Hi Joy,

I'm glad that you agree with the spirit of remarks in 'the rabbit hole'. As I noted, you disagree with Bell and have presented your arguments on arXiv, blogs and in a book.

However... even if my heart is in the right place, you believe I don't understand either Bell or your disproof of Bell. Because I use your Geometric Algebra framework in my essay, I felt that it was your right to comment on this on my blog thread. But I see little need to argue with you about whether I understand what Bell was about. You have argued in a dozen papers, thousands of comments, and your book, about quantum correlations as you understand them. I do not wish to consume my blog with those same arguments. They are available to everyone elsewhere.

I did not mean to imply that the community of physicists is stupid, only to show what belief in Bell's theorem leads to. Before Bell, if a measurement showed local real properties that were consistent with a later measurement and with concepts of conservation of momentum and energy, physicists would simply say, of course! Post-Bell, brilliant physicists say the early measurement displays evidence of a choice that the experimenter hasn't even made yet.

And we all appear to agree that Bell was wrong. You have a strong interest in saying exactly why he was wrong in a way that supports your program. For those not dedicated to your program it is most important to understand that he *was* wrong. As I mentioned above, there are numerous proposals that suggest *why* he was wrong, and yours is an important one.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Tom,

As you know, I disagree with your view of the world as based on Lamport, and often fail to agree with you. I don't see that as my problem or as your problem, but it clearly has kept us from being in full agreement.

In the above comment you claim that while classical theory cannot be derived from principles of QM, nothing prevents QM results being derived from classical. That is interesting as that is basically what I have been writing about since my very first FQXi essay, and you have, for the most part, argued with me. So I'm glad that you now point it out -- in a fashion that fits with your ideas.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Jason,

As much as I agree that your heart too is in the right place, I do not think that 'spooky' physics is the path to your goal.

You might want to re-read my earlier essays.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Michael James Goodband,

Thank you very much for giving my essay thought and for your extensive comment. I have not yet re-read your essay and I believe your comment will be very helpful to me in understanding it better next time.

As noted, I have more faith in physical intuition than in mathematical abstraction. Not mathematical logic -- that's fine, but the application of mathematical abstractions to the 'real' world of Nature. And if you have not already read them, I recommend Dan Bruiger's and Ulf Klein's essays as thought-provoking.

The century-long history of quantum theory has covered wave functions, with and without particles, and non-locality, understood (or not) in various ways, and has sometimes ventured as far as consciousness and many worlds, while also attempting to cover particle physics and nuclear physics, as well as cosmology. My earlier essays have touched on consciousness and particle physics and cosmological aspects of my model, while my current essay specializes in one aspect of QM, the wave function, without other distractions. Yet although I have not published in detail all of the particle physics aspects of the model, I successfully derive all known particles (except the Higgs) and at least qualitatively answer dozens of questions that current physics appears unable to answer. It is this, going far beyond the wave function, that keeps me on this path, despite Joy's insistence that I have not suitably understood or accounted for Bell's (mistaken) arguments. I believe there is more at stake than Bell.

So I will cogitate on your paragraph about models with causal linkage and I will also try to understand your use of time-like and space-like separation to change local causation into apparently non-local causation. It is exciting to see a new idea applied to a century old problem.

Thanks again for your insightful comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #117

Mr. Klingman, this is something particular interest to me of how energy and time related to 1 another. I am rather unfamiliar with this concept. Where might a good resource be that I could look into this more? Thanks.

Dwaynefries1@gmail.com

Hi Dwayne,

When things in physics are related to each other in a special way, like position and momentum, or like time and energy, they are called 'conjugate variables'. So I suggest that you start by googling "time and energy conjugate" (without the quote marks). Then probably start with the Wikipedia link and go from there. The arXiv links are usually fairly complicated but you should be able to find just the level you're looking for by scanning ten or twenty links.

That's a very good place to start in physics.

Good luck,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #119

Hello Edwin,

I've never disagreed with your emphasis on continuous functions. I just never have seen a way for your program to satisfy the completeness criterion, which of course is my chief concern.

Lamport's contribution is a strict local barrier to completeness; overcoming it requires a global solution.

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #120

Dear Edwin

Thanks for your recommendations of essays to read.

It would seem that when presented with the choice between mathematics and physics, we are not alone in choosing the physics over mathematics. I made mine when I did a course on super-symmetry during my PhD and decided it was just mathematical fantasy. A conclusion that the LHC seems to be confirming - probably conclusively by the end of 2012. Unfortunately the mathematics which directly disagrees with our physical intuition is correct, and so a number of us are concluding that there just MUST be something screwy with our mathematical representation.

Physical intuition leads to the conclusion that the particle aspect of wave-particle duality is more fundamental, and that the wave aspect is causally created by the particle in some way - my essay also contains this. However, experiments reveal that the wave aspect seems to causally determine where the particle aspect is found. This gives a form of causal closure where the fundamental particle property determines the wave, particle -> wave, but the wave aspect then determines the particle, wave -> particle. The difficulty is that the causation particle -> wave will take some time dt>0 and the causation of wave -> particle will take some time dt>0, but experiments reveal that the closed cycle takes no time at all dt=0. My point about a change in the background metric is the only way I can see of squaring this without falling foul of non-locality problems with experiments.

With the particle being fundamental the wave aspect can be said to be created from the bottom-up, but the problematic element is always the reverse from wave to particle, which looks like a problem with top-down causation - the subject of the George Ellis essay. And in fact, my essay somewhat hides that the real issue is an identifiable problem with the mathematical representation of causally closed states under certain conditions. I made this much clearer in a more general philosophy of science paper which I have just put on http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0010

Best,

Michael

Hi Erwin, first of all, a very understandable essay about the essence of physics today. Physicists based in the Uk think that they have proof that ithere is more then meets the eye. (see New Scientist 28 july 2012, : Ghost in the atom, page 28-31, by Marcus Chown) They concoted a thought experiment which involved bringing two independent atoms together and making a particular measurement on them. Their results showed that the wave function cannot be a mere abstract mathematical device, IT MUST BE REAL (?). Their conclusion : Quantum Theory makes no sense if the wave function is merely a probability distribution instead, the wave function HAS TO BE A REAL THING associated with a single quantum system, informing it how to behave. I wonder what your opinion is here, I am doubting this view, because i think that a quantum system has true properties, even before any measurement (observation) has been made on it., further moer in my new essay "THE CONSCIOUNESS CONNECTION" which has still to be accepted by FQXi, I introduce the so called "subjective simultaneity" which is in fact a universal web of interactions (decoherence) in which almost every system influences every other system. The second doubt I have is that the wave function ofv two particles (in their view) exist in an abstract six-dimensional space and for three particles nine-dimensional and so on, this is not logical I think. Furthermore once you accept a wave as a reality (stuff) in an atom where is the origin of this wave ? It means that the wave must be created sometime as a result of particles merging but then ?

thanks in advance for your appreciated answer. Wilhelmus

    Dear Edwin Eugene,

    I think, demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity in accordance with the wave functions of two identical particles, may evolve consistency of wave mechanics with string dynamics within the framework of quantum mechanics.

    With best wishes

    Jayakar

    • [deleted]

    • Post #123

    Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

    Great comments and great questions! And thanks for the link to "Ghost in the atom". I'll start with that. The animation is actually wrong in my view. They say that if the wave function is 'real' then you get a 'taco-dog-burger' in the box until you look at it. That is the 'collapse of the wave function' interpretation that I explain to be incorrect. It surprises me that physicists can insist that the wave function is real and still believe it is a mathematical superposition.

    But I do agree with you (and them) that "the wave function cannot be a mere abstract mathematical device, IT MUST BE REAL" and that "Quantum Theory makes no sense if the wave function is a mere probability distribution, instead, the wave function HAS TO BE A REAL THING."

    Recent measurements of the wave function (discussed in my essay) agree with a recent proof by Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph ('PBR') than an "information only" wave function cannot predict quantum results. This is consistent with the work you mention and with my essay.

    I also agree with you that the system has true ('real') properties before it is measured [that is, it is a dog or a taco or a burger before you open the box, not a mysterious 'superposition' taco-dog-burger]. To not believe this leads to the situation I described in "down the rabbit hole" above where the first measurement shows what values the experimenter will choose **in the future**, before they have even made their choice. In other words, acting as if Bell's theorem [or the Copenhagen interpretation] is true leads to nonsense.

    You describe the wave as "informing it how to behave". I would not interpret this literally. The particle and physical wave function form one inseparable system. The motion of the particle induces the field that constitutes the wave and changes in the wave feed back to the particle. Neither is "boss".

    You propose a universal web of interactions in which every system influences every other system. We know that we have something like this (in the gravitational field, for instance) but the real question is how fast the influences travel. If they travel at the spead of light, then one side of the 'web' may not influence the other side for 14 billion years or so. But what if the changes are instantaneous (as you seem to imply with the word 'simultaneity')? Then every change propagates instantly to every other system, the reaction propagates back immediately, and the reaction-to-the-reaction propagates to all other systems immediately and all possible future changes and all reactions to these changes all happen at once, resulting, I believe, in nothing happening. So there must be a finite speed, but then one is back to such long delays that only local interactions seem to make much sense.

    You note that two particles are represented in an abstract 6-dimensional space, three particles in a 9-dimensional space and N particle in a 3N or abstract 'configuration' space. I also treat this is my essay (page 7). Einstein and others, believing that wave could exist *without particles*, concluded that momentum and energy were conserved *only statistically* in 3-space. Schrodinger then FORCED the 3N-dimensional solution to conserve energy (after all, Schrodinger's equation is just the conservation of energy relation, written using operators!) As explained in the essay, this seems to imply (in view of Einstein's confused 'statistical conservation' idea) a certain 'non-locality' that has haunted us to this day. I believe this is also the conceptual source of the "stronger correlations" that Joy interprets in a different fashion. It's complicated, but I believe that reading and rereading pages 7-9 in my essay will help clear it up.

    Finally, you ask about "the origin of this wave". It is the gravito-magnetic field ('discovered' by Maxwell and 'built-into' Einstein's relativity field equations). Just as an electric charge moving in an electric field induces electro-magnetic circulation, a mass particle moving in a gravitational field induces gravito-magnetic circulation. It's always there as a physical wave and I show in the essay how and why it corresponds to the probability amplitude.

    Thanks for those questions. I hope this helps.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin,

    I read with interest your essay. I think that one of the major questions in physics is to understand the wavefunction, and how is it able to give the results we observe. I congratulate you for attacking this problem in such a beautiful essay. Good luck with the contest.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

      Thank you Edwin for the reply, and excuse for my typo error of Erwin, I will come back to you after the acceptation of my essay by FQXi (there was a refernce which was not 100%) I am now rereading your essay. Wilhelmus

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      I find that re-reading essays, combined with the comments, helps me to understand these important issues, so thanks for re-reading and for the very good comment above. I look forward to reading your essay and wish you luck in this contest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Cristi,

      As I mentioned on your essay thread, your approach to the problem of singularities is of major significance, and your application to quantum fluctuations agrees with my understanding of this issue.

      I do agree that the wave function is another major issue in physics, and I am glad that you read my essay on the wave function with interest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #128

      Hi Edwin

      I really enjoyed reading your well written essay. You did a very nice work, quite intelligible. I do agree that the wave function represents a real particle. I understand your line of reasoning and why it is important for you the references you asked me.

      Eckard Blumschein mentioned in his essay the following:

      Hermann Weyl warned: We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations.

      - Feynman smugly declared quantum mechanics something that nobody understands.

      You said: So quantum mechanics is based on real local particle-plus-induced-wave, not on mystical non-local superposition of non-real wavefunctions of the kind Bohr, Feynman and others insist "no one can understand".

      And also: 'No one can understand this theory until he is willing to think of as a real objective field rather than just a 'probability amplitude'.

      I made the following comment to Eckard's essay which I think also apply to yours:

      ...I believe my essay offers viable solutions to the understanding of QM. Since the beginning of the XX, physics became so abstract that the physical and intuitive sense were demoted to a second plane. By the 1930s Heisenberg himself gave up trying to find an intuitive picture of quantum mechanical phenomena. He concluded that it was impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively; Schrondinger, Born, Bohr, Neumann, Feynman and others agreed with him. I believe that the reason for this is because they no longer had in mind some physical concepts that are crucial to accomplish the intuitive picture that they were looking for, namely: the PSR, the aether, the idea that particles are actually waves, and the notion that a field is a state of the aether. Once these concepts are restored in the physical conception of reality all the mysteries of quantum mechanics automatically disappear.

      Perhaps, you may not see clearly the connection but the last paragraph is highly connected with entanglement, as you said:

      Thus Bell is wrong --quantum mechanics is local.. Yet some physicists believe that quantum mechanics is inherently non-local...'non-locality' is fictitious, and the non-locality disappears from quantum mechanics.

      I agree with this. I think you are in the correct track, but if you really wish your view to be widely accepted you must grant your works with a different philosophical framework in which the physical conceptions I mention in my paragraph are included. The reason for this is not only because your works could acquire more physical and intuitive meaning but also because it could lead you to new unobserved physical phenomena. As long as you maintain your ideas within the current paradigm, they will gain very few attention from the physics community. As an example of this just bring to mind both Bohm's quantum mechanics and consistent quantum mechanics. The latter argues that there is no collapse of the wave function. But both attempts predict no new physics they are only different interpretations. Your case, at first sight, is similar, it appears only a different interpretation of the wave function.

      Good luck in the contest

      Israel

        Hi Israel,

        Thanks for reading the essay and giving well thought out advice. I agree with the gist of your remarks, and will keep them in mind going forward.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #130

        Dear FQXi'ers,

        An interesting situation has arisen where Joy's use of the topological spheres S0, S1, S3, S7 has 'collided with' Michael James Goodband's use of the same topologies. Joy, of course, claims that S7 is the *ONLY* solution to Bell's quantum correlation problem, while Michael Goodband employs S7 as 'particle space'. Although I am NOT an expert in these issues, they seem to be (or Joy claims them to be) relevant to my approach, so I have a natural interest here. After an initial period of familiarization with each others use of these topologies, Christian and Goodband are now comparing and contrasting...

        What I find most interesting is that Joy appears to be working in quantum mechanics (QM), where particle number is fixed, while Goodband is working at the deeper level of quantum field theory (QFT) where the number of particles varies. From this perspective Goodband has just (Aug 9, 2012 @15:53) noted the following [with notation as e^|e_ for electron spin up e^ and electron spin down e_ ]:

        "My point is that this is just quantum mechanics, think quantum field theory. Just as the emission of a photon converts e^ to e_ the emission of a W-boson converts an electron into an neutrino, an up quark into a down quark etc. and there are also inter-family conversion reactions. Such interactions mean that the most general EPR 2 particle scenario in QFT is *not* of the form A^|A_ but A^|B_ where particles A and B can be of any type; A=B is just a special case in QFT.

        The observables to consider in the correlation analysis are both the spin eigenvalues of the rotation group SU(2) - group space S3 - and the particle types which are eigenvalues of some 'particle space'. I use this term in place of particle symmetry group, because grand unified theories assumed that it was going to be a group - a hidden assumption I could have raised in my essay - whereas my work says that it is the quotient group SU(4)/SU(3) isomorphic to S7. So there are 2 sets of observables with quantum correlations {^,_} and {A,B,...} where the values of the first set are the eigenvalues of the rotation group with space S3. In my case the second set contains eigenvalues of SU(4)/SU(3) ~ S7 (after the symmetry has been broken) and the S3 is clearly distinct from this S7.

        Your analysis should also apply to the quantum correlations between the observables in each of the 2 sets {^,_} and {A,B,...} for the most general EPR 2 particle scenario A^|B_ in the Standard Model QFT. Ultimately my question is whether there is a way to use your analysis in reverse to place a constraint on the origin of these observables?

        I.e. some argument of the form

        Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

        Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

        A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)

        Michael"

        For those who have been following the "Disproof" blogs for a year or so, this is a fascinating new development..This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #131

          Edwin,

          I agree. It is helpful to follow discussions as they take place. Different viewpoints or different ways of expressing same or similar ideas when contrasted with each other adds clarity even when solutions still appear unclear. Its the reasoning processes that become clearer. More than reading someone's conclusion, I learn from the why they say it. What are their, the speaker's, truths from which their thoughts spring forth. I think the conversations taking place presently are great. Even if my truths are different truths, I want to understand what the professionals think and, if possible, why. I follow your participation with great interest.

          James

          • [deleted]

          • Post #132

          Edwin,

          Michael wrote,

          "Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

          Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

          A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)"

          Actually, that looks quite straightforward to me -- Joy has always emphasized completeness, i.e., that *all* quantum correlations are explained by his framework. The simply connected space completes all these measure values in a locally realistic manner.

          Tom