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.

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

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Michael Jeub**: *on* 1/6/12 at 7:22am UTC, wrote Victor Stenger in his book, The fallacy of Fine-Tuning, quotes Dirac's...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 12/26/11 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote :) yes we can ! Alone we are nothing. I wish you also a merry christmass to...

**Ray Munroe**: *on* 12/25/11 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, We all have responsibilities, and yours is your mother. We all...

**Steve Dufourny THE SPHERE**: *on* 12/25/11 at 16:57pm UTC, wrote Hi Dr Cosmic Ray, I thank you very much. Indeed I am better in my mind and...

**Author Frank Martin DiMeglio**: *on* 12/24/11 at 21:14pm UTC, wrote Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space; and gravity,...

**Ray Munroe**: *on* 12/23/11 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve, I don't know Sir Roger Penrose personally, but I have used some...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 12/23/11 at 18:38pm UTC, wrote Hi All, Ray, It is nice but I don't attach importance to the...

**Author Frank Martin DiMeglio**: *on* 12/22/11 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote It is quite significant that "electromagnetic space" -- that is, photons...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Jorma Seppaenen**: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

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

**Thermo-Demonics**

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

**Gravity's Residue**

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

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

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

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi BLOGS

May 25, 2019

CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]

TOPIC: Are we getting closer to nailing down what the wavefunction is? [refresh]

TOPIC: Are we getting closer to nailing down what the wavefunction is? [refresh]

-Comment on recent preprint by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph.

A quantum system is said to have a state, also known as a wavefunction. The minimal interpretation of the state is that it encodes our knowledge about measurement outcomes. But many of us want to be able to think about some out-there reality. In particular, I would personally want to be able to visualize what happens in-between quantum measurements before I can say I feel I 'understand' quantum theory. I want what Schroedinger called 'Anschaulichkeit', which by my limited understanding of German combines the notions of visualizable and comprehensible into one word.

Different proposals for how to think of the wavefunction (called PSI) were labelled in a paper by Harrigan and Spekkens as either PSI-epistemic or PSI-ontic. The former means one thinks of the wavefunction as representing our knowledge about something (e.g. measurement outcomes, or a hidden variable that determines probabilities of measurement outcomes), and the latter that it is a real out-there object. The PSI-ontic approach, as exemplified by Bohmian mechanics (see, for instance, “The Emperor's New Swindle” for more on Bohmian mechanics) where the wavefunction plays the role of guiding classical particles around, does offer Anschaulichkeit. PSI-epistemic approaches seem to leave open the possibility of some tantalizing underlying reality which we have limited knowledge about, but which could if identified provide Anschaulichkeit.

In a recent pre-print three researchers claim to disprove the possibility of PSI-epistemic interpretations, or, if one reads their claims more carefully, that an underlying hidden variable type of reality is impossible. The pre-print of Pusey, Barrett (and FQXi member, whose research on time and quantum mechanics is profiled here) and Rudolph was given extraordinary attention in an article in Nature, last month, and has since been the subject of many blog posts (including posts by FQXi members Matt Leifer and Scott Aaronson that are worth reading). The Nature article was so positive that it risks inducing a back-lash, and I think it should be noted that the authors (two of whom I see weekly) declined to be interviewed as the policy of some journals is to disallow papers that have been discussed in the media before publication. Thus any ire, whether of the jealous or righteous type, should not be directed at the authors. Perhaps with the exception that the title of their paper, 'the quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically,' could have been more specific.

Let me try to summarise their argument. They suppose a particular kind of PSI-epistemic model is possible and then show a contradiction with quantum statistics. The kind of model they consider is essentially a hidden-variable one. The idea is that at the time of preparation of a quantum system one also sets the value of some hidden variable q. This is *not* assumed to be local as far as I can tell. Here q is assumed to determine the probabilities of different outcomes. But, also for the sake of argument, q is assumed not to uniquely determine the quantum state, i.e. the same value of q can be associated with the preparation of several different quantum states.

To show a contradiction with quantum statistics, they consider a setting where the same value of q is associated with four possible states (state 1, state 2, state 3 and state 4), i.e. there is some non-zero probability that that particular value of q, call it q_{x}, is prepared for each of the four states under consideration. A measurement is then considered. It has four outcomes. They design the measurement such that if state 1 is prepared outcome 1 never happens, if state 2 is prepared outcome 2 never happens and so on. This now gives a contradiction with the idea that q_{x} can be realised for all four states as well as determine the measurement probabilities. This is because for q=q_{x} we would have to have the probability of outcome 1,2,3 and 4 all being zero, yet one of them must always happen!

So the argument, modulo potential subtleties like hidden assumptions, puts another nail in the coffin for hidden variable theories, adding to the contributions by Bell and others. As it is quite clean and does not appear to assume the hidden variable is local, one can imagine it turning up in text-books at some point.

I view it as consolidating existing paradigms rather than forcing a significant rethinking. To get the reaction from someone who is strongly associated with PSI-epistemic interpretations, I also emailed Chris Fuchs. He is a key defender of the idea of the quantum state representing our knowledge of something, and in talks he frequently writes the wavefunction on a piece of paper and puts it on his head to emphasize this point! Chris Fuchs says that although he likes the result it was quite clear from previous results that the hidden variable approach would not work, and "...there has been a particularly thriving community of researchers the last few years trying to argue that nonetheless---i.e., even without hidden variables---quantum states should be given a statistical or epistemic interpretation, and that one achieves the greatest clarity of what quantum theory is about by doing so. For those non-hidden-variable epistemicists, the theorem makes no difference (i.e., it knocked down a straw man)."

In any case many interested in foundations will agree that the paper reinvigorates a fundamental debate and deserves attention. A very interesting paper by Colbeck and Renner has just appeared (arXiv:1111.6597v1) apparently deriving a very similar result from even more minimal assumptions, and I know that at least one more related paper will appear on the arXiv soon. My personal inclination remains to not think of the wave-function as a real object. It appears to me that Bohmian mechanics (as well as many-worlds) go wrong by taking the theoretical description as their starting point as opposed to the experimental phenomena. I guess this is the reason these interpretations tend to be associated with theorists while experimentalists, who never see wavefunctions apart from in calculations, often opt for the Copenhagen approach. (I also don’t see how one can reconcile the wavefunction and its collapse being real with the relativity of simultaneity but that is another discussion). But whilst I criticize aspects of these ideas I am also very sympathetic to anyone trying to come up with a good way of thinking about quantum effects. The new no-go theorem of Pusey et. al. can help to guide such efforts.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

A quantum system is said to have a state, also known as a wavefunction. The minimal interpretation of the state is that it encodes our knowledge about measurement outcomes. But many of us want to be able to think about some out-there reality. In particular, I would personally want to be able to visualize what happens in-between quantum measurements before I can say I feel I 'understand' quantum theory. I want what Schroedinger called 'Anschaulichkeit', which by my limited understanding of German combines the notions of visualizable and comprehensible into one word.

Different proposals for how to think of the wavefunction (called PSI) were labelled in a paper by Harrigan and Spekkens as either PSI-epistemic or PSI-ontic. The former means one thinks of the wavefunction as representing our knowledge about something (e.g. measurement outcomes, or a hidden variable that determines probabilities of measurement outcomes), and the latter that it is a real out-there object. The PSI-ontic approach, as exemplified by Bohmian mechanics (see, for instance, “The Emperor's New Swindle” for more on Bohmian mechanics) where the wavefunction plays the role of guiding classical particles around, does offer Anschaulichkeit. PSI-epistemic approaches seem to leave open the possibility of some tantalizing underlying reality which we have limited knowledge about, but which could if identified provide Anschaulichkeit.

In a recent pre-print three researchers claim to disprove the possibility of PSI-epistemic interpretations, or, if one reads their claims more carefully, that an underlying hidden variable type of reality is impossible. The pre-print of Pusey, Barrett (and FQXi member, whose research on time and quantum mechanics is profiled here) and Rudolph was given extraordinary attention in an article in Nature, last month, and has since been the subject of many blog posts (including posts by FQXi members Matt Leifer and Scott Aaronson that are worth reading). The Nature article was so positive that it risks inducing a back-lash, and I think it should be noted that the authors (two of whom I see weekly) declined to be interviewed as the policy of some journals is to disallow papers that have been discussed in the media before publication. Thus any ire, whether of the jealous or righteous type, should not be directed at the authors. Perhaps with the exception that the title of their paper, 'the quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically,' could have been more specific.

Let me try to summarise their argument. They suppose a particular kind of PSI-epistemic model is possible and then show a contradiction with quantum statistics. The kind of model they consider is essentially a hidden-variable one. The idea is that at the time of preparation of a quantum system one also sets the value of some hidden variable q. This is *not* assumed to be local as far as I can tell. Here q is assumed to determine the probabilities of different outcomes. But, also for the sake of argument, q is assumed not to uniquely determine the quantum state, i.e. the same value of q can be associated with the preparation of several different quantum states.

To show a contradiction with quantum statistics, they consider a setting where the same value of q is associated with four possible states (state 1, state 2, state 3 and state 4), i.e. there is some non-zero probability that that particular value of q, call it q

So the argument, modulo potential subtleties like hidden assumptions, puts another nail in the coffin for hidden variable theories, adding to the contributions by Bell and others. As it is quite clean and does not appear to assume the hidden variable is local, one can imagine it turning up in text-books at some point.

I view it as consolidating existing paradigms rather than forcing a significant rethinking. To get the reaction from someone who is strongly associated with PSI-epistemic interpretations, I also emailed Chris Fuchs. He is a key defender of the idea of the quantum state representing our knowledge of something, and in talks he frequently writes the wavefunction on a piece of paper and puts it on his head to emphasize this point! Chris Fuchs says that although he likes the result it was quite clear from previous results that the hidden variable approach would not work, and "...there has been a particularly thriving community of researchers the last few years trying to argue that nonetheless---i.e., even without hidden variables---quantum states should be given a statistical or epistemic interpretation, and that one achieves the greatest clarity of what quantum theory is about by doing so. For those non-hidden-variable epistemicists, the theorem makes no difference (i.e., it knocked down a straw man)."

In any case many interested in foundations will agree that the paper reinvigorates a fundamental debate and deserves attention. A very interesting paper by Colbeck and Renner has just appeared (arXiv:1111.6597v1) apparently deriving a very similar result from even more minimal assumptions, and I know that at least one more related paper will appear on the arXiv soon. My personal inclination remains to not think of the wave-function as a real object. It appears to me that Bohmian mechanics (as well as many-worlds) go wrong by taking the theoretical description as their starting point as opposed to the experimental phenomena. I guess this is the reason these interpretations tend to be associated with theorists while experimentalists, who never see wavefunctions apart from in calculations, often opt for the Copenhagen approach. (I also don’t see how one can reconcile the wavefunction and its collapse being real with the relativity of simultaneity but that is another discussion). But whilst I criticize aspects of these ideas I am also very sympathetic to anyone trying to come up with a good way of thinking about quantum effects. The new no-go theorem of Pusey et. al. can help to guide such efforts.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Dear Oscar,

Great summary! I do not wish to undermine the significance of PBR's work. However, at a risk of trumping my own one-man bandwagon, let me point out that this result dose not even knockdown a straw man. It does so only if you completely ignore my explicit results of the past five years. I have been able to reproduce---explicitly in some simple cases like EPR, GHZ, etc., and formally in more general cases---every conceivable quantum mechanical correlation in a manifestly local and realistic manner. I will give a more complete account of my results in my upcoming (FQXi sponsored) book on Bell's theorem, but for now you can find some of my papers on the subject here.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Great summary! I do not wish to undermine the significance of PBR's work. However, at a risk of trumping my own one-man bandwagon, let me point out that this result dose not even knockdown a straw man. It does so only if you completely ignore my explicit results of the past five years. I have been able to reproduce---explicitly in some simple cases like EPR, GHZ, etc., and formally in more general cases---every conceivable quantum mechanical correlation in a manifestly local and realistic manner. I will give a more complete account of my results in my upcoming (FQXi sponsored) book on Bell's theorem, but for now you can find some of my papers on the subject here.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

Thanks for that.

Interesting point. I don't really know your approach (it is a shame I was not around for your talk in our group) but it sounds very interesting.

Best,

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for that.

Interesting point. I don't really know your approach (it is a shame I was not around for your talk in our group) but it sounds very interesting.

Best,

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Hi Oscar, Joy,

Born was right to take the QM wavefunction as being probabalistic. There is just a very high mountain of work in particle physics that says he was right. I suspect there is something wrong with the recent work trying to show that it is something real but I will have to study it some more. Now, I do believe that there are real waves involved with quantum objects as opposed to QM probability waves so perhaps they are mixing up the two. In some limited cases they could be the same; for example for electromagnetic waves (photons).

Yes, you should investigate Joy's work as you can see from the recent blog here it has almost 700 posts. Very popular indeed. Joy, you might want to think about starting Part II. :-)

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Born was right to take the QM wavefunction as being probabalistic. There is just a very high mountain of work in particle physics that says he was right. I suspect there is something wrong with the recent work trying to show that it is something real but I will have to study it some more. Now, I do believe that there are real waves involved with quantum objects as opposed to QM probability waves so perhaps they are mixing up the two. In some limited cases they could be the same; for example for electromagnetic waves (photons).

Yes, you should investigate Joy's work as you can see from the recent blog here it has almost 700 posts. Very popular indeed. Joy, you might want to think about starting Part II. :-)

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Fred

There must be "something real",somewhere, somehow, otherwise there is no existent state (reality), and that must have definitive values, at any given point in time. The probability attribute is a function of apparent randomness of movement, &/or our difficulties in measuring, both literally, and in terms of estimating what would have occurred had we not measured (interefered!).

When reference is made to a wave, is it:

a) 'something' which, of itself, travels in a wave like motion, or

b) a chain reaction whereby 'some signature' is 'conveyed' along the chain, thereby giving the appearance of 'something' travelling, by virtue of a change in the 'somethings' that comprise the chain, which occurs in a wave like motion?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

There must be "something real",somewhere, somehow, otherwise there is no existent state (reality), and that must have definitive values, at any given point in time. The probability attribute is a function of apparent randomness of movement, &/or our difficulties in measuring, both literally, and in terms of estimating what would have occurred had we not measured (interefered!).

When reference is made to a wave, is it:

a) 'something' which, of itself, travels in a wave like motion, or

b) a chain reaction whereby 'some signature' is 'conveyed' along the chain, thereby giving the appearance of 'something' travelling, by virtue of a change in the 'somethings' that comprise the chain, which occurs in a wave like motion?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Hi Paul,

Yes, you are correct that there must be something real. :-) But I am not sure if you are implying that you think the QM wavefunction is that something that is real? Probability waves don't have to be real. However, there is some kind of connection to physical reality as we can use them to predict real experimental results. My belief is that the QM probability interpretation was so successful that perhaps the real wave action of quantum objects was not aggressively pursued.

You can take a look at Hestenes' zitterbewegung interpretation of QM, then if electrons (and other fermions) have a real frequency then they also have real wave properties. Which are not exactly the same as a QM wavefunction.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Yes, you are correct that there must be something real. :-) But I am not sure if you are implying that you think the QM wavefunction is that something that is real? Probability waves don't have to be real. However, there is some kind of connection to physical reality as we can use them to predict real experimental results. My belief is that the QM probability interpretation was so successful that perhaps the real wave action of quantum objects was not aggressively pursued.

You can take a look at Hestenes' zitterbewegung interpretation of QM, then if electrons (and other fermions) have a real frequency then they also have real wave properties. Which are not exactly the same as a QM wavefunction.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Hello Oscar,

It is an intersting article.

I consider the wavefunction like purely rational in its proportions. When Schrodinger has invented his equation, he wanted to unify the waves and the mass so the fermions and the bosons. He wanted to show a road deterministic to calculate the different correlations. The duality waves/particules can be extrapolated in a pure road respecting the proportions. That said I do not see the necessity to insert bizare hidden variables. Copenaghen is always a good partner of the rationality. My theory of spherization in 3D says that the sense of rotation iomplies the comportments of wave or mass.So two main senses of rotation seem essential at 180 degrees in logic. If the quatum statistics do not permit to see clear about the serie utilized for the calculation of these proportions. So it is because there are several errors.The equations of Schrodinger permits to calculte the proportions of these waves. The rotations spinals and orbitals are also proportional if and only if the 3D is respected.

That's why the hidden variables are rational if they exist. The duality wave/particule can be extrapolated if the serie is finite for the systems of uniqueness. The measurments shall be proportional considering a logic correlation with the quantum statistics.

The rotations and a sense differenciating bosons and fermions answer logically. Now if the rotations are proportional with the waves, so the linearity must be differenciated also. Because the frequences are rational also for the fermions, so the bosons and the fermions oscillate but 3 comportments must be inserted instead of 2 implying the duality wave particule. The rotations seem the answer with the entangled ball spheres of course. If and only if the system of uniqueness and its finite number is understood of course and utilized with the biggest rationalism.

The proportions and the causes and effects are rational respecting the proportions.

A quantization is rational after all !

It is always the nice war of Copenaghen and EPR.But the rationalism wins always.Beautiful article Oscar.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

It is an intersting article.

I consider the wavefunction like purely rational in its proportions. When Schrodinger has invented his equation, he wanted to unify the waves and the mass so the fermions and the bosons. He wanted to show a road deterministic to calculate the different correlations. The duality waves/particules can be extrapolated in a pure road respecting the proportions. That said I do not see the necessity to insert bizare hidden variables. Copenaghen is always a good partner of the rationality. My theory of spherization in 3D says that the sense of rotation iomplies the comportments of wave or mass.So two main senses of rotation seem essential at 180 degrees in logic. If the quatum statistics do not permit to see clear about the serie utilized for the calculation of these proportions. So it is because there are several errors.The equations of Schrodinger permits to calculte the proportions of these waves. The rotations spinals and orbitals are also proportional if and only if the 3D is respected.

That's why the hidden variables are rational if they exist. The duality wave/particule can be extrapolated if the serie is finite for the systems of uniqueness. The measurments shall be proportional considering a logic correlation with the quantum statistics.

The rotations and a sense differenciating bosons and fermions answer logically. Now if the rotations are proportional with the waves, so the linearity must be differenciated also. Because the frequences are rational also for the fermions, so the bosons and the fermions oscillate but 3 comportments must be inserted instead of 2 implying the duality wave particule. The rotations seem the answer with the entangled ball spheres of course. If and only if the system of uniqueness and its finite number is understood of course and utilized with the biggest rationalism.

The proportions and the causes and effects are rational respecting the proportions.

A quantization is rational after all !

It is always the nice war of Copenaghen and EPR.But the rationalism wins always.Beautiful article Oscar.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Thanks a lot Steve,

It sounds like you have quite concrete and interesting ideas, but I didn't understand it all.

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

It sounds like you have quite concrete and interesting ideas, but I didn't understand it all.

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Hello Oscar,

You are welcome. I thank you also. I try to improve my communication.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

You are welcome. I thank you also. I try to improve my communication.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hello Oscar ,

If you want you can read the past posts of FQXi if you want several years ago when I spoke of my works about the spheres and the spherization. I have written so many posts when I discussed with Ray, Jason or Lawrence or Tom or Eckard or Amrit,......

well the most inmportant is to know that "They turn so they are" these spheres, rotating in 3D. The proportions are relevant, the mass is proportional with rotations. The volumes are relevant also considering the serie of uniqueness.

But I am desesperated that the majority of people does not understand what is the serie of uniqueness at the quantum scale and at the cosmological scale.

The groups are finite and presise!

This uniqueness and this number are so important for our deterministic convergences.

All can be quantized rationaly. We can quantized an electron like a H ,like an adn .....like all mass if and only if this number is finite. The rotations shall work...

Without this finite serie for the fermions or bosons. Never we shall understand what is the evolution and the polarization between the mass and the light. The quantization can be made with determinism for all scales in 3D. The finite groups are essential.

The school of rationalism is better than the paradoxical decoherences....

Regards

report post as inappropriate

If you want you can read the past posts of FQXi if you want several years ago when I spoke of my works about the spheres and the spherization. I have written so many posts when I discussed with Ray, Jason or Lawrence or Tom or Eckard or Amrit,......

well the most inmportant is to know that "They turn so they are" these spheres, rotating in 3D. The proportions are relevant, the mass is proportional with rotations. The volumes are relevant also considering the serie of uniqueness.

But I am desesperated that the majority of people does not understand what is the serie of uniqueness at the quantum scale and at the cosmological scale.

The groups are finite and presise!

This uniqueness and this number are so important for our deterministic convergences.

All can be quantized rationaly. We can quantized an electron like a H ,like an adn .....like all mass if and only if this number is finite. The rotations shall work...

Without this finite serie for the fermions or bosons. Never we shall understand what is the evolution and the polarization between the mass and the light. The quantization can be made with determinism for all scales in 3D. The finite groups are essential.

The school of rationalism is better than the paradoxical decoherences....

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Oscar,

You state that your "personal inclination remains not to think of the wave-function as a real object". Then you argue that Bohmian mechanics incorrectly takes the theoretical description as their starting point as opposed to the experimental phenomena. But this objection also applies to Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph. What amazes me is that the relevant experiments were reported in Science and in Nature in June of 2011 and yet are seemingly unknown by those who care about these things.

These experiments are summarized in Physics-based Disproof...". The experiments were based on Aharonov's 'weak measurement theory' and the results support the deBroglie model, which, as JS Bell points out, assumes the field to be "just as 'real' and 'objective' as say the fields of classical Maxwell theory." What seems to me to remain is to connect this field with the probability interpretation normally accorded the wave function. I believe that I have succeeded in doing so, and hope to present this soon.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You state that your "personal inclination remains not to think of the wave-function as a real object". Then you argue that Bohmian mechanics incorrectly takes the theoretical description as their starting point as opposed to the experimental phenomena. But this objection also applies to Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph. What amazes me is that the relevant experiments were reported in Science and in Nature in June of 2011 and yet are seemingly unknown by those who care about these things.

These experiments are summarized in Physics-based Disproof...". The experiments were based on Aharonov's 'weak measurement theory' and the results support the deBroglie model, which, as JS Bell points out, assumes the field to be "just as 'real' and 'objective' as say the fields of classical Maxwell theory." What seems to me to remain is to connect this field with the probability interpretation normally accorded the wave function. I believe that I have succeeded in doing so, and hope to present this soon.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr Klingman,

Thanks for the link, I will have a look. I will also now try to see if I can reproduce Joy's argument in order to understand it.

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the link, I will have a look. I will also now try to see if I can reproduce Joy's argument in order to understand it.

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin and Oscar,

Edwin ,how are you, fine I hope.

and your works about consciousness?

This consciousness is so important, is not it ? It is a very good subject for FQXi and Perimeter Institute .I see the future works, the conscioueness of balls and spheres and the universal consciousnessf the universal sphere and the central sphere, you find it is a beautiful subject ,you Edwin ? I am persuaded that you understand me, is not it ?

A field of consciousness, is not it ?

Regards

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Edwin ,how are you, fine I hope.

and your works about consciousness?

This consciousness is so important, is not it ? It is a very good subject for FQXi and Perimeter Institute .I see the future works, the conscioueness of balls and spheres and the universal consciousnessf the universal sphere and the central sphere, you find it is a beautiful subject ,you Edwin ? I am persuaded that you understand me, is not it ?

A field of consciousness, is not it ?

Regards

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hi Steve,

Glad to see you in good spirits.

Yes, of course I am still interested in consciousness, as it is the most important aspect of the universe.

But many physicists have trouble seeing the relevance of consciousness to physics, or see it as some silly 'collapse of the wavefunction' aspect of reality. Therefore I have decided to pursue the purely physical aspects of my theory to avoid having to argue with those who believe that conscious awareness can arise from structure.

I am currently spending most of my time writing up the application of my theory to quantum mechanics, and very specifically to "nailing down what the wavefunction is". My hope was to present this by the end of the year but I now hope for first quarter of next year.

Take care, my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Glad to see you in good spirits.

Yes, of course I am still interested in consciousness, as it is the most important aspect of the universe.

But many physicists have trouble seeing the relevance of consciousness to physics, or see it as some silly 'collapse of the wavefunction' aspect of reality. Therefore I have decided to pursue the purely physical aspects of my theory to avoid having to argue with those who believe that conscious awareness can arise from structure.

I am currently spending most of my time writing up the application of my theory to quantum mechanics, and very specifically to "nailing down what the wavefunction is". My hope was to present this by the end of the year but I now hope for first quarter of next year.

Take care, my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Humans are so arrogant, assuming that their brain -- which evolved to comprehend a classical world only -- must in 80-odd years also achieve "Anschaulichkeit" of the quantum world through the same neural channels and utilizing the same cognitive modeling.

I am reminded of a quote by John Marburger, in his review of the play "Copenhagen": "We cannot help but think of the [detector] clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles."

We still have quite a ways to go.

report post as inappropriate

I am reminded of a quote by John Marburger, in his review of the play "Copenhagen": "We cannot help but think of the [detector] clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles."

We still have quite a ways to go.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Karl,

It exists a difference between the arrogance and the competences. If people are not able to learn the foundamentals, so it is an other probelm implying furthermore this arrogance. Paradoxal No, it is the life. So all this to say that many persons do not listen the advices, rational of real determinists and generalists.

If the psychology permits to particules to speak, so I am curious ! :)bizare all that.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

It exists a difference between the arrogance and the competences. If people are not able to learn the foundamentals, so it is an other probelm implying furthermore this arrogance. Paradoxal No, it is the life. So all this to say that many persons do not listen the advices, rational of real determinists and generalists.

If the psychology permits to particules to speak, so I am curious ! :)bizare all that.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve, I wouldn't say that psychology permits particles to speak. I would say: "Speaking" of some kind is clearly occurring (in the detector), and it is clearly occurring in an extremely localized manner. But interpreting those observations is where we go wrong. Psychology causes us to extrapolate from that event the conclusion that a localized particle was speeding toward the detector and then interacted with it -- whether or not such a thing, in the underlying nature, has ontically occurred at all.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Karl,

What if light is the medium and both waves and particles are artifacts of disturbing/measuring that medium? We get waves when the light passes through the slits, but particles when it hits the wall of photon detectors. So it isn't that the light is waves in aether but there are waves in the light, due to interference and the atoms in the photon detector simply pop to a higher level when they heat up due to absorbing the necessary light/energy.

'Entangled particles" would simply be two points of measurement of the same medium.

report post as inappropriate

What if light is the medium and both waves and particles are artifacts of disturbing/measuring that medium? We get waves when the light passes through the slits, but particles when it hits the wall of photon detectors. So it isn't that the light is waves in aether but there are waves in the light, due to interference and the atoms in the photon detector simply pop to a higher level when they heat up due to absorbing the necessary light/energy.

'Entangled particles" would simply be two points of measurement of the same medium.

report post as inappropriate

Oscar,

I think the phrase "a quantum system has a state" should be replaced with "a quantum system moves from state to state". The moving is more fundamental than the state.

To Quote Einstein: the energy of a light ray spreading out from a point is not continuously distributed over an increasing space, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed as complete units.

This is "visualizable and comprehensible".

The wave-function (Schrodinger equation) is goofy because it is assuming that a quantum measurement is capturing a particle that can be static, and it cannot do this without introducing probability.

Particles are real objects out there but they move in a way that is discontinuous. Check Out:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/10_The_Skinny.html

No Multidimensional Spheres Needed :)

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

I think the phrase "a quantum system has a state" should be replaced with "a quantum system moves from state to state". The moving is more fundamental than the state.

To Quote Einstein: the energy of a light ray spreading out from a point is not continuously distributed over an increasing space, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed as complete units.

This is "visualizable and comprehensible".

The wave-function (Schrodinger equation) is goofy because it is assuming that a quantum measurement is capturing a particle that can be static, and it cannot do this without introducing probability.

Particles are real objects out there but they move in a way that is discontinuous. Check Out:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/10_The_Skinny.html

No Multidimensional Spheres Needed :)

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Don

"I think the phrase "a quantum system has a state" should be replaced with "a quantum system moves from state to state". The moving is more fundamental than the state".

Nearly, in my view. Movement must comprise states, as it involves difference. So each 'degree' of movement must be a state. Otherwise, where does one invoke a 'cut-off' which, both logically and physically, differentiates one state from another? The decision becomes arbitrary-after one spin, 2 mms travelled, what? The point here is that, as posted above (and esewhere!) the concept of 'quantum system' or 'elephant', etc, is ontologically incorrect. It inherently involves change, but we deem it as being an existent state, which then changes (when it becomes more obvious to us that it has done so).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

"I think the phrase "a quantum system has a state" should be replaced with "a quantum system moves from state to state". The moving is more fundamental than the state".

Nearly, in my view. Movement must comprise states, as it involves difference. So each 'degree' of movement must be a state. Otherwise, where does one invoke a 'cut-off' which, both logically and physically, differentiates one state from another? The decision becomes arbitrary-after one spin, 2 mms travelled, what? The point here is that, as posted above (and esewhere!) the concept of 'quantum system' or 'elephant', etc, is ontologically incorrect. It inherently involves change, but we deem it as being an existent state, which then changes (when it becomes more obvious to us that it has done so).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul

I agree with your above post. To take this further I will make a more radical speculation about what I consider the evolution of quantum states.

1. A quantum state is an evolution over time and space.

2. The primary event at any instant is what I call a Planck Instant.

3. It exists for a Planck time and a Planck length.

4. A Planck instant is the building block of matter and energy.

5. Two Planck Instances separated by a Compton wavelength form the mass of a particle which still needs to evolve a bit.

6. The primal Compton mass when it moves a deBroglie wavelength becomes a "real" electron with mass and velocity.

7. An electron is an evolving process over time and space.

Yes it is far out, but I like it. For a more visual presentation take a look at:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/37_Visualizing_Spin.

html

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

I agree with your above post. To take this further I will make a more radical speculation about what I consider the evolution of quantum states.

1. A quantum state is an evolution over time and space.

2. The primary event at any instant is what I call a Planck Instant.

3. It exists for a Planck time and a Planck length.

4. A Planck instant is the building block of matter and energy.

5. Two Planck Instances separated by a Compton wavelength form the mass of a particle which still needs to evolve a bit.

6. The primal Compton mass when it moves a deBroglie wavelength becomes a "real" electron with mass and velocity.

7. An electron is an evolving process over time and space.

Yes it is far out, but I like it. For a more visual presentation take a look at:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/37_Visualizing_Spin.

html

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Don

1 Any existent state is a particular spatial circumstance which is the latest in a sequence of change (which has a frequency of 'turnover').

2/3/4/5/6 I think I felt Planck was about light. As per post just made to Ray. But yes, the intent of what you are saying is correct. There is a point at which reality is no longer divisible, ie no change occurs. That is a discrete existent state, and by definition, it occurs for one point in time.

6/7 I must say, ie purely speculatively, which I am not prone to doing, that I do wonder whether electrons/whatever are 'particles' and not just 'effects'. [Actually Fred, I did ask a question about the logical form of waves] See post 3/12 11.09 in thread above Oscar 2/12 15.13. In other words, those attributes which we perceive as mass, etc, etc are only 'acquired' once these 'effects' 'coalesce'. The logic here must be, until proven otherwise & it is highly unlikely, that the fundamental way in which reality is constituted, does not change purely because of atomic 'size'.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

1 Any existent state is a particular spatial circumstance which is the latest in a sequence of change (which has a frequency of 'turnover').

2/3/4/5/6 I think I felt Planck was about light. As per post just made to Ray. But yes, the intent of what you are saying is correct. There is a point at which reality is no longer divisible, ie no change occurs. That is a discrete existent state, and by definition, it occurs for one point in time.

6/7 I must say, ie purely speculatively, which I am not prone to doing, that I do wonder whether electrons/whatever are 'particles' and not just 'effects'. [Actually Fred, I did ask a question about the logical form of waves] See post 3/12 11.09 in thread above Oscar 2/12 15.13. In other words, those attributes which we perceive as mass, etc, etc are only 'acquired' once these 'effects' 'coalesce'. The logic here must be, until proven otherwise & it is highly unlikely, that the fundamental way in which reality is constituted, does not change purely because of atomic 'size'.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for this, Oscar. Nicely done.

Though personally, I think the paper suffers from petitio principii -- assuming that particles know in what state they have been prepared only guarantees observation of what one expected to see, simply by the quantum entanglement principle. In other words, taking the wave function as physically real assumes measured results a priori.

I think the authors have reached the right conclusion (a probabilistic reality cannot be physical) for the wrong reasons. I agree with EPR's description of what is physically real ("If, without in any way disturbing a system...") and therefore with Joy Christian's continuous function framework.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Though personally, I think the paper suffers from petitio principii -- assuming that particles know in what state they have been prepared only guarantees observation of what one expected to see, simply by the quantum entanglement principle. In other words, taking the wave function as physically real assumes measured results a priori.

I think the authors have reached the right conclusion (a probabilistic reality cannot be physical) for the wrong reasons. I agree with EPR's description of what is physically real ("If, without in any way disturbing a system...") and therefore with Joy Christian's continuous function framework.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Tom,

So would you define real as being something that is not disturbed by measurement and then accordingly argue the wave-function cannot be real? But at the same time one can imagine things that are real but cannot (whether for in principle or in practise) be measured without disturbance. E.g. the emotional state of a human is hard to probe (e.g. by asking questions) without altering it, yet is still a real thing (it should at least be uncontroversial that some aspects of it are real, e.g. the concentrations of certain chemical in the brain at that given time).

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

So would you define real as being something that is not disturbed by measurement and then accordingly argue the wave-function cannot be real? But at the same time one can imagine things that are real but cannot (whether for in principle or in practise) be measured without disturbance. E.g. the emotional state of a human is hard to probe (e.g. by asking questions) without altering it, yet is still a real thing (it should at least be uncontroversial that some aspects of it are real, e.g. the concentrations of certain chemical in the brain at that given time).

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Hi Oscar,

I make a distinction between "physically real" and metaphysical realism. Einstein, to introduce the principles of general relativity (The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Press 1956) made the point: "Just as it was necessary from the Newtonian standpoint to make both the statements, tempus est absolutum, spatium est absolutum, so from the standpoint of the special theory of...

view entire post

I make a distinction between "physically real" and metaphysical realism. Einstein, to introduce the principles of general relativity (The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Press 1956) made the point: "Just as it was necessary from the Newtonian standpoint to make both the statements, tempus est absolutum, spatium est absolutum, so from the standpoint of the special theory of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Reality is, ultimately, potential, actual, and thoughtful/theoretical. Reality pertains to our growth and development, as it ulitmately and necessarily involves/describes the integrated and interactive (in varying degrees, of course) extensiveness of being, space, PHYSICS, the body, vision, thought, and experience.

Dreams fundamentally and generally unify physics. Dreams are demonstrative of our growth and becoming other than we are.

report post as inappropriate

Dreams fundamentally and generally unify physics. Dreams are demonstrative of our growth and becoming other than we are.

report post as inappropriate

F=ma and the equivalency and balancing of gravity and inertia both fundamentally require force/energy that is potential, actual, and thoughtful/theoretical (in union). This space would be equally (and both) invisible and visible, thereby including observer and observed and also force/energy that is gravitationally, inertially, and electromagnetically equivalent/balanced. This included/involves instantaneity (fundamentally), including balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. This space combines, includes, and balances larger and smaller space as the same space.

The key is to show integrated and interactive space -- to a limited extent, of course -- as it/this involves observer, observed, space, experience, the body, vision, and thought. I DEMONSTRATED ALL OF THIS AS DREAM EXPERIENCE, AND I HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY (AND GENERALLY) UNIFIED PHYSICS.

report post as inappropriate

The key is to show integrated and interactive space -- to a limited extent, of course -- as it/this involves observer, observed, space, experience, the body, vision, and thought. I DEMONSTRATED ALL OF THIS AS DREAM EXPERIENCE, AND I HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY (AND GENERALLY) UNIFIED PHYSICS.

report post as inappropriate

FQXi.org -- still lying about this matter? I'm going to make your denial and evasion of all of this very public.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Not just Feynman denied Anschaulichkeit of quantum physics. My last essay arrived at two questions: Is using ict and ih an absolute necessity or is at least on of them possibly based on mistakes? W

hile I already found conclusive arguments that proved SR wrong, in particular presented by Paul Maret, my suspicion concerning QM seem to be outside the focus of NPA.

This year young people in Germany voted at third place for a new word "Guttenbergen" (to Guttenberg or Guttenberging) in the sense of plagiarizing, because of someone who lost his Dr. title and his minister job after his dissertation turned out to contain plagiarized but perhaps unimportant stuff. Maybe, once they will create the word "Einsteinen" for plagiarizing something horribly wrong as happened with dramatically serious consequences in 1905.

As an engineer, I consider

- careful foundation of theory on sound models and appropriate mathematics,

- as diverse as possible experimental check of consistent interpretations,

- and Anschaulichkeit in the sense of compatibility with common sense

preconditions for trustworthy.

When I tried to understand QM, I read the papers by Schroedinger and found out that he used complex calculus in order to decrease the degree of DEQs from four to three. OK, but an overlooked trifle was that while they all at that time were used to apply FT on functions of time they changed the point of view to the Hamilton's one.

Here at FQXi I got aware that the experiment by Stern/Gerlach seems to have played a key role. Admittedly, I do still not comprehend it.

You might consider me having become too old and even a crank after decades at university. Maybe, I am completely wrong and Einstein was right. However, isn't there still a lot of unfulfilled hope for SUSY, for correct application of SR on GPS, for quantum computers that work as promised, for unification ...

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

hile I already found conclusive arguments that proved SR wrong, in particular presented by Paul Maret, my suspicion concerning QM seem to be outside the focus of NPA.

This year young people in Germany voted at third place for a new word "Guttenbergen" (to Guttenberg or Guttenberging) in the sense of plagiarizing, because of someone who lost his Dr. title and his minister job after his dissertation turned out to contain plagiarized but perhaps unimportant stuff. Maybe, once they will create the word "Einsteinen" for plagiarizing something horribly wrong as happened with dramatically serious consequences in 1905.

As an engineer, I consider

- careful foundation of theory on sound models and appropriate mathematics,

- as diverse as possible experimental check of consistent interpretations,

- and Anschaulichkeit in the sense of compatibility with common sense

preconditions for trustworthy.

When I tried to understand QM, I read the papers by Schroedinger and found out that he used complex calculus in order to decrease the degree of DEQs from four to three. OK, but an overlooked trifle was that while they all at that time were used to apply FT on functions of time they changed the point of view to the Hamilton's one.

Here at FQXi I got aware that the experiment by Stern/Gerlach seems to have played a key role. Admittedly, I do still not comprehend it.

You might consider me having become too old and even a crank after decades at university. Maybe, I am completely wrong and Einstein was right. However, isn't there still a lot of unfulfilled hope for SUSY, for correct application of SR on GPS, for quantum computers that work as promised, for unification ...

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

I wonder why in THE INFINITE UNIVERSE Marmet is just briefly and Shtyrkov is not at all mentioned. I also wonder why NPA neglects Marmet.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I think that the deep meaning of the wave function is clear when we study the vacuum fluctuation, with the creation of a pair particle-antiparticle.

When there is a pair fluctuation, then a electric dipole is created, and this electric dipole exist after the pair destruction (there is a increasing ring with the light velocity), this is not a problem because the dipole is observable because the pair existed for a finite time.

The crucial point is that the relativistic wave function of the pair can exist in only two possible description:

1.when the pair is created the wave function exist instantaneous in all the Universe, but the Universe is finite, then this is not possible

2. when the pair is created the wave function front have a finite velocity (I think the light velocity), but there is a problem when the pair disappear: the increasing wave function ring cannot exist for ever, because this ring generate electromagnetic field and this ring have a continuous charge: it is not consistent.

It is possible that the wave function is a real distribution of a particle in the space (I think a curvature, but this is not important), like a bubble, or a drop, that make movement in the space with interaction with potentials: I see the wave function like a bubble that interact with the splits border, crossing simultaneously the splits, and interacting with the wall atoms producing the interference fringes; it is only necessary the instantaneous absorption (connected with the entanglement) of the whole particle (projection) in the atom, and the wave function is (for me) a real object in the space that the observation destroy.

These are only words, and I am thinking some simple experiment to verify this opinion.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

When there is a pair fluctuation, then a electric dipole is created, and this electric dipole exist after the pair destruction (there is a increasing ring with the light velocity), this is not a problem because the dipole is observable because the pair existed for a finite time.

The crucial point is that the relativistic wave function of the pair can exist in only two possible description:

1.when the pair is created the wave function exist instantaneous in all the Universe, but the Universe is finite, then this is not possible

2. when the pair is created the wave function front have a finite velocity (I think the light velocity), but there is a problem when the pair disappear: the increasing wave function ring cannot exist for ever, because this ring generate electromagnetic field and this ring have a continuous charge: it is not consistent.

It is possible that the wave function is a real distribution of a particle in the space (I think a curvature, but this is not important), like a bubble, or a drop, that make movement in the space with interaction with potentials: I see the wave function like a bubble that interact with the splits border, crossing simultaneously the splits, and interacting with the wall atoms producing the interference fringes; it is only necessary the instantaneous absorption (connected with the entanglement) of the whole particle (projection) in the atom, and the wave function is (for me) a real object in the space that the observation destroy.

These are only words, and I am thinking some simple experiment to verify this opinion.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Didn't think I would come to this decision. But it has to be something like PSI epistemic, Knowledge. (Haven't read the papers yet.) because all of iterations of the Object univerese over which the wavefunction is spread can not simultaneously exist and be reality. They, (the sequence of iterations), unlike the data forming space-time obsereved reality, are not within the same uni-temporal reality. They are preceeding the switch to consideration of the observed reality ,which has been thought of as wavefunction collapse and do not exist when that "collapse" occurs. That doesn't mean that there is no association with reality but the wavefunction does not co-exist unobserved with the observed space-time.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

That wasn't very clear. The wavefunction is giving lots of different possibilities and time is passing. Which means that it is spread over a number of different iterations or arrangements of the Object universe. In each iteration everything that exists exists simultaneously but it is the experimenter which chooses which iteration is examined and so which outcome will be observed. Choosing the reality that will be observed from many other possibilities in the sequence.That is like "Many worlds" but not supernatural as they are not all co-existing but spread along a sequence and only the youngest exists. Which must mean that the wavefunction comprising many possibilities within the whole set of possible outcomes spread across the sequence has to be a way of thinking about it and not what it actually is as a reality. Which is not saying that there isn't anything definite but the uncertainty obscures it until a choice is made.

It seems that the temporal arrangement of actualisation in unobserved Object reality preceding manifestation in space-time is relevant to the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory idea. Because then it is not necessary to have a wave traveling back in time because the wave can act in the uni-temporal unobserved space before the observed space-time present is formed.That object reality is distinct from the space-time reality. In the former all objects and particles are simultaneously existing and interacting but in the latter the speed of light determines the reality (observed). The actualised objects would therefore be interacting with each other and the environment before they are measured and observed. That's not hidden variables in space-time but "another time."

report post as inappropriate

It seems that the temporal arrangement of actualisation in unobserved Object reality preceding manifestation in space-time is relevant to the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory idea. Because then it is not necessary to have a wave traveling back in time because the wave can act in the uni-temporal unobserved space before the observed space-time present is formed.That object reality is distinct from the space-time reality. In the former all objects and particles are simultaneously existing and interacting but in the latter the speed of light determines the reality (observed). The actualised objects would therefore be interacting with each other and the environment before they are measured and observed. That's not hidden variables in space-time but "another time."

report post as inappropriate

Eckard wrote: "I still imagine it was or will be possible to experimentally check whether light behaves like a wave with limited speed re space or like a bullet without this restriction."

In a gravitational field the speed of light varies precisely as the speed of a bullet does (confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment). If there is an ether and the gravitational field somehow makes the speed of the light waves in the ether vary, it would still be highly improbable for this variation to mimic precisely the variation of the speed of the bullet.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

In a gravitational field the speed of light varies precisely as the speed of a bullet does (confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment). If there is an ether and the gravitational field somehow makes the speed of the light waves in the ether vary, it would still be highly improbable for this variation to mimic precisely the variation of the speed of the bullet.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho,

When I preferred an ether, I believed in the usual interpretation of Michelson's experiment. Given Marmet is largely correct, then I would like to replace the word ether by the electromagnetic field in a space at rest. Didn't Shtyrkov demonstrate by means of measured aberration how the earth is moving relative to this space?

Not just Gift is stressing that all evidence for SR is based on two-way (return) measurement as is the (de)synchronization by Poincar'e 1900, adopted by Einstein 1905. Cosmic, including Shtyrkov's, data are based on one-way measurement.

I am an EE who prefers calculating with continuously assumed fields, not single particles. And I am aware of both the similarities and differences between the symmetrical acoustic field around a breathing sphere and a transversal electromagnetic dipole field.

For someone like you it might be tempting to imagine wave packets like bodies.

We engineers used to ascribe a wave resistance not just to cables but also to the empty space. At least I am not aware of "the" only possible interpretation to the experiment by Pound and Rebka. My knowledge is insufficient: How does c change with gravitation? If I recall correctly, Pound and Rebka performed a relative measurement. Right?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

When I preferred an ether, I believed in the usual interpretation of Michelson's experiment. Given Marmet is largely correct, then I would like to replace the word ether by the electromagnetic field in a space at rest. Didn't Shtyrkov demonstrate by means of measured aberration how the earth is moving relative to this space?

Not just Gift is stressing that all evidence for SR is based on two-way (return) measurement as is the (de)synchronization by Poincar'e 1900, adopted by Einstein 1905. Cosmic, including Shtyrkov's, data are based on one-way measurement.

I am an EE who prefers calculating with continuously assumed fields, not single particles. And I am aware of both the similarities and differences between the symmetrical acoustic field around a breathing sphere and a transversal electromagnetic dipole field.

For someone like you it might be tempting to imagine wave packets like bodies.

We engineers used to ascribe a wave resistance not just to cables but also to the empty space. At least I am not aware of "the" only possible interpretation to the experiment by Pound and Rebka. My knowledge is insufficient: How does c change with gravitation? If I recall correctly, Pound and Rebka performed a relative measurement. Right?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

It is quite significant that "electromagnetic space" -- that is, photons and the Sun are both larger and smaller than typical/ordinary objects or space. Now, this "particle" aspect may then be compared/related to the "wave" aspect of the [full] electromagnetic spectrum in relation to visible light; as visible light is approximately in the middle thereof.

Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space, and their true/fundamental union (with instantaneity) requires that they both be at half strength energy/force in conjunction with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. Space would then be equally, and both, invisible and visible (in a balanced and equivalent fashion). Gravity would be reduced to the extent that inertia was increased. (This would also be real/realistic quantum gravity.) DREAMS DO EVERYTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH.

Now, what of the significance of putting these two (above) paragraphs together? Does all of this not FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrate instantaneity as well, thereby fundamentally, truly, and generally unifying physics?

report post as inappropriate

Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space, and their true/fundamental union (with instantaneity) requires that they both be at half strength energy/force in conjunction with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. Space would then be equally, and both, invisible and visible (in a balanced and equivalent fashion). Gravity would be reduced to the extent that inertia was increased. (This would also be real/realistic quantum gravity.) DREAMS DO EVERYTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH.

Now, what of the significance of putting these two (above) paragraphs together? Does all of this not FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrate instantaneity as well, thereby fundamentally, truly, and generally unifying physics?

report post as inappropriate

Truly unifying physics. First we fix and determine force/energy in physics. See the language? Force/energy is fundamental.

Second, intelligibility, rationality, logic, and reasonableness must rule.

Next, gravity and inertia need to be at half strength force/energy.

Instantaneity must be fundamental to any true and real unification of physics, as that also includes time. Attraction and repulsion must be equivalent and balanced.

Space must be shown as equally (and both) visible and invisible in keeping with fundamentally enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space. This is the only way to unify and balance gravity, electromagnetism, and inertia. It also fundamentally demonstrates/includes instantaneity.

The purpose of vision is to advise of the consequences of touch in and with time. This must also be included.

The ideal/theoretical requirements of truly unifying physics have never been stated before. Tactile and visual experience are fundamental to truly unifying physics. Bodily experience is fundamental/foundational to thought and physics.

Dream experience is consistent with, and it includes, everything in this post.

report post as inappropriate

Second, intelligibility, rationality, logic, and reasonableness must rule.

Next, gravity and inertia need to be at half strength force/energy.

Instantaneity must be fundamental to any true and real unification of physics, as that also includes time. Attraction and repulsion must be equivalent and balanced.

Space must be shown as equally (and both) visible and invisible in keeping with fundamentally enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space. This is the only way to unify and balance gravity, electromagnetism, and inertia. It also fundamentally demonstrates/includes instantaneity.

The purpose of vision is to advise of the consequences of touch in and with time. This must also be included.

The ideal/theoretical requirements of truly unifying physics have never been stated before. Tactile and visual experience are fundamental to truly unifying physics. Bodily experience is fundamental/foundational to thought and physics.

Dream experience is consistent with, and it includes, everything in this post.

report post as inappropriate

Instantaneity fundamentally and truly unifies and balances force/energy in physics.

INSTANTANEITY unifies and balances electromagnetism, inertia, and gravity ALL AT ONCE. Dreams prove this.

report post as inappropriate

INSTANTANEITY unifies and balances electromagnetism, inertia, and gravity ALL AT ONCE. Dreams prove this.

report post as inappropriate

Any truly fundamental unification or explanation of physics includes vision -- it is necessarily consistent with how vision is possible. It includes the visual experience or manifestation of the body/eye -- it includes bodily experience. Observer and observed.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Enjoining and balancing invisible and visible space electromagnetically, inertially, and gravitationally WITH INSTANTANEITY would fundamentally and generally unify physics.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space; and gravity, invisible and visible, is key to distance in/of space. The unification of physics begins with gravity.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Victor Stenger in his book, The fallacy of Fine-Tuning, quotes Dirac's "dismissive footnote" on the name "wave function" which only appears once in DIrac's text:

"In the early days of quantum mechanics all the examples of these functions were in the form of waves. The name is not a descriptive one from the point of view of the modern general theory" [Stenger, p.83]

On nuclear synthetics, would coalescence theories be PSI-ontic and Thermodynamic ones PSI-epistemic?

The wave one and the non-wave one different faces fo PSI? Bras and kets are descriptive enough and those proposed terminologies loose the generality at pulse despreading levels.

I don't really like the idea of categorizing transformations into two main groupings ontological and epistological--they do not have that "point of view invariance" the Stenger talks about in his book. If you want to nail down some stuff, his book will help you do it.

report post as inappropriate

"In the early days of quantum mechanics all the examples of these functions were in the form of waves. The name is not a descriptive one from the point of view of the modern general theory" [Stenger, p.83]

On nuclear synthetics, would coalescence theories be PSI-ontic and Thermodynamic ones PSI-epistemic?

The wave one and the non-wave one different faces fo PSI? Bras and kets are descriptive enough and those proposed terminologies loose the generality at pulse despreading levels.

I don't really like the idea of categorizing transformations into two main groupings ontological and epistological--they do not have that "point of view invariance" the Stenger talks about in his book. If you want to nail down some stuff, his book will help you do it.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.