Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Lachlan Cresswell: on 4/24/20 at 23:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Ed, A fine essay. You make many good points about statistics and QM,...

Peter Jackson: on 4/24/20 at 16:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Edward, Lovely job simplifying the fundamental issues of QM. I...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 4/6/20 at 9:54am UTC, wrote Dear Edward Levi, Very simple and nice essay. you told the facts bluntly...

Edward Levi: on 4/3/20 at 14:41pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract There is a tug-of-war between Copenhagen...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Natalia Ares: "Natalia Ares, Oxford University https://www.youtube.com/embed/WuDqJHAR4Ew ..." in Machine Leaning for...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Determinism must strike back by Edward Levi [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Edward Levi wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 14:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

There is a tug-of-war between Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the hidden variables hypothesis. Up to now Copenhagen interpretation is the dominant theory. The dictum “shut up and calculate” is not an answer. Physics community hope some time in the future Determinism will strike back.

Author Bio

I am an accountant during working days and a Physicist during weekends and Holidays.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear Edward Levi,

Very simple and nice essay. you told the facts bluntly and in a straight forward manner. I also discussed some such facts in my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy"

Hope you will have a look

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Edward,

Lovely job simplifying the fundamental issues of QM. I applaud; "..determinism will strike back". John Bell actually agreed despite his 'theorem' which most think prevents that. But it only does so for Bohr's 'assumptions', of which Bell thought "the founding fathers were wrong". (see my essay.

Actually if you read my last years finalist essay you'll see you're right & determinism HAS struck back! The problem now is not identifying a physical solution but overcoming embedded irrational beliefs!

Let me give you a quick taster; Use a spinning sphere instead of a 2D coin (nature is 3D!). Now ask each time of the point closest to you;,1. is the motion clockwise or anti clockwise? and 2. It it moving Up or Down? OK?

That's easy,..until a pole or a point on the equator is facing you!

If that dynamic (as 'absorption & re-emission vectors) simplifies momentum exchange on particle interactions (with just a few more parts to the sequence) then the rebel alliance wins! Unfortunately the troglodyte Empire of Academia just ignores it! The problem is perhaps really then one of cognitive dissonance.

This year I dig down to the foundations, and show the implications of the more solid & coherent causal ones. I hope you'll read and score it. Your 1.5 is a disgrace, but probably trolls, as mine's had a few 1's as well. Mine will take it back up a bit!

Thanks for the breath of fresh air.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 23:15 GMT
Dear Ed,

A fine essay. You make many good points about statistics and QM, and the need for a deeper ontological framework as QM is not a complete theory, nor can it ever be one.

Another statistician, Caroline H. Thompson, has also presented many fine arguments against QM in the early EPR experiments, some years ago. (Her papers are well worth a read, and are available on arXiv and Researchgate. See for example A Hidden Variable Explanation of Aspect's Asymmetry Anomalies or EPR, Magic and the Nature of Light)

I will pick up a point you made in your essay. You said “If you throw a book in the fire then the information contained in the book is not lost, but it is impossible to get it afterwards from the ashes, but here statistics cannot help you.”

I would argue that the laws of physics do not equally run forward and backward in time, hence the information contained in the book is lost forever. However, the matter that formed the book (protons, neutrons and electrons) are not lost but continue their existence. [Unless of course one or more particles are annihilated by a corresponding anti-particle]

Check out my essay “Wandering towards a ‘Theory of Everything’ and how I was stopped from achieving my goal by Nature”, where I make an observation about wave/particle duality, based on one’s interpretation of the nature of a photon and whether the laws of physics work the same forward and backward in time.

Good luck,

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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