
significantly influences ones' understanding of REALITY. For me, "true realism" proves to be consistent with locality; for others, "naive realism" leads to dilemmas about AAD and nonlocality.
I could go on about theorising and
scaffolding; to the edge of chaos; confusing readers; your [BJ] personal benefits (p.5). But I want to focus on this:
"Historians will marvel at the way insistence by the mainstream that at a fundamental level particles are the only things that matter, banishing to the fringe those scientists who think otherwise, will be seen to have drastically interfered with the progress of science" (p.6).
I AGREE: For while I take "existence" to be fundamental, it is "interference; AKA interaction" that provides
the doings, performances, actions of our dynamic universe: and particles. Thus do I believe that introductions to biosemiotics should focus on personal/human analogies from set X re scaffolding
to the edge of chaos; etc.
* My only acquaintance with C. S. Peirce is that I called upon him to prove a point re the last word in my title:
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
With my thanks again, and with my best regards; Gordon
view post as summary
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!
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
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
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 PledgeYour Pledge is so refreshing that I've hot-linked it above. LHS wording of the title is yours; to me, it reads "official" and is thus too hopeful (for now). RHS is my suggested edit as we work with FQXi to improve things!
2. Under current circumstances, my own position is clear:
(i) As an independent researcher, I'm here to discuss, learn, teach, debate, respond to every question, critique others, etc. Result = Fail; eg, next to no questions, few responses.
(ii) I'm not here for the votes: Result = Just-as-well; eg, given a 0 without explanation: how can I learn, respond, correct, defend, revise, acknowledge, etc?
3. While we await (with many others) for FQXi improvements, why don't we develop an OPEN voting system? Add to your Pledge a (say, for argument's sake) 5-category [each numbered; #1-5] scoring sheet [maximum vote per category = 2] with space for explanations, plus identifier (say, for you, hot-linked
Terry Bollinger [or with hot-linked email-addresses also allowed] so that we ALWAYS get an alert with easy-return access. [You get the idea.]
Recipient can respond to Terry Bollinger#2, for all to see: thus promoting open learning, debate, progress, support for one view or the other, or a middle view, etc. Given the teaching/learning, who then here, as a serious researcher, would focus on "fake-scores"?
The advantage of this OPEN proposal is that you, with your background, could lead us to something truly useful, actionable, within the current rules, a worthwhile experiment,
ready for the next "contest" (surely the wrong word here) -- which FQXi can monitor before refining (if need be), and accepting as the new gold-standard in OPEN teaching/learning/essay-exchange; etc:
ready for the next + 1 "contest"!
4. To your (for me) excellent essay:
(i) I counted 8 important fundamental symbols in Challenge #1.
(ii) Re Challenge #2: in my [hurried] essay, see hot-linked Reference [12], p.639! It's part of my theory.
(iii) NB: Your editorial red-pen will be very welcome there at any time; hopefully after you've read [in the first thread], the Background to my theory (which dates from 1989).
(iv) Maybe,
with hard work and insight, you might just become the person who finds a hidden gemstone of simplicity by unravelling the threads of misunderstanding that for decades have kept it hidden.PS: Terry, if/when you reply to my post (at any time), please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise.
Enough (for now): With many thanks and much appreciation for your lovely work;
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
view post as summary
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
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
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.
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.
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.