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

    Hi Jonathan,

    Very good to see you back. I do look forward to reading your work. I have just read and given a glowing comment to Ulf Klein's essay and think you might like it also.

    Too bad our friend Ray Munroe is not here this year, but here's to his memory.

    I very much look forward to your comments after you've read my essay.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello again,

    I've digested more of your paper and glanced at Ulf Klein's and Stanley Reiter's - noting connections across a common theme. I'm putting together a brief paper reviewing my conceptual approach to decoherence, and comments about the wavefunction, so I don't end up recreating the same information in 3 or 4 places.

    Expect some comments soon, regardless.

    Jonathan

    Hello Edwin Eugene,

    Here is some food for thought; the first few pages of the document promised above, with thoughts on decoherence and the wavefunction. It may turn into something that can be published, when complete, but now is just a draft of a Physics letter.

    I'll likely have some specific comments on your paper later or tomorrow.

    JonathanAttachment #1: DecoherenceReviewDraft.pdf

      Jonathan,

      Great! I'll be reading this while you look at my essay. I'm glad several of us are focused on quantum mechanics and wave function issues. Michael Goodband just posted another, asking if "quantum theory is as fundamental as it seems", but his is very complex and I've only read it once.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Tom,

      Thanks for the comment. I find it very interesting that you say Joy's 7 (or 8) dimensions are artifactual. I would assume we mean the roughly the same thing by this term, [and my 'only' was not meant in any derogatory fashion, as 'mere']. But your definition is not quite clear to me, although your example is perfectly clear.

      I know, and have been aware for at least a year, across the many "Disproof" blogs, that you have a picture in your mind that makes sense to you. Whether it's the same picture Joy has is another question, one that I certainly can't answer and I don't believe he has committed to either way. I recall our extensive conversation over Lamport, and the result that neither of us changed the others mind (as usual!) I find it fascinating that our approaches share a great deal (based in continuity) while we somewhere make a 90 degree turn and go off into some other dimension of understanding. You use the words correctly, good grammar, expressive terms, but I often can't grasp what you are saying. Your idea that " ... all possible quantum correlations is derived from the maximum of parallelizing torsions within all possible norm-composing parallelizable manifolds", is understandable as English, but doesn't do it for me as physics. When trying to understand the basis of our disconnect I've wondered if it's as simple as: you try to fit physics to math, I try to fit math to physics. It's probably nothing so simple.

      For instance, Joy's last response to me, in which he corrected my characterization of his idea as a "synchronous switching topology" was succinct and probably his best brief description of the way he sees things. I now realize why my characterization was inappropriate. On the other hand, his description seems to me to be purely mathematical with no physics content. I buy it as a math approach to kill unwanted terms, but not as a theory of the physical universe. Similarly, your claim above that "his topological framework obliterates the distinction between local and global" is just so many words to me. I am quite sure that you have something in your head that goes beyond the words, but it's not in my head.

      Also your words about probability. The wave function may be continuous, but it can describe discrete states based on local conditions; the ground state is different from excited states. The existence of these different states lends itself to a 'state'-istical approach and the probability of these different states is related to their energy. I don't see how you can ignore the fact that quantum mechanics is based on and makes good use of these probabilities. I have simply tried to relate the mathematical probability amplitudes to the ontological physical waves induced by the particle.

      Nevertheless, I enjoy hearing about how you see things, and hope you find my views equally interesting.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      I cannot help making some further corrections in your view of my model. You wrote: "I buy it as a math approach to kill unwanted terms, but not as a theory of the physical universe."

      This sentence is wrong and misguided on several counts. To being with, the idea that I am somehow "killing unwanted terms" is offensive to me. As I have said before, it shows that you have fallen for the mischaracterizations of my work by Gill and Moldoveanu, and that you have not understood---or understood only very superficially---what my program is all about. I am not killing any unwanted terms, but calculating the physical correlations among the physical events occurring within our physical space. The term you call unwanted, namely a /\ b, is actually the most wanted term in my model. It represents the torsion within the physical space, modelled as a parallelized 3-sphere, and hence it is responsible for the violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality (I explained this to you in one of my very first responses to your questions on the Disproof blog). Moreover, 3-sphere is a solution of Einstein's field equations of GR (it is one of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions of the standard cosmology), and thus my model can hardly be called "a math approach." I am aware of your strong prejudice against what you consider extra dimensions, but there is nothing "extra" about the dimensions of the 3-sphere, which is a three-dimensional physical space. When it comes to quantum correlations more general than the EPR correlations, all seven dimensions of the 7-sphere do come into play, but the correlations like those exhibited by the GHZ state are a direct physical evidence for these "extra" dimensions. In fact, even in this case I see nothing extra about the dimensions of the 7-sphere. Thus, the way I see it, your reservations are based on some misunderstandings of my framework as well as on your insistence on separating what you consider physical from what you consider mathematical. In short, in my view, your sentence I have quoted above is completely unjustified.

      Best,

      Joy

      Jonathan, -- a very brief review looks as if we have the universe bracketed!

      Joy, I plead guilty to not understanding your model. I have told you that for quite a while now. I have read your book and all your papers, but I do not see physics the way that you do. While I am not an expert on FLRW models, some of the other essayists seem to be and seem to, if not dismiss them, at least downplay them. Tom quoted Einstein, "All physics is local" and that is what I tend to focus on as all discussions of global topology or global wave function or global anything seem to exceed my imagination, or a least my ability to grasp the reality enough to take it seriously as other than a mathematical exercise. Probably my failing. The fact that I do not understand your model physically is not an insult to you and has never been intended to insult you. I have actually invested a lot of time and effort trying to understand your model. I wish people would do the same for my model. One option of course is to say nothing at all about your model, but you may recall that on your Disproof blogs I often served the purpose of bringing the discussion back from endless haggling over whether or not a sign error exists to questions of a more fundamental nature. I recall that you thanked me at least once for this. And you posted a pdf containing my defense of model in almost half a dozen places.

      Joy I bear you nothing but good will. You said to Georgina that I am a friend who has supported your work. I hope that is true. The fact that I do not have the picture that you have, nor the picture that Tom has is not an attack on either you or Tom, it's just a simple fact. I am not against topology, in fact I now have, as part of my theory, a topological model of spin one-half particles that I searched for decades to understand. So I believe in topology in its place, I just don't understand yours. I was not trying to demean your ideas when I said that I now see why 'synchronized switching topology' is inappropriate, but your explanation of the choice of handedness occurring at every event seems unphysical to me. Of course now that you have explained (again?) that you are not trying to get rid a^b I also see that my remark about unwanted terms is also inappropriate. I'm glad you have an interpretation for those terms in your model. I have decided that I would like to be able to explain the a^b in my model. At the moment I have no such explanation. And you are correct that I separate the physical from the mathematical, which may account for much of this impasse.

      Anyway, feel free to correct any misstatement on my part about your model. I do not make them to antagonize you.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      Thanks you for your reply. I am of course grateful to you, both for defending my work against some unjustified attacks and for taking active interest in it. I also understand that my work is by no means easy to understand. It requires understanding the foundations of quantum mechanics very deeply. And here I have an advantage of some 30 years over most people on these pages. I have been privileged enough to learn and practice the subject at the feet of some of the best experts in the world, including John Bell himself. Moreover, my work requires understanding several other branches of prima facie unrelated physics and mathematics. There are two other factors that may be obscuring the understanding of my work. First is the fact that it has emerged in separate papers, written over the period of some five years, rather than as a single, continuous monograph. And secondly it has been obfuscated beyond recognition by some of my uninformed and unqualified critics, for their own unscientific purposes. I recognize that all of these factors can be a hindrance to the correct understanding of my ideas and results. The only thing I can do about this is correct any misunderstanding whenever I can, and that is what I have been doing.

      In any case, I stress again that I am indeed grateful to you for both defending my work and taking an active interest in it. I know you are only trying your best to make sense of it. Not surprisingly, I myself see it as a transparent painting of Picasso, not requiring a single additional stroke.

      Best,

      Joy

      • [deleted]

      • Post #102

      Hi Edwin,

      Topology is global and continuous. You wrote,

      "Your idea that ' ... all possible quantum correlations is derived from the maximum of parallelizing torsions within all possible norm-composing parallelizable manifolds", is understandable as English, but doesn't do it for me as physics.'"

      It isn't my idea. The words are quoted from Joy. They physically describe the limit of the topology that compels quantum correlations to be real and local. In other words, the discrete local measure is a direct consequence of the continuous global structure. I don't find that obscure -- to use a metaphor, my body's global structure forbids certain local actions, like touching my right elbow with my right hand; it facilitates other actions, like crossing my right and left arms across my chest. The right and left are correlated.

      "When trying to understand the basis of our disconnect I've wondered if it's as simple as: you try to fit physics to math, I try to fit math to physics. It's probably nothing so simple."

      I don't try to fit physics to math, nor math to physics. I do math for its own sake, and I find that language (no matter whether natural or mathematical) is independent of meaning. The science is in the correspondence of mathematical theory to physical result.

      Tom

      A Great paper!

      I enjoyed reading your essay very much, Edwin Eugene. I thought I'd have to put it aside, but then could not put it down and found myself at the end. I will need to read pages 6-9 again, and maybe more too, before I can determine whether you have proved your point or not.

      There is certainly a lot to like, in your paper, content wise. You have chosen to champion several insights I favor; so how could I complain? I guess I could wish your theory was more even-handed, as some other folks have commented. I am uncertain where the C-field handedness comes from, but I do recall it is integral to your construction.

      Very interesting ideas, and worth a little digging to flesh out my understanding what they are about. More feedback after I re-read and digest, compare notes, and so on.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Jonathan,

        A heart-warming comment. Thank you very much. I am very pleased that you enjoy the paper as I have always been impressed by both your essays and your comments in these fora.

        By the way, I just finished reading Dan Bruiger's essay, and highly recommend it as well.

        Thanks again,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #105

        Thank you for addressing basic issues concerning the wave function. It is a long-standing scandal that so many physicists have stated that QM cannot be understoo - not stated as a humble confession that problems remain, but rather as a point of pride: "We 'understand' that we don't understand! And we tell our students to follow our fearless lead to forget about that old idea of 'understanding' and just go ahead and apply the formalism!" It is another scandal that professors teaching what they don't understand has not been seen as the crisis in academia that it represents. Wikipedia is not always a reliable guide, but it is instructive that fully seventeen, mutually incompatible "common" interpretations of QM are listed there. They all have philosophical attractions of one kind or another, but most end with an insoluble paradox. So, it will be interesting to see if the Klingman solution can convince others to follow-up on the physical implications of a wave function that does not allow "superposition" and does not demand "collapse". Good luck in the contest...