Dear Tom,

Your comments are interesting, and may yet shed light on what's happening. You said a lot, so I'll bite off small pieces.

First, you remark that we can use mathematical artifacts of extra dimensions to describe manifestly local results without rejecting scientific realism. Of course I have no objection to mathematical artifact. In my essay I explain how Hilbert space in an energy basis is appropriate, and how it correlates with probability. But you aren't implying that Joy's 7 (or 8) dimensions are only artifactual, are you?

In a comment above I explain that Bell's use of unit vectors to represent interaction along the path of one inhomogeneous region of field through an extended region of another inhomogeneous field might be viewed as a topological problem, in that inhomogeneous fields might be mapped into equivalent space-time curvature, and one can view the problem in terms of parallel transport. Anyway, whether you agree that this is topology or not, we both agree that Bell formulated his problem incorrectly. He "should" have been taking the interaction of two inhomogeneous fields (in relative motion) into account, and he failed to. No wonder his results don't match reality.

You said more, but I'll stop here. We do agree about "probability" in QM. But you seem to want to banish it, while I'm trying to explain why it works for a physical wave function.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Fred,

The wave function is *not* the spin your are talking about. The spin, whether for electrons or photons, is measured by its electromagnetic properties. From de Broglie on, it's been understood that the wave function is not the electromagnetic field. On the other hand the wave function *does* correspond to neutrino spin (and Z and W bosons) and here Nature most certainly does do it my way (i.e. lefthanded).

Thanks for the comment. I still hope to bring you around!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy,

You keep asking me to produce a quantum mechanical calculation with my model, which indicates to me you haven't understood my model. My model yields Schrodinger's equation and the solutions to Schrodinger's equation, so I get identically the same results that quantum mechanics gets.

All I do is claim that the wave function is physical, *not* information only. By the way, I received in the mail this morning my latest issue of Physical Review Letters, which seems to agree with me. The article, (PRL 108, 260404 29 June 2012) "Implications of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph Quantum No-Go Theorem" undermining the quantum state as "mere information" (or "knowledge") about the real physical state of a system. As I understand it, my model is compatible with this theorem.

You have spent thousands of words telling others that they did not understand your approach, and to read it again. I don't believe that you understand my approach, or you would not keep telling me to use QM to achieve a QM result. I can't achieve anything else, since my equation and solutions are the same as QM. Please try to understand this.

However, like you, I believe that Bell got the wrong answer, and so I take advantage of your framework to reformulate Bell's problem -- using the volume forms that you proposed and that I find very appropriate. In this case I *do* depart from standard QM, since the standard QM does not use trivectors. The intent here is to show that, properly formulated Bell's approach matches QM, not his inequality. I may fail in this regard, but please try to understand what I am doing. Your repeated challenge to derive a QM result is proof that you haven't yet understood my approach.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

You wrote: "You keep asking me to produce a quantum mechanical calculation with my model..."

No. I am *not* asking you to do that. I am *not* asking you to produce a quantum mechanical calculation. I am asking you to *reproduce* one of the most basic predictions of quantum mechanics within your own model. I am not concerned about what your model is or whether or not I understand it. Whatever your model is, it MUST reproduce the number -0.866 as a singlet correlation along two fixed directions a and b, 30 degrees apart. This number is a well established empirical fact. But you are unable to reproduce it within your model. I claim that you will *never* be able to reproduce this empirical fact---which also happens to be a prediction of quantum mechanics---unless you embrace my framework in its entirety.

Now you can prove me wrong quite easily. All you have to do is to calculate the number -0.866 explicitly, for the fixed directions a and b, within your own model.

Best,

Joy

  • [deleted]

  • Post #77

Hello,

You confound really Joy what is the Universal dynamic and its irreversibility and the programmation by computing.

1 is not equal to -1 at my knowledge, the symmetries are bad understood in their pure physicality.The calsulations are just a mirror in fact, the same results for the same equations, but ....

all functions do not go to the FUNCTIONS.

Ans also , the informations are encoded in a pure 3D dynamic !!!The waves and the informations.....=......rotations of spheres !!!

Edwin, I agree about your words, that said don't forget that the rotating 3D spheres asnwer to all.So the spin and the waves are linked.

You are right about the physicality of these waves, furthermore the informations also can be encoded in this mass. All is a pure physicality even the informations are under a specific universal dynamic.

Regards

  • [deleted]

  • Post #78

Let's play

Let's speak about the entropy and the information ok ?

well

and you speak about predictions ??? and empirical facts ???? you are not rational you know ???

I ask me how is the model implied to an isothermal system with N molecules like in the ideal gas for example with a volume precise .The increase of information ..."is it proportional with entropy ?"

You can speak about the maxwell demon you know. And after we shall link with the disorder and the order !

Dear Joy,

You say: "Whatever your model is, it MUST reproduce the number -0.866 as a singlet correlation along two fixed directions a and b, 30 degrees apart. This number is a well established empirical fact. But you are unable to reproduce it within your model. I claim that you will *never* be able to reproduce this empirical fact---which also happens to be a prediction of quantum mechanics---unless you embrace my framework in its entirety."

It's pretty clear that you don't understand what I am saying, which is that I calculate the correlation EXACTLY the way it is done in quantum mechanics. But since the implication seems to be that I don't know how it's done in quantum mechanics, I will tell you how I would do it.

Beginning with equations (4) and (5) in my essay for the time evolution operator and Schrodinger's equation, I would use the appropriate Hamiltonion for the electron spin 'u' in a magnetic field 'B'

U(t) = exp (iHt/h) => exp (iu.B/h)

where U(t) is the evolution operator, t is the time, h is Planck's constant, u is electron spin and B is the external magnetic field and the period is the dot operator and the Hamiltonion becomes time independent. This would be applied to the singlet states to evolve the states to Alice's and Bob's respective directions of the magnetic field and the correlation found in the usual way by calculating the expectation value between initial states and the evolved states, where Bob's evolution operator does not affect Alice's particle and Alice's evolution operator does not affect Bob's particle. The result will involve a term of the form

< singlet | s.a s.b | singlet >

where s is the Pauli spin matrix and a is the direction of Alice's field and b is the direction of Bob's field.

Then I would make use of the identity (s.a)(-s.b) = -a.b plus -is.(axb) and Bell (equation 3) claims this results in -a.b

There may be other ways to explain this, but I believe they are equivalent. Most explanations will involve ensembles and the density matrix, with density rho=(I plus a.s)/2 for an ensemble of spin one-half particles, but the above is about as succinct as I can manage for a text-based comment.

Joy, it's pretty clear that you will never accept any statement that does not agree that you have the only possible way, and it's also clear that you have not understood what it is that I am saying. I do not wish to turn this into an extension of your 'Disproof' blog, so as far as I'm concerned we can leave it that you do not accept the ideas put forth in my essay. For anyone who has followed all of your blogs, that was a foregone conclusion.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin,

    I am sorry, but we cannot leave it at that. As far as I have understood, you are making a claim that your model reproduces quantum mechanical correlations in every respect, but at the same time your model is both *local* and *realistic*, thus providing, in particular, a local-realistic explanation for the singlet correlation, in contradiction to Bell's theorem . If this is not the claim you are making, then I do apologize and withdraw all my comments from this blog.

    However, what you have described above, and in your paper, is neither a local model, nor does it reproduce the observed singlet correlation, -a.b, for the fixed observation directions a and b of Alice and Bob. It is pretty clear that you have not understood Bell's theorem at all. The fact that "Bob's evolution operator does not affect Alice's particle and Alice's evolution operator does not affect Bob's particle" DOES NOT make your model local in any way. Nor does your use of the identity (s.a)(-s.b) = -a.b plus -is.(axb) reproduce the scalar result -a.b for the fixed directions a and b.

    I am forced to say this because you are making a use of my framework and implying that you have improved upon it. As grateful as I am to you for that, I cannot possibly let you misuse my framework the way you are misusing it and not make a comment. So I assert, as clearly as I can: your model is not a local model, and it does not reproduce the singlet correlation for the fixed observation directions of Alice and Bob (or even for the unfixed directions as far as I can see). Therefore your model is not a counterexample to Bell's theorem.

    Having said that, I have no objections to your model explaining---in a different and perhaps more enlightened (but ultimately *non-local*) way---some of the physics usually described by quantum theory. That is very nice. But your claim of producing a local model for the singlet correlation is simply false. You are nowhere near accomplishing that.

    Best,

    Joy

    • [deleted]

    • Post #81

    Hi Edwin,

    " ... you remark that we can use mathematical artifacts of extra dimensions to describe manifestly local results without rejecting scientific realism. Of course I have no objection to mathematical artifact. In my essay I explain how Hilbert space in an energy basis is appropriate, and how it correlates with probability. But you aren't implying that Joy's 7 (or 8) dimensions are only artifactual, are you?"

    They are. It would be wrong, though, to say "only" so, as if to imply "mere." What I mean by "mathematical artifact" is a term that instantiates meaning without changing meaning. By the same token, Einstein's famous equation doesn't change meaning if the statement is truncated to E = m -- as an equation of state, though, E = mc^2 tells us that the rest state of matter contains more energy as kinetic potential (atomic binding energy) than is evident until we actually measure the excess, which of course, is the source of atomic power.

    Joy's expectation (or correlation) value E(a,b) = -a.b is also an equation of state. That is, it prescribes a measurement limit, just as the constant c^2 in special relativity. And just as we expect a precise quantity of energy to be released from identical quantities of mass every time we "split" an atom, one should expect a precise correlation between an observer's potential result and her actual measure result at the limit, which turns out to be identical to quantum mechanical correlations.

    When you speak of the Hilbert space and probability functions, you are out of the domain in which Joy's framework lives. One can't derive the orientability that obviates every probability function, from that basis. One gets it only in the limit of topology that Joy has described: " ... all possible quantum correlations is derived from the maximum of parallelizing torsions within all possible norm-composing parallelizable manifolds."

    Just as binding energy is "hidden" in the potential kinetic energy of mass, the correlation function of quantum pairs is hidden in the topology of parallelizable spheres. Just as the measured potential of binding energy is realized at the kinetic limit as a local and real phenomenon, quantum correlations are realized at the topological limit as a local and real phenomenon. The self-limiting mathematical artifact in each case tells us that we have arrived at a closed logical judgment -- the result (value) will always be covariant with the (argument) limit; i.e., dependent on topological orientation and initial condition.

    How we (you and I) arrive at a non-probabilistic wave function has nothing to do with Joy's framework. We use the term because we need a local artifact to describe a continuous function independent of discrete measurement results (a real continuous function is never probabilistic). Joy doesn't need it at all -- his topological framework obliterates the distinction between local and global. "All physics is local," as Einstein said.

    You wrote, " We do agree about 'probability' in QM. But you seem to want to banish it, while I'm trying to explain why it works for a physical wave function."

    It doesn't work for the wave function, and can't. The wave function is continuous; there is no continuous probability function.

    Tom

    Hi Edwin,

    On a second thought, I am afraid I will have to take back my comment that at least as a non-local model your model may be nice. In fact even as a non-local model it blatantly violates relativistic causality, because it blatantly violates parameter independence (parameters a and b have to be randomized in harmony to get the correlations right even for the non-fixed a and b). In other words, your model harbors signal non-locality that is even worse than that of Bohm's theory, even if we ignore the manifest backward causation between a and b. This is on the top of the fact that the model cannot reproduce the most basic experimental observations without randomizing a and b. Oh, well.

    Joy

    • [deleted]

    • Post #83

    "Criticism like rain should be gentle enough to nourish a person's growth" Geoffrey Moss

    I am all for that.

    But I have also learned that sometimes gentle criticism is misconstrued as room for wiggling out of it. I did make a very polite, very respectful, and very gentle criticism of Edwin's model, deliberately away from his author's blog. This was neither understood nor taken too seriously by him. Gradually I had to turn up the heat when he repeatedly refused to recognize his error. And believe you me, what I have written is not even a fraction of what I actually think of Edwin's model (here I only mean his model for the EPR correlation, not his essay as a whole). But I consider him a friend and a supporter of my work, and I like him as a person. Therefore I have tried extremely hard to be as gentle and polite as possible.

    Hi Joy,

    You make several points. I still do not believe you understand my model. Since I propose that the wave function is a circulation in a local field induced by a mass current in accordance with the weak field equations of relativity, I think it's clear that the model *is* a local model. As I note above, the PBR No-Go theorem seems to imply a real physical field as opposed to an 'information-only' wave function, and the latest experimental measurements of the wave function also seem to imply this.

    Therefore I don't believe that you can argue, as you appear to, that my model is not local. What you might argue is that I cannot successfully map this model into quantum mechanics. I believe that the fact that the free particle solution in my model is almost identical to the quantum mechanical free particle suggests that I *can* perform this map. On the other hand all real QM representations assume a Schrodinger 'wave packet' and thus a Fourier superposition that ususally entails a Gaussian apodization function and a close analysis of my equation appears to imply a slightly different apodization function, so there still results a 'spread' of momenta in both models that may or may not be equivalent. Since A. Zee remarks that "a significant fraction of papers in theoretical physics consists of performing variations and elaborations of this basic Gaussian integral" I do not believe that there is a 'God-given' apodization function for QM and therefore my apparently equivalent formulation seems acceptable as a wave function.

    You ignore the fact that the actual physical mechanism I postulate in my theory *automatically* makes the wave function local, and therefore your insistence that it is not is misplaced. Also you claim that my use of the identity does not reproduce the scala -a.b, but my claim was that my use is identical to the standard QM use, so does, or does not, that produce -a.b?

    You say that I am using your framework and claiming to improve on it, therefore you are forced to comment. I have in a number of places acknowledged your right to comment on this, and do so now, although at some point it becomes a waste of time. Those who see an error in your math certainly could not 'wait you out' as you have never accepted even the possibility that you made an error. As I also mentioned, it is early in the game for my model, and while I am willing to face the fact that I may have made an error, I am not ready to concede that it is irrevocable. So no matter how much you protest, I will simply try to understand your point and determine to address it, either now or in the future.

    You claim that I do not understand Bell's theorem as well as you do. But if your contention is correct -- that Bell made a fundamental mistake -- it does not really matter whether or not I know exactly where he is wrong (although as I note above, I think I do know.) If he is wrong, then his inequality that is the primary basis for his claim of non-locality is also wrong, and cannot be used to argue for non-locality, as you seem to be doing against my model. I repeat, I think you are confused about my model. It is not surprising, as you have been twisting your own brain around your topological ideas for years now, while I have been doing similar based on my understanding for a while also. Where you have an advantage on me is that you have been defending against challenges much longer than I, and so have worked out, at least to your own satisfaction, what the answers are.

    As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I welcome questions that I have not thought of, as I always learn something from answering these question, or at least trying to.

    Since my model is, on its physical face, local, then I must try to translate all of your claims that it is non-local into some understanding of what you could mean, and that is made difficult by the fact that you don't even understand that the field is local. This could go on for a while.

    Bst Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear FQXi'ers,

      Comments above indicate that clarification is needed to connect my real physical model of particle plus wave with the 'standard' quantum mechanical correlations. Specifically, I note that the physical field induced by the (non-point) particles satisfies the Schrodinger equation for the free particle and can even be used to 'derive' the Schrodinger equation. The essay then develops the relation between this physical wave and the mathematical wave function, explaining the correlation of the normalized probability amplitudes and the non-normalizable wave. Quantum Mechanics, per se, is still calculated in terms of the probability amplitudes and thus results in the same answers that have been obtained since Schrodinger first formulated his equation, and Born interpreted the waves as probability. Because many physicists believe that non-locality is implicit in the configuration space formulation of QM I discuss the origin of this concept and show that it derived from the mistaken belief that physical waves propagate without particles. But since Bell also claims to show that non-locality is implicit in QM --- based on his oversimplified analysis (I think Joy and I agree on this statement?)-- I also attempt to show how my model, in Joy Christian's volume-form-based formulation, results in the correct correlation. Joy, not surprisingly, disputes these results, as they do not require or imply his synchronous switching topology. I believe that he is wrong in some of his statements above, but of course I will continue to work on this application of my model to his framework to try to address all criticism.

      While I assume that it is possible some combination of my local physical wave function and Joy's topological analysis could both be true, this seems an unlikely and awkward solution to the problem.

      I thank Joy for his development of a 'volume-form'-based approach to Bell's theorem and for his fighting the good fight against a non-local (and nonsensical) interpretation of quantum mechanics.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      This is indeed a waste of time for both of us. We will have to agree to disagree. You have made your points and I have made mine. Here is where we stand:

      (1) You claim your model is local. I claim your model is nonlocal in the worse possible sense. It harbors an extreme form of signalling non-locality.

      (2) You claim, or at least thought earlier, that you can reproduce the strong quantum correlations in your model. I claim you cannot---not even the most basic one (-0.866...)---and not unless you embrace my entire framework by recognizing and understanding the true topological origins of the quantum correlations.

      (3) You claim you have produced a counterexample to Bell's theorem. I claim you do not even understand Bell's theorem, let alone producing a counterexample to it.

      (4) You claim I do not understand your model. I claim I understand it enough to say what I have said about it (in fact I understand it much better than you do).

      (5) You pay attention to some silly criticisms of my model made by some uninformed and unqualified people. I pay attention to them only to point out their own errors.

      I think it is best to end this discussion here, as you also seem to be suggesting.

      Best,

      Joy

      Hi Joy,

      I agree that there is no point in continuing this ad nauseam. I disagree with your above points, and I believe you do not understand my model, but as it conflicts with your synchronized switching topology model, I do not expect to change your mind. Hopefully, those who are not committed to your model will continue to give my model a fair critical analysis.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Just a small point: If my model is a "synchronized switching topology model", then Obama is the Queen of England.

      Then your model is definitely not a "synchronized switching topology model"!

      But I have essentially characterized it this way many times as my legitimate way of understanding what you are saying, and you have never explained to me how or why the topology switches between experimental runs but not during experimental runs, so I assumed that my characterization was accurate. If you care to do so here, please do so. I am curious about this point. I do not wish to mislead others about the nature of your topological model. I admit that I do not understand the physics of your topology. Since I have apparently mistakenly described it, please fell free to use my blog space to correct this description. I will not comment further on this point.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      Thank you for being generous with your blog space. It is pity that Internet can be such a two-edged sword. It is a blessing in that we can have open discussions like this, but it could also be a scholar's nightmare in that subtle ideas can be misconstrued on the Internet, if they fall into wrong hands.

      In any case, here is what is actually happening in my model. The volume form, mu, is just an outward tool, a garment, if you like, or a representation, of the orientation of the physical space, S^3, which is one of the solutions of Einstein's field equations. Now, mathematically, for any space (not necessarily the physical space) there are always two orientations possible. Let us call them left and right orientations. The choice between them has to do with how the ordered basis of that space is chosen. So, for any space, there exists a natural freedom of choice between left and right orientation. We must make a choice between the two possible orientations before we start solving any mathematical problem within that space. Usually, we instinctively make a choice of the right orientation without even thinking about it, but a choice we must make.

      Now think about the moment of creation of the EPR pair of particles. As soon as they begin evolving, in whatever space they may be evolving, they have to make a choice, as a sheer mathematical necessity, before they can even get started doing whatever they want to do. What I noticed, back in 2007, was that this freedom of choice fits hand-in-glove with the notion of the initial state introduced by Bell in his local-realistic framework. He called this initial state "lambda", the hidden variable. All I have done in my model is equate Bell's lambda with the natural freedom of choice in the orientation of space that exists for any physical system before it can get started doing whatever it wants to do. Now Bell took his lambda to be a random variable. But what could be more random than a 50/50 chance? So I equated Bell's random lambda to the random choice of orientation of the physical space, with 50/50 chance for each of the two options. Despite all the fuss some people have made about this, it is the most natural thing any physicist could have done. In any case, it is hardly "a switching topology", because the topology of the space is the same for both of its orientations. It is more like flipping a coin to decide whether to turn left or right at a forking path, for you can't venture on both paths at the same time.

      Best,

      Joy

      Hello Edwin Eugene,

      I have downloaded, and glanced at, your essay - which I plan to read for detail in the next day or so. It appears that you echo or champion some of the same points I make in my essay, which was submitted 24 hours ago. I also mention JC's ideas and the PBR paper that favors a literal interpretation of the wavefunction.

      I agree with Joy's comment just above, that there is an inherent choice built in to the topology of spaces, and I actually address this briefly in my endnotes - assuming my paper posts as-is. But I feel it is not only possible, but essential to forge links between the geometric approach and approaches involving the wavefunction.

      While some folks tend to feel that you can't have it both ways, I tend to believe that it has to work both ways, being internally consistent within both sides of a dual representation - for it to work in nature at all. That is; the wave-like portion needs to follow the rules for waves and the particle-like aspect needs to follow particle rules - but it's not like we can choose one or the other and know the whole picture.

      However; Dieter Zeh clearly argues that the wave-like representation can tell you what is really happening better than the discrete view. More comments will follow once I've read for detail.

      Good Luck!

      Jonathan