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 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.

Forum Home
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

January 18, 2018

ARTICLE: De-Spooking Quantum Mechanics [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Roy Johnstone wrote on Jul. 14, 2011 @ 03:59 GMT
"It's separability that you have to give up" - this was already realised by David Bohm back in 1952 and he devised a theory based on Louis de Broglie's "pilot wave" model which is fundamentally non-local and reproduces all the predictions of standard QM without all the weirdness and so called paradoxes.

The ones to watch in the development of the de Broglie-Bohm picture are, I think, Antony Valentini and Ward Struyve. Valentini in particular has proposed how the "non-equilibrium" state representing Bohm's "sub-quantum" field may be detected in the CMB for example or by detecting relic non-equilibrium particles. This is based on the valid proposal that the physics described by our current theory are the result of relaxation to equilibrium (similar to thermodynamics) from the more fundamental non-equilibrium state. It is this equilibrium distribution that allows the derivation of the Born rule. The prior non-equilibrium state would violate the Born probabilities and this may be detectable in the CMB etc.

There is no "wave function collapse" or *assumption* of the classical world, rather it emerges naturally and unitarily from the form of the wave function as determined by the sub-quantum potential. It strikes me as by far the most promising approach to *explaining* the microscopic world without separating it from the macroscopic world, requiring some arbitrary and subjective discontinuous "cut-off", something the standard interpretation cannot do.

However if Myrvold could show how entanglement could be generalised in some way to replace Bohm's sub-quantum field, thus keeping relativity intact, that may change things?

But watch Valentini!!

report post as inappropriate

Bee wrote on Jul. 14, 2011 @ 05:58 GMT
"To comply with relativity, you don't want the possibility for faster than light signaling,"

That's right of course. But it's dangerous to start from what one 'wants' of a theory. Faster than light signalling in itself isn't problematic. It is problematic if you have Lorentz-invariance because then you could also signal backwards in time, screwing up causality. Yet again, that wouldn't be problematic if there was no arrow of time, you'd just have to demand consistency. But we do have an arrow of time. So here's the question: can you use the arrow of time (eg via decoherence) to prevent signalling backwards in time even though you can signal faster than the speed of light? And can you do that without spoiling Lorentz-invariance?

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Jul. 14, 2011 @ 11:38 GMT

Good to see you back in action here! Any key papers by Valentini that you'd recommend to the uninitiated just getting into this?


When the flow of time is viewed, correctly in my opinion, as being nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe (an evolution which is governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics), then a causal arrow of time is inevitable. There is no way for there *not* to be a causal arrow of time.



report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
Roy,JCN,happy to see the return of some rationalsists.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 14, 2011 @ 17:18 GMT
The matter of separability has connections to classical mechanics. In some choice of cotangent bundle frame the coordinates and momenta q_i and p_i define the dynamics of a system according to a Hamiltonian H(p_i, q_i)

dq_i/dt = ∂H/∂p_i, dp_i/dt = -∂H/∂q_i.

We may then write the dynamics according to a general X_i = (q_i, p_i) in the phase space...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 19, 2011 @ 06:36 GMT

What does entanglement mean? I appreciate your hint to a possible mathematical background even if it seems to be demanding and therefore deterring.

Erich Kaehler tried to get rid of the imaginary time. His thinking was affected from what I consider the same misconception that is at least as old as the bible: "Pater noster from minus infinity to plus infinity."

In order to say it as bold as possible: Aren't real part and imaginary part as well as magnitude and phase of reality entangled if we follow Heaviside and replace the causal half matrices by Hermitian ones?

I see a lot of questions open, e.g.: Which experiments were possibly misinterpreted? Can we separate the two fictitious parts of a standing wave from each other or isn't any standing wave just a clever fiction? Is antimatter imaginable without the belonging usual matter? I am sure: The are no separate evanescent waves.



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 19, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
Entanglement really means that two states end up with the same configuration variables. This is why one can take two entangled spin states for charged particles (electrons) and let them move apart. You then apply a magnetic field to one of them. You then examine the other spin with an RF detector. You then find the electron spin resonance in an entangled pair. This sharing of configuration variables reduces the number of degrees of freedom for a spin system from 6 to 3.

This is a purely quantum mechanical effect. The loss of degrees of freedom means that configuration variables are nonlocal, or equivalently for an entangled system you can’t separate them without demolishing the entanglement.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 20, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT

When I read EPR and the discussion Schroedinger/Einstein and V. Neumann's 1935 confession no longer to believe in Hilbert space, I understood that the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were based on mathematical speculations rather than an immediate effort to explain experimental results.

Reportedly, so called experimental verification by Bell, Freedman, Clauser, and Aspect are not free from seen loopholes. I suspect there might be unseen fallacies too. Despite considerable research effort for decades, practical application of quantum computing is not known to me.

From I learned that EPR's objection was not justified. I do still not yet understand why the physicists followed Schroedinger and considered C having more degrees of freedom than R.



report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 14:35 GMT
Travalling faster then light is a relative subject, going back in time is in my opinion the possibillity to LOOK at photons that departed in the time before you parted..

Suppose now that we when going then faster as c in circles around the earth, are we looking then in the past ? When we are looking in the past then we can go to the origin of the emission of the light we encounter , this means that we indeed are travelling in the past, but this we realise in the causal time that we as observers are living in, in fact we are already travalling in a paralel world, should we kill our grandfather by then , this would not matter at all because in another paralel world , we only went on a journey and never came back, in the world where we killed our grandfather, there is a future in which we will not exist and won't go on a journey in time.

In this way our journey is becoming a spiral deplacement in the paralel universes of space/time.

keep on thinking free


report post as inappropriate

Fyrehed wrote on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 17:06 GMT
I think BEE has good points. We can't know for sure that time strictly adheres to causality and is an arrow. Of course it seems that way but our history and mapping of the Universe is far too small, isolated, and specified to make that claim with any authority. Just from experience, time is relative even within one perspective it can fluctuate. It only seems likely, for example, that honey bees have a much different experience and conception of time than do turtles. And, assuming we're correct about the 'big bang' theory, wouldn't it fit (hypothetically, of course) that a separate objective observer would witness nothing more than a flash? I only say this because I believe time is one of the concepts we most skew with our own perceptions, try as we may not to. What if time as we think of it doesn't really exist and all we're really witnessing is movement, of ourselves and the Universe around us? What if there really is only one now, and the past is just when that now was in a different point in space? It sounds crazy, and might only be a good idea for a science-fiction novel, but it somehow makes sense to me (which works out, since I'd kind of like to write one).

Furthermore, what if separability isn't just wrong in quantum mechanics, it's wrong on our scale, too? It's very easy for methods of thinking such as that to seem accurate and even produce accurate 'results' but still be missing some of the point. After all, learning 'everything' about one person and 'everything' about another isn't necessarily going to tell you how they'll interact. There are surprises and outliers in our world, too. The quantum world isn't the only one that's a little bit funky.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 18:36 GMT
I don’t know about separability between two particles.. But the same particle may “exist” in two places at the same “time” . The quote mark indicate here the problem.

Lets look at a classical pendulum. The bob does spend more time at the ends of its travel that at the bottom. If I take a picture at any moment of the travel I will freeze the bob as a solid object in one place. If I make a video of the travel I see the whole travel back and forth of the pendulum in motion as a continuous history.

Now lets place the pendulum in a dark room with a very dim light and point the camera at it with an open shutter. The travel ends will glow more brightly than the mid bottom portion. We may not distinguish well the bob but we can see where it stayed longer during its overlapping histories.

From these experiments we see that our conception of the existence of the bob depends on the time frame we use. The picture took the bob out of context and froze it as a solid object in one position. The video just replayed how we see the pendulum movement and has therefore no analytical value. The open shutter shot did integrate both position and time of residence of the bob in one frame.

From the open shutter shot we conclude that within one half travel a) the bob exist somewhere with a probability of one or 100%. B) that it stays longer at the ends of travel i.e. it exist there more because it stays there longer. C) the same bob exist equally at both ends of the travel i.e. it is in both places, say, 30% of the time each end.

If we place an obstacle at the bottom position that stops the bob ... does a wave collapse occur? In a sense .. yes. The existence of the bob that was spread (non uniformly) along its travel is now all in one place. The wave function of the pendulum indicates a higher probability to find the bob at the ends of travel...But it is not 50% each end because both ends are connected by a continuous history that takes up some probability.

The moral here, if I may say so, is that “existence” in one place is a direct function of the time of residence in that place. We may not separate the bob in a cyclical motion (wave) in one position from its complete histories. Conversely, a differential in time rate will cause an object to exist more where it can stay longer e.g. inertial motion or gravitation.

Myrvold’s non-separability does not seem to address the definition of what it means to exist in one place, existence, and its relation to the time of stay.


report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Jul. 16, 2011 @ 20:26 GMT
I think we can all agree that "weirdness" is a subjective human evaluation. My opinion is that we shouldn't be asking why phenomena like entanglement are "weird." Instead we should be asking why the ordinary world is not "weird." Fortunately we have an answer for that now -- decoherence makes the weird-by-default world non-weird for us. We see macroscopic objects as being in only one place at a time, and separation of such objects is not a problem.

I also believe that decoherence is ultimately biological/technological in origin (as I argued in my essay), and that we'll never adequately confront foundational questions until we acknowledge this, but that's another story.

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Jul. 17, 2011 @ 23:05 GMT

Re Valentini, I would recommend a visit to Mike Towler's website here -,

which is dedicated to the pilot wave/hidden variable program. There are numerous references to papers , articles, books etc on the subject and Valentini's work is well represented there. I would suggest perhaps a read of his 2009 Physics World article "Beyond The Quantum" for a nice summary of both the ideas and the historical context. Or if you feel a bit more adventurous, you can download the book he co-authored "Quantum Theory At The Crossroads..." for a detailed look at the history of the QM interpretation debate.

In fact I would recommend the site to anyone who wants to gain a *true* picture of the history of the "pilot wave/hidden variable" vs "Copenhagen/standard" debate evidencing the misleading and often unfair treatment this theoretical model has received since the 1920's from it's original proponent Louis de Broglie, to the present day!


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 04:51 GMT

Thanks for these links.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Jul. 18, 2011 @ 00:57 GMT

Thank you for the suggestions for additional readings. I'll definitely make it a point to check them out. So much to read, so little time!



report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 19, 2011 @ 09:53 GMT
The condition known as "separability" has a time constraint as a natural quantity, certainty?

If one has a non-separate particle, extended over a certain distance, there are no points in "time" between either end of the system, thus there is but one single space, and one single non detected particle?

You cannot associate a single "dual" particle syatem (entanglement), with TWO measured time quantities, for instance the fact exists in relativity:two clocks next to each other, cannot share the same physical time, they are "separate" and non_continuous. Now, no two claock can share the same physical space, so FIP all measured clacks are unlike.

For entangled particles, they would infact share the same measured "time", thus be absolute?

On a quantum scale, for a single particle to be \SPLIT/ into "seperate" states of uncertain spin..etc..etc.. there will always be a condition of certainty, namely its energy condition.

An electron "entangled" over a large area of single space, will not have the same energy signature as an electron in proximity to say a single proton?

Rather than the electron energy be "diluted" by entanglement, it would infact become vastly increased?

Two electrons in TWO separate places in space and time,Entanglement, have a combined energy greater than the original single electron! something has to give way, if one state of the electon flits out of existence, in order to preserve, order, then we could apply quantum certainty very accuratly to any system, over any distance large or small.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 24, 2011 @ 02:27 GMT
I think there is a basic mathematical paradigm that gets misinterpreted. When we add, we are not adding the items, but the sets of items. The result is a larger set. Think in terms of apples, vs piles of sand. When we add the sand together, we get a larger pile of sand, but when we add the apples, we have the set of all the apples, unless we smush them and get applesauce. Think in terms of the organs in the body; When we add them up, we have a whole body, not just a set of organs.

It seems that when we add photons, we get a larger photon, as this article suggests, not just entangled individual photons. What is a photon? Is it really a discrete particle, or just the smallest measurable quantity of light? Mass gravitationally contracts, but radiant energy expands. Could it be that the photon is radiation's initial collapse into gravitational structure? How would me measure light on its own terms and not just as interaction with mass?

If two entangled photons are really one, what about all the light radiating from a large source, such as a star? Could it be considered as one enormous quanta of light? Since the further it travels, the more it expands and thus the same amount of light is distributed across more space. Since distant light is largely proportional to distance, could this be a reason why distant sources become redshifted?

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 00:14 GMT

I agree, there are maths in our minds or on paper and there are maths out there in the universe. A planet adds mass by getting mass closer to its surface (not by computing what is in the vicinity..) We see that addition is a geometric operation since adding mass in this case involves reducing the distance between the two masses. Subtraction is about separating or taking away a certain mass from the planet...

A way to reduce the distance between many masses consists in reducing the total volume that contains them; a multiplication (?). A division consists in diluting the masses into a larger volume... In a way, division is a spherical subtraction and multiplication is spherical addition. ..This is to me the maths of the universe, not the maths on paper..



report post as inappropriate

Carmen Putrino wrote on Aug. 11, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
I think there is a misconception about entanglement. When two particles are entangled, they are in the same state. Just because we do not yet know what state they are in because we have not yet made a measurement, they are in a particular state.

If I send two RED rockets out in space and I have the understanding that they are the same color and I decide to look at one rocket 3 lightyears later, I still know that the twin rocket is RED, as well, because I read the note in the rocket I observed that said that the other rocket is the same color.

I don't believe the balony that the particles are in an undetermined state before we measure their state. It's just that we don't know their state.

But, I'm sure I'm wrong, anyway.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:36 GMT
Instantaneity is the requirement of true/fundamental inertial/gravitational equivalency and balancing, as there is a fundamental balancing between small and large, attarction and repulsion, and invisible and visible space that occurs in dreams.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Dent wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 11:18 GMT
Yet again this article spreads the basic misconception that entanglement implies 'faster-than-light' signalling or communication. No, it doesn't, and as far as anyone knows you can't use it to obtain FTL communication. Of course it's much more exciting and 'newsworthy' to pretend otherwise ...

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
At the Planck scale information transfer is immediate, this is the key of quantum entanglement.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Jan. 18, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear All,

Everything in the universe is connected eternally in singularity, separability is an illusionary perception when one is in duality.

Relativity is the theory that best describes duality, where as singualrity is the absolute truth and several quantum mechanic observations are closer to this truth.

who am I? I am dualilty, I is the singualrity.

zero = i = infinity



report post as inappropriate

L.B.Johnson wrote on Feb. 7, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT
When a photon leaves a star it carries with it in its spectrum information about the nature of the star. Specifically, it encodes the nature of the Gravitational field extant at the time of emission. Gravity is fundamentally a manifestation of the temporal component of the metric. Entangled photons may be considered to have the local gravitational field, and thus the temporal component of the field "locked" into their spectrum. In other words they exist forever in the temporal metric existing at the time of emission. In that respect they exist on the same surface of constant time. Their separation is spatial but never temporal. Is it any wonder our relative perspective fools us into seeing superluminality?

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
I have documented the experiment you requested to discriminate theories of wave function collapse. The experiments demonstrate failure of the probabilistic collapse of the wave function. Starting with singly emitted gamma-rays in a beam-split coincidence test, the gamma detection should occur at one detector or the other, but not both, according to Quantum Mechanics. My coincidence rates greatly exceed chance, contradict QM, and answer many questions. Also, I performed a similar beam split-effect using alpha-rays. The He nuclear matter wave splits to cause two-for-one. I explain it with the prematurely abandoned loading theory.

Please see essay: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

Thank you Eric Stanley Reiter

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 04:42 GMT
The first part of this comment concerns the equation "H(subscript u) = (BEc)(superscript e infinity), or 1 = 1(superscript infinity)" - this equation looks like the one physicists are hoping will be printed on T-shirts in the middle of this century as a description of the Universe.

H is for the Hamiltonian, representing the total energy of a quantum mechanical system. The subscript u...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
I left out a couple of lines in the middle of the last paragraph of my post. It should read -

"... anticlockwise flow in a second 2D Mobius. These combine 1) via the infinitely long transcendental and irrational numbers, and 2) via bosons being ultimately composed of 1’s and 0’s depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles’ “wave packets”. They form a four-dimensional Klein bottle which is in fact one of the "subuniverses" ..."

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 08:01 GMT
Hi ,

I study a little the quantum entanglement and the action at a distance.It seems relevant for quantum computing.Electricity and magnetism have so many secrets still.How can we consider the locality principle of Einstein?

How are the conditions to have only one state for these particles? How can we harmonise the Lagrangian, the Hamiltonian, The Mnkowski space time and this and that...?Why have we this action at a distance? All ideas are welcome.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 08:05 GMT
If somebody can develop a little ,it could be well.I d like to learn more in this topic.It seems relevant.We are here to learn, to share, to imrpove , ....the models and theories.The rest is vain.The complementarity like a torch towards our universal truths.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2016 @ 08:47 GMT
It is utilised in computer programming and it is considered like an error.I see that gluons are relevant.If it does not exist a mediator implying this action.So the error is difficult to analyse because we don't know the components and locality.I beleive that still the sphere and volumes can help to find these errors in progrmming.An algorythm can be created to detect and even prevent these errors due to these actions at a distance.Spherically yours from Belgium .

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 09:10 GMT
The Law of Demeter seems relevant for the categorification of objects.The sphericl volumes can help I am persuaded.It is like a key of security considering the principle of min.Knowledges.The categorifiations can be made with specific intrinsic independant laws.Of course the algorythms can be irmpoved for the sortings, superimposings and synchro ,it permits to evitate the wrappers and so it permits to have more place in hardware.The relevanceis with the spherical volumes permitting to evitate the errors in fact.The aim is the imrpovement after all in finding solutions to problems.

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.