On the chance that readers may not fully understand the technical explanation from my essay (bottom of page 1) of why V's "quantum Randi challenge" is the veriest nonsense, I invite you to read critically the sources he links (which are of course, only his own ramblings) with the following facts in mind:

The law of large numbers and the principle of regression to the mean (both well known to mathematicians and statisticians and both well tested as fundamental rules of probability) prescribe the upper limit 0.5 independently of the wave decoherence effect between individuals playing a psychic guessing game. V's delusional prediction is that coincidental violations of the predicted value within some random time interval co-opt the Bell/CHSH expectation; i.e., in the belief that violation of the upper bound in some particular run of experimental results is significant. It isn't, for at least 2 reasons -- 1) the law of large numbers tells us that we can't predict the next result of a fair coin toss with better than 50% probability; each coin toss (Bernoulli trial) is independent of every other; 2) even averaging the coincidental violations from a large number of truncated runs won't work, because regression to the mean will overwhelm the result. This, because V's proposal cannot escape the "equally likely" assumption that attends all probabilistic results -- if he chooses to "cherry pick" experimental runs for coincidental violations of the upper bound and average them, the result is meaningless; if he chooses to truncate some run to suit his expectation, the result is meaningless. (V's most outrageous, and experimentally falsified, claim -- as I've noted elsewhere -- is that arbitrarily large computer memory is an adequate substitute for time-limited experimental results.)

Long time followers of FQXi fora and blogs might recall that Richard Gill and I had some heated exchanges a few months ago, over this issue. Gill claimed that Joy Christian's framework does not meet the standard of Bell/CHSH statistical violations in a probability measure schema. This in itself is seriously silly, because there is no probability function in Joy's framework, either expressed or implied. None. Zip, zilch, nada. The framework is completely analytical.

V takes the silliness a step further. His quantum Randi challenge doesn't need Bell/CHSH support, he says (which makes one wonder what Gill, whom V acknowledges as his "peer reviewer" thinks about V's experimental protocols) because it's for a "lay audience" who can see the correlations for themselves. To expose clearly why this is merely mind numbing gibberish, let me ask my own "lay audience" -- suppose I show you that I have tossed a fair coin 100 times and gotten 100 straight "heads." Will you bet 1 dollar to my 100 that the next toss will be heads? -- probably, because the risk is low and the potential return is high -- yet will you bet 100 dollars to my 1 that the next toss will be heads? I give my lay audience more credit for their intelligence in spotting fallacies and charlatanism.

One might wonder why I expend so much energy on something that I don't think is worthwhile in the first place(and can actually demonstrate the case). It's for the simple reason that V whipped up his impressive sounding but ultimately fatuous "quantum Randi challenge" and attached Joy Christian's name to it -- in order to flagellate serious researchers in his public forum, while inviting well known scientists (including Gill) to participate. And the social climate favored V's strategy -- Christian had already been waging a pitched battle for quite a long time, with some of these same researchers, who gullibly piled onto V's notion, without actually having any facts in hand. If they are not now red-faced, they should be.

I spent too many years in high-level marketing and advertising, to not know the power of the strategy called "positioning." It depends on using a known name to elevate an unknown name. It's how Avis overtook Hertz in the rental car competition long ago -- when Hertz practically owned the market, Avis ("we try harder") pounded their position as "number 2" when they were only a *very* distant number 2, and used Hertz's own strength against them, until the companies were running even.

Okay for marketing, where the perception is the reality. Bad for the rationalist enterprise called science.

Tom

Reproducing a post -- and including attachment -- of comments I made on George Ellis's essay site:

Hi George,

Sociological implications aside, your withering rebuke of the O.P. has much value for the scientific implications of a fully relativistic theory at multiple scales. That " ... existence of the Cooper pairs necessary for superconductivity is contingent on the nature of the ion lattice, which is at a higher level of description than that of the pairs ..." conveys the physical reality of uncollapsed potential; i.e., the information exchange between particles in the dynamic Cooper state has the particles conspiring to maintain zero angular momentum -- which IMO is fully translatable to higher levels of organization as pure unitary wave function. E.g., conceivably able to deal with questions of large scale phenomena, such as posed by Tanmay Vachaspati "What does an observer who falls into the collapsing object experience?" and Vesselin Petkov, "Can gravity be quantized?"

Point is, the distribution of causality at all levels of organization blurs the distinction between particles -- the "bottom" of the hierarchy -- and systems of particles interacting with other systems to create top down causality.

Back in May, I wrote a short piece that I never submitted or posted anywhere, "A fermionic condensate test of Bell's Inequality & local realism" that agrees with Lucien Hardy's statement, "I anticipate that quantum gravity will be a theory having indefinite causal structure whereas quantum theory has definite causal structure." I will attach it to a post on my own essay site ("The Perfect First Question"). I hope you get a chance to read it, as well as my essay.

George, your forum has become quite a clearinghouse for state of the art research in interdisciplinary science! I think it represents the best of what I perceive that FQXi is about.

All best,

TomAttachment #1: fermionic_condensate_test.pdf

Tom,

As this response was buried by hang hie's (he should!) repetitions I re-post it here, and thank you and apologise for missing your post and not responding last month.

Tom,

...the asymmetry is purely a Doppler shift of the 'distance' between emission/waves/photons. The total energy is thus conserved; i.e. If the new medium is in rapid motion towards the source, yes the re-emission at c uses less energy per emission, but the emissions (wave peaks) are closer together. This explains why blue light is more energetic. I wouldn't use the word 'accelerate' for light, but the effect is the same.

Also, the mechanics CAN be symmetrical. Consider the boundary mechanism as a dynamic fluid coupling. One side of the fluid is at rest in one frame, the other side co-moving, so at rest in the other frame. The whole fluid 'body' in between is in turbulence (Navier-Stokes) due to the constant (M-Hydro-D) mixing process.

Now as all electrons are essentially the same, with the same rate and type of 'spin', are they likely to re-emit charge energy at arbitrarily different speeds wrt themselves? or all at c? If 'Harmonic Resonance' is valid, so if at c set by the spin, (the only logical choice), then all light passing through the transition zone (TZ) either way can only emerge at the local c. No violation of any laws!. And it's true we "can't differentiate the phenonemon from a constant speed of light", but that's what we've been searching for, the SR postulates are now rendered logically derived direct from a quantum mechanism. That is a massive deal, it's Unification of the two sides of physics!

The only asymmetry of the PMD (charge) delay comes with lateral relative motion, explaining a whole host of kinetic anomalies, and implementing curved space-time by confirming what Heisenberg suspected but couldn't rationalise, that uncertainty has something to do with diffraction. And all not only without needing 'ether', but also removing any bar to local 'ether' frames as part of the hierarchical system.

There are vast implications not referred in the paper, and I was unambitious enough not to try to squeeze in any more detail of how gravity might emerge or the pre-big bang state. But all do agree with your (1 per universe) ultimate frame, and the invalidity of Bells great clanger (I just thought of that, is it original??)

Best wishes

Peter

    Dear readers,

    I have thought of yet another way to illustrate the difference between the inherently probabilistic measure of quantum correlations as described by Scott Aaronson in my essay, and the continuous measurement function of Joy Christian's model, in a head-to-head comparison.

    Somewhat over a year ago, when I was reading papers by Joy's critics, I was struck by Marc Holman's honest and poignant observation that the Christian framework adds an extra degree of freedom to the measurement function. Holman rejected that solution as unphysical -- what he did not realize, however, is that topological orientability adds such a component without changing the measurement criteria, by merely allowing a left hand and right hand topological orientation (as Joy explains with technical content, in his one page paper)

    I hope you agree that this information-theoretic illustration makes the case in an easy to read way.

    All best,

    TomAttachment #1: How_topological_orientability_adds_a_degree_of_freedom_to_the_quantum_correlation_measurement_function.pdf

      This is very interesting, Peter, though I can't pretend to grasp it all. I do understand the point about deriving relativity from quantum phenomena, though I'm working in the opposite direction of deriving discrete quantum mechanics from continuous functions.

      I think that Bell's theorem forbids the derivation of any classical model from quantum rules, though the converse demonstrably doesn't apply. If what you say can be rigorously proved, then I would have to eat crow, because Joy Christian would then be totally right -- Bell's theorem doesn't prove anything at all.

      I have my reservations and doubts. Godspeed, though!

      Best,

      Tom

      Hello Tom - thank you for pointing me to your essay. If you are proposing a quantum mechanical framework where wave functions don't collapse, then the first thought that came up is final-state interactions. It is outside the area that I would be comfortable writing about, but I thought I'd point you to it. In very rudimentary terms that reflect my basic understanding, final-state interactions are interactions of (parts of) a quantum system with itself (or parts of itself) after some initial (or partial) measurement has taken place. The way you're attempting to put symmetry around Schroedinger's cat, I would think that you could model such final-state interactions that would different from canonical quantum mechanical predictions. You would have to use 3 (or 5?) of such "spin 1/2" cats, I speculate. My personal research comes from the other end, to propose equations of motion and dynamics for certain systems, and then evaluate whether or not they're consistent with the observation. Your approach is no less important, of course, for evaluating patterns in the observation of quantum behavior and attempt to extrapolate properties of an underlying model.

      Best wishes, Jens

        Hi Jens,

        Thanks for reading, and for your great comments. It isn't that I am proposing a quantum mechanical framework of noncollapsing wave functions -- it's that I am trying to explain (like Joy) the appearance of quantum phenomena in a classical framework. Bell's framework is itself classical.

        The symmetry of Schrodinger's wave equation is already there -- as a continuous wave function with solutions in both past and future (retarded and advanced). This is entirely unrelated to, and incompatible with, the probability function in quantum mechanics.

        The only significant disagreement that Joy and I have had, is whether Bell's theorem proves anything at all. (That significance is blunted, however, by our larger agreement that the measurement domain of Joy's topological framework is complete and Bell's is not.)

        I think that Bell's theorem does prove that no classical theory of continuous measurement functions can be derived from quantum rules -- which brings us to your research program. I don't have a problem with limiting the domain of quantum mechanical functions to an incomplete space of probabilistic measure, so long as one does not interpret the probability function as physical law. There are quite useful applications for quantum probability that should not -- and do not -- imply complete functions. That is, state preparation of the Schrodinger's cat experiment demands only one state, not a superposition -- the cat is always alive initially. There is no warrant to believe that observing its later state has causal efficacy, unless one were able to impose the symmetrical state of preparing a dead cat for the initial condition in expectation that the cat could be observed alive at some later time. By laws of thermodynamics and information conservation, this would require an infinite amount of time.

        It follows that finite state calculations are always arbitrary and incomplete. This does not obviate correlation of quantum states in classically continuous measurement functions, as Joy Christian has shown.

        Best,

        Tom

        Hello Tom - thanks for your detailed reply. Again, all I feel competent doing is to give you pointers. A specific example would be an excited three-quark state that decays into a ground state with production of a meson. If you understand that meson as a "cat / anti-cat" bound state, and assume time symmetry in quantum nature as you seem to propose, then I would expect the newly created meson to react with the three-quark state that ejected it. Not sure whether such a thing is possible with excited protons that would expell a pi meson when decaying back into the ground state ... something like that. It fall into the realm of what I understand as final-state interaction. Good luck! Jens

        Right on, Jens! If you'll look a few posts above (18 Sept 1248 GMT), I posted an attachment of a draft paper I wrote in May proposing an EPR-Bell type experiment with fermionic condensate that depends on wave correlation rather than entanglement -- instead of particle ejection, we get singlet and triplet results and instead of particle-antiparticle annihilation and gamma radiation, we get angular momentum conservation.

        I would be most interested if you would read and comment on the attachment. Thanks!

        Tom

        • [deleted]

        • Post #140

        Hi Tom,

        I think I've found the point of view for comparison with Joy's work, and it has a bearing on the construction of a 2D model.

        View the hidden domain in Joy's work as having an enclosing S2 surface. The map of the rotation group space S3 to this S2 has 2 possible orientations for homotopy group PI3(S2)=Z2. The map of a S7 space associated with particle symmetries to S2 also has 2 orientations, PI7(S2)=Z2. When the hidden domain surface S2 only encloses empty space, the symmetry operations of rotation (S3) or particle symmetries (S7) are free to act everywhere to rotate +1 orientation into -1 orientation as they are reachable through S3 or S7. BUT when the hidden domain encloses holes in space (as in STUFT) or singularities where the symmetry operators do not apply, this is not possible and the hidden domain S2 surface will have an orientation (see my reply to Jonathan Sept 25 on my site for more).

        The 2D equivalent is topological vortices, such as occur in both the theory and reality of superfluid helium. Using the right hand rule and defining orientation to be the vortex direction at the point between two vortices, the pair LR have orientation Down LR=D, and RL have orientation Up RL=U. As U=-D this notation gives LR=-RL, the same non-commutativity AB=-BA displayed by the quaternions S3 and octonions S7. New notation is needed because complex numbers are commutative. Now enclose a singlet vortex pair inside a circle S1 that defines the boundary of a hidden domain, such that the vortex orientation LR or RL is hidden. The same argument as for S3 and S7 also applies to this vortex scenario, and the S1 hidden domain boundary has either orientation U or D. So as in the S3 and S7 cases of Joy, in this S1 case the hidden variable is the orientation.

        Do you think that such a vortex scenario could give a demonstrative model of the form you describe?

        Michael

        Hi Michael,

        The plot thickens! Yes indeed, I think that " ... such a vortex scenario could give a demonstrative model of the form ..." and I wish even more strongly that you had been around last year when the fur was flying. There are a lot of things in my notebooks that I would have posted had I had indication that they could be understood, such as this entry 22 Aug 2011 that I framed as a lemma:

        "Pair correlation (A|B) of nonrelativistic quantum events is independent of the continuous topology of S^7, in which correlated vector pairs of octonions correspond to bivectors in the spacetime of S^3, comprising an interval of simply connected information ranging all over S^3 and unitary to the initial condition."

        That's inelegant,and I wouldn't have put it that way in public (just wanted to reveal my unfolding thinking process). I would have edited it to:

        "All measured quantum correlations are independent of topology, such that continuous measurement functions in a simply connected space are unitary with the initial condition."

        The proof of this lemma implies the theorem: "All physics is local." (Einstein)

        Joy has been saying all along that the physical space is S^7, agreeing with your research that parallelization of simply connected S^0,S^1,S^3,S^7 is a space of complete measurement functions.

        In a 2006 paper I proposed the measure space S^2 continuously projected between S^1 and S^3 with the result that non-commutative arithmetic functions exchange continuous curves for discrete points. (infinite quantization implies no quantization at all, which obviates collapse of the wave function.)

        We're on the same beam -- commutativity of complex numbers implies the topological twist while preserving orientability of LH and RH elements as hidden variables.

        Cool!

        All best,

        Tom

        Dear Tom,

        Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

        This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

        Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

        A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

        An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

        Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

        Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

        Thank you and good luck.

        Vladimir

        Dear Thomas,

        Wow... The first perfect question surprised me. So simple but so deep. If the answer is no, then there is no way you could be asking it! And yes, there are many fundamental things that we cannot explain, at least not in the beginning.

        I've never seen an approach like this to bell's theorem. Very interesting. You connected it to other notions I've never listened about. I also believe that measurement is connected to connected to some kind of information flow and that there is information flowing everywhere. I think this notion will be essential for future physics.

        Nice work! All the best

        Frederico

          Thanks, Frederico! You are very kind. Indeed, if physical reality is made of information alone, network connectedness and continuous flow are primary.

          Warm regards,

          Tom

          Dear Tom,

          A nicely written and very important essay. Well done on showing so clearly that we cannot think about physical reality without thinking, and hence the problems of life and consciousness are 'in the game' from the outset, and although our theories are radically incomplete without taking them into account, we can make immediate important progress if we do take them into account. A great score coming, and good luck in the finals!

          Best wishes,

          David

          That's true. I think this subject is more important than people usually think. I also believe the ideas in the community are not as clear and established as people think. For example, I think there is for now no theory that describes mathematically what is information flow. I mean, we know about it, but it is foundationally not finished, there I a lot of work to be done about it.

          Regards,

          Frederico

          Tom

          I appreciate your grasping even some of it. It's the tip of the iceberg, but I still made it far too dense, so most just glimpse parts of it then struggle to keep hold of it mentally. We think very differently, so your comprehension is very encouraging and rewarding.

          I have a paper on some important optical aspects due out soon in the Hadronic Journal. I'd be very pleased if you'd look over it and comment. The main paper itself is turning into a bit of a toombe, as each falsification I try fails and just reveals more connections and evaporates more paradoxes and anomalies. It needs the sternest test, so a single figure finish here may give it that exposure.

          I confirm I think yours also should be in the top 35 so will do what I can.

          Best of luck

          Peter

          Hi Tom,

          nice essay. I particularly like "physical measurement--which is based on local events whose causality is known, in measuring interactions bounded by arbitrarily chosen coordinate frames--has a constant relation to a metaphysical coordinate-free causality." However I disagree abut many worlds.

          Best wishes

          George

            Dear Tom,

            This is an interesting essay, and particularly timely from my perspective because gives me some new ideas about a subject I recently encountered. A few thoughts come to mind.

            1. The notion of "an infinite number of questions in an infinite length of time" (page 1 of your essay) also arises in pure mathematics in relation to Godel's incompleteness theorem (without the time factor, of course). The reason is that "proof" is taken to involve only a finite number of statements in terms of the axioms of the system (e.g. natural numbers), and one must be very lucky for this to suffice to prove a true general statement which may be true for different reasons for each of an infinite number of subsets of elements. One can always test the statement for particular choices of elements, or perhaps prove the statement for certain subsets, but in most cases one cannot decide the truth in a finite number of steps. This seems very analogous to the unbounded game of 20 questions.

            2. You have an interesting perspective on locality, and one I will have to think more deeply about. I like the Poincare disk analogy. For some time, I have wondered about the meaning of locality because of the assumptions it involves; ordinarily some sort of metric concept comes into play (in order to define "close" and "far away"). But quantum gravity considerations cast doubt on the notion that spacetime is a metric manifold. Perhaps locality should be defined in terms of interaction: if two systems directly interact, they are considered local. Entanglement makes this definition completely incompatible with the manifold assumption.

            More to say, but a student is pestering me. I enjoyed your essay, and wish you the best of luck in the contest! Take care,

            Ben Dribus

              Hi Geroge,

              Thanks! Yes, I know you disagree with the many worlds hypothesis. My view is that until we have a suitable alternative to collapse of the wave function, we need a place-holder for the middle value -- a coordinate-free system can never allow such a collapse because there is no particular point in the continuous range of measurement values into which it can collapse; i.e. the wave function is not probabilistic. So if Hawking ever actually said that the Everett hypothesis is "trivially true," I think that's what he meant. It's certainly what I mean.

              OTOH, Joy Christian's topological structure of S^7 physical space solves the problem. Physical measures default to the non-trivial topology of S^3, with no collapse of the wave function.

              All best,

              Tom