Is Quantum Theory As Fundamental As It Seems? by Michael James Goodband

Hi Michael,

I look at it this way: Bell's theorem proves explicitly that quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model. To believers, this amounts to saying that there is no analytical explanation of locally real quantum correlations. One cannot logically extrapolate to that conclusion, however:

Quantum configuration space requires us to assume a bounded set of perfect information (such is the source of quantum mysticism inherent in a probabilistic measure). The orientable topology, as Joy has it, requires only that Nature have a choice of output in every measurement function continuous from the initial condition. This necessarily eliminates support for nonlocal realism from all proofs based on the law of the excluded middle, which of course is all the nonconstructive proofs of Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem is then reduced to an existence proof for the inequality between local measure results and simultaneous results of nonlocal experiments not performed. Trivial -- because relativity already denies simultaneity of events.

Best,

Tom

Hi Michael,

I think your criticism of either Bell or EPR about their ideas of completeness and hidden variables is not justified. EPR, for example, were very cautious in stating that their condition of completeness is only a necessary condition (for their intended purposes), not a sufficient condition. Your understanding of what Bell meant by "hidden variables" is also incorrect. What Bell had in mind was what you write as option 1, not what you write as option 2. The issue of dynamics is also irrelevant for the analysis of both EPR and Bell. Given their premises, the argument of EPR is logically impeccable. Given the premises of Bell---which are based on the premises of EPR and the views of Einstein---his theorem too is both logically and mathematically impeccable. It does contain a massive blunder, however, in the very first equation of his famous paper, as I bring out in my work. Whether to call this a mathematical error or merely a wrong assumption is a matter of taste.

Having said this, we are of course not required to adhere to either EPR's logic or Bell's mathematics beyond what is demanded by physics. So, in that respect, in the spirit of exploration and investigation, I fully endorse your efforts. In particular, the issue of dynamics should indeed be considered as you are considering, and you have some very insightful remarks in this regard. I myself have very different ideas about how to investigate the issue of dynamics, since my primary concern is basic quantum mechanics, not relativistic or gravitational physics.

I also like your thoughts about the flatness condition and whether or not it should be extended to the universe as a whole. I largely agree with what you have written about this. But again I would not discount any options at this stage because neither of us have anything near a full theory of physics (in fact mine is not even a theory---I prefer to call it a mere "framework").

As for the experimental test of my framework I do not have anything as exotic as teleparallel gravity or quantum gravity in mind. At the moment I am simply trying to test whether the topology of our physical space respects SU(2) symmetry in the macroscopic domain as I claim, or SO(3) symmetry. This may seem disappointing, but my entire framework depends on this distinction. If this test is successful, then I have some further ideas about how to test the S7 hypothesis.

Finally, since I agree with the view that QT is not a fundamental theory, the question of quantizing gravity does not even arise. QT and GR are simply two epiphenomenal sides of a yet to be discovered perfect, one-sided coin.

Best,

Joy

Hi Joy,

Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated.

My premise was implicitly moving beyond Bell - something that I didn't think was possible until I read your work! I did initially think that Bell's intended meaning of "hidden variables" was option 1, and this is the meaning I used in my essay. But it struck me that Bell's framework would also extend to option 2 as well, and that the spatial topological defects of my model actually give a realisation of option 2. These 2 meanings could lead to confusion in the usage of the term "hidden variables" - I see that I have inadvertently included both options.

The potential ambiguity of the EPR usage of "complete" is not apparent in the EPR context because their usage is sufficient. But the relevance of Godel's incompleteness to physics requires the more careful distinction I give, otherwise the point that mathematical incompleteness of theories describing countable numbers of objects under certain physical conditions can be by-passed to give scientific completeness is missed, as are the consequences of the required change in mathematical representation (theories with some of the weird features of QT).

The term "local" is another multi-meaning word that could lead to potential confusion, especially in the context of EPR and spatial topology:

1) local vicinity - local structure as opposed to global structure

2) local causation as captued by the fatorisation condition

3) local time-like separations

E.g. my metric reversal example confuses usages 2 and 3, and suggests the following "recipe" for the illusion of non-locality:

1) Metric reveral in the hidden domain

2) Average over paths of strictly local causation in the hidden domain

3) Interpret the results as if there was no metric reversal in the hidden domain

=> apparent non-locality

I understand your focus on the sort of tests you're considering; I was just wondering out loud how far tests within your framework could go.

All the best,

Michael

weak reasoning ! it lacks a lot of generalities dear Badband in your reasoning and strategies.:)

In fact you repeat always the same :) SO AND SO3 AND SO7 AND AFTER YOU SHALL INSERT THE SO8 AND AFTER THE SO11 and after what , a book sent for the so12. Let me laugh.

I have pity in fact. You think what with your hate ? I forgive you all ahahah

KK theory for the compactification and what after ? Mr Witten but what do you do there ? is it the businessmen around you which implies this kind of reasoning? If yes, I am understanding why this world does not turn correlctly. It is simply not universal these kind of comportments.The Planet, this earth merits more. Why these kind of systems decrease the velocity of evolution? instead of imrpoving it. Is it that? the earth ? I am shocked in fact simply in seeing these comportments. In fact Mr Witten,Mr Tegamrk and Mr Aguire are universal I am persuaded like Penrosqe and Hawking,and Sussking also.So why it exists these business around which implies a real probelm. It is not that the aim of this universal sphere. The Christianity is the torch of the universal love. The suit does not make the monk ! A goodband is universal. A bad band does not respect the real universalists. Their strategies are like an error in fact. They insist due to their lack of competences in ciences, so their only one solution is the business. These kind of persons like to be in team, because alone they cannot make concrete things. Their tools are simply the hate, the vanity and the envy. In fact I pray for their poor souls and I forgive them with love. Hope they shall understand one day what is the spherization theory invented by Mr Steve Dufourny, a young horticultor, humble in seeing the sky and its spheres. In fact, the usa has a responsability for this sphere, the earth.The imperialism american can optimizing the earth with India ,China,europa. Why a global commission above the bricks and the otan, having a lot of universal wisdom and consiousness, does not appear on this sphere? What are these high spheres so? who governs so this earth if it is not the Usa. China has a lot to give to the world, the india also. The prosperity can be implanted on earth, so why? It is not logic all this. I beleive that the corrupted systems must be stopped quickly . We cannot accept the unconsciousness and the corruptions. If the high spheres of this earth does not take its responsabilities quickly, we shall add chaotical global probelms and we shall reach several possible chaotical exponential. The prosperity can be global for all. The USA must take its responsabilities for the well of all. The capitalism can be liberated with more monney. The stock of Au(gold) or Pt or the financial products or this or that must be architecturated with a real universality. China and Usa And India and Europa must work together. The Africa ,it, is very weak, and must be helped with universality also. The prosperity like a torch of evidence. It permits to decrease the hate.

The probelms of religions also can be optimized. The imperialism american has a pure universal responsability !!! It is essential for our future. I ask me if the high spheres are really universal. I say me that this monney sometimes implies a lot of problems. The system , global can be harmonized.Have you seen the increasing of humans.Have you seen the energetical probelm.Or the poverty, the sufferings everywhere.It is not acceptable for universalists and generalists. The sciences have the solutions. The competences, scientific, must be centralized for the well of all.Above the borders and frontiers and differences. We are all humans waiting for a better world. The prosperity is, like said a friend that I have knew when I was moderator of the group Africa on Xing, woman, Deborah Boyd, a catalyzer of peace. People are less nervous when they create,They are more in serenity with their minds. It is a simple evidence. The hour is serious dear scientists. The solutions exist. It is time to act concretally.

Usa has a responsability !!! This country must showing the example.

Regards

If the Planck length not valid in 2D, because no, gravitation no G?

See essay 1413

See Wilczek articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

Sorry for broken links

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Is trinity sacred?

Hi Michael,

Let me introduce you to Jens Koeplinger's essay, in case you haven't seen it already. It is amusing and entertaining. His main work however is much more substantive. Parts of it is based on Rick Lockyer's approach to octonions. I thought you might benefit from it since it also takes the division algebras seriously.

Joy

Dear Michael,

''The experimental observation of electrons passing through slits generating the wave characteristic of an interference pattern challenges this divide, although this is only really clear when the electron beam intensity is reduced to the point of a single electron passing through the slits at a time.''

If we were to assume that we live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference so particles have to create themselves, each other, then it seems logical to assume that particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions. If so, if particles in such universe only exist to each other if, as far and as long as they interact, exchange energy, with all particles within their interaction horizon, then the electron, on nearing the slits, would 'see' its world split into two slightly different worlds, worlds which from both sides of both slits interfere with its path.

As to its wave character, the Uncertainty Principle (UP) is interpreted to say that virtual particles can appear by borrowing the energy to exist from the vacuum, for a time inversely proportional to their energy. This suggests that real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance, at about the same place. As in this view particles express and at the same time preserve each other's mass by continuously exchanging energy (the sign of which then alternates), the origin of mass is obvious, as is the equality of inertial and gravitational mass.

The hidden variables Einstein wanted to exist to avoid indeterminism can be identified as the energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve each other's properties. However, the unpredictability Einstein wished to eradicate remains if particles indeed are as much the effect as the cause of their interactions. It is because their exchange is unobservable as long as the particles are at equilibrium, because it serves to preserve the status quo, that we have been able to remain ignorant of it: because we've always assumed that particles only are cause of forces. Only when their equilibrium is disturbed so the frequencies they exchange energy at changes and net energy is emitted or absorbed, the effects of this exchange become observable. In the study I propose a mass definition based on the UP: the less indefinite the position of a particle (or mass center of an object) is, the greater its mass is, a definition which might make it possible to derive the equations of relativity from the UP. For other interesting features of a self-creating universe, see my essay or the more extended study at www.quantumgravity.nl (which also contains some remarks on (CTRL+F) 'Gödel).

Regards, Anton

Hi Michael and Tom,

If Albert was alive today and knew all the physics we know (which is orders of magnitude more than he could have hoped), then would he have accepted Michael's claim? That is the question I want to answer for myself. But to do that I will have to put in at least as much time and effort into Michael's theory as he has into my framework. I will try to read at least some of his papers---with serious intention to agree with him---and then we will see. For now I remain sceptical.

Best,

Joy

Hello Joy, Michael.

Joy - thanks so much for your note! It's good to hope that we're working on pieces of a puzzle that will ultimately fit together - as opposed to random scrap on the junkyard ... :)

Michael - your work on finding symmetries of the Standard Model from the parallelizable spheres reminds me of Geoffrey Dixon's. Are you familiar with his work? He's been advocating such a model over the past decades. You find points and references from his site: http://7stones.com/ with free material e.g. from http://7stones.com/Homepage/AlgebraSite/algebra0.html , "U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3): Original Derivation". If I remember correctly, Dixon proposes a 9+1 dimensional background geometry of nature (but I better stop here before writing something wrong). A newer approach to using such spheres comes from a somewhat different, algebraic angle: Cohl Furey's "Unified Theory of Ideals" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1497 ; recently accepted into PrD as I just found out!).

What keeps me from being a Platonist in the vein of Penrose, Godel and Rick Lockyer -- though I have the highest respect and admiration for all of them -- is exactly the dichotomy that Michael describes, between the language of nature and the facts of nature.

Joy, that's what compels me to accept Bell's theorem as a mathematical truth, while acknowledging that your topological framework is far superior for describing quantum correlations in a mathematically complete and physically falsifiable schema.

Mathematics always depends -- exactly as natural language depends -- on rules and assumptions. Take the Banach-Tarski paradox -- mathematicians know that the name is historical; it isn't actually a paradox though it is a highly counterintuitive construction. Dropping an assumption changes the game, however -- can one prove B-T without the axiom of choice? (I hope to someday, in fact.) Point is, that dropping assumptions -- paring a proposition to its bare essentials -- is the very definition of mathematical beauty. It's what attracted me to the Joy Christian framework like a moth to flame -- the idea that globally continuous measurement functions share identity with locally real results isn't something that one just wakes up believing in. It means suspending belief, in favor of a deductive argument and rational correspondence between the mathematical theory and physical result. Proving quantum correlations without assuming nonlocality is absolutely equivalent to proving the B-T construction without AC.

Don't speak to me of "disproof" -- speak to me of correspondence between language and experience.

Best to all,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Here is a statement of Bell's theorem by Abner Shimony (the S in the Bell-CHSH):

"No physical theory which is realistic as well as local [in the senses specified by EPR and Bell] can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics."

And here is a Disproof of Bell's theorem.

Bell's so-called theorem was NOT a mathematical theorem. Its defenders would very much like to promote it as an ironclad mathematical theorem. But that is just selling tactic, not scientific truth.

Joy

Joy, no mathematical theorem is a scientific truth. It's a mathematical truth; that's what "theorem" actually means. Science and mathematics are not identical, even though we speak informally of the "mathematical sciences."

From the beginning and to this day, I have maintained that there is not a mathematician in the world who will agree with you that a theorem can be disproved. If that were the case, we wouldn't need mathematics to describe the natural world -- because we couldn't distinguish between events and numbers. That is, in fact, the very weakness of Bell's theorem that you spotted -- whether you are consciously aware of it or not -- and corrected.

Bell's theorem is perfectly sound as a theorem of arithmetic; on the interval {0,oo} there exist integers such that a bijection dependent on orientation of copies of N on the plane compels an inequality of the bijective sets. Easy to prove.

Problem is, the plane is not orientable. The existence theorem in arithmetic applied to Bell's experiment has the observer orienting the events by fiat, and ordering the numbers by the rules of arithmetic, and hence we get an observer created reality.

You are absolutely right, and I am your strongest defender -- a topology solution answers the challenge to have an objective, non-anthropocentric physics with a natural orientability that obviates nonlocality and preserves the observer's free will. I'm no voice in the wilderness, either -- I agree without qualification with what Boris Tsirelson told you on his Wikipedia talk page: "Evidently, your idea of Nature is substantially different from that of EPR, Bell and many others. Basically, Bell theorem says that Nature cannot be what is was assumed to be. Quantum theory proposes one new kind of Nature. You propose another new kind of Nature. So what? It will be exciting if your proposal will ultimately work better that quantum theory. But even that will not disprove Bell theorem. If the old kind of Nature is dead anyway, then Bell theorem is alive. So, here is your choice. Either you waive your author rights on the S^3/S^7 physics and kill Bell theorem, or you keep your author rights on the S^3/S^7 physics and withdraw your claim against Bell theorem. Wow! Your decision will tell us, whether you really hope that your S^3/S^7 physics will replace the quantum theory, or not. Surely you do not want to miss Nobel price and instead win a battle on Wikipedia! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Trust, Joy that your physics *does* work better than quantum theory, and leave the theorem proving to the mathematicians. For surely, a purported disproof is identical to a proof which disproves itself. You'll never be able to escape that logical strait jacket. Don't let them put you in it!

As always, all my best,

Tom

Must have been logged out. The above is mine.

Tom,

You missed my point, as did Boris Tsirelson. Bell's so-called theorem was never a mathematical theorem. The word "theorem" in this context is simply a sells tactic, and you have fallen for it.

I have not disproved any mathematical theorem. That has never been my claim. This was a claim imposed on me by Philippe Grangier. Please read my reply to Grangier.

What I have disproved is the following statement of a so-called theorem:

"No physical theory which is realistic as well as local [in the senses specified by EPR and Bell] can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics."

I categorically and strongly object to the mischaracterization of my framework by Boris Tsirelson (which you have quoted). Please read my reply to Boris on his page. In particular, I strongly object to his statement that "[my] idea of Nature is substantially different from that of EPR, Bell and many others." This statement is preposterous.

I stand by my use of the word "disproof." Neither Abner Shimony, nor any other well known foundationalists like Lucien Hardy, has ever objected to my use of the word "disproof" in this context. Only mathematicians have a problem with the word, and for all the wrong reasons. What has been disproved was never a theorem to begin with.

The issue is purely linguistic as far as I am concerned. It is not worth debating about.

All best,

Joy

On the idea that I may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, let me add that Abner Shimony's statement ...

"No physical theory which is realistic as well as local [in the senses specified by EPR and Bell] can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics."

... is also true.

The problem is, there's no way to prove it false. That is, if there is no physical domain that is both local and real, Shimony's tautology says that the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics (nonlocal and real) is physical.

Just as Einstein held, though, if quantum mechanics were a complete physical theory it would necessarily describe the whole of reality in discrete quantum numbers. No statistical theory can do this.

What a classical, deterministic theory can do, however, is to specify the physical domain as a bounded continuum. That the bound of 4-dimension spacetime (Minkowski space) includes the 3-manifold as a local plane of measurement space -- a complete theory need only extend the bound to show that global distant events are also manifest on that local plane as a function of measurement continuous from an initial condition. Joy's topological framework meets that standard -- statistical inference on a bounded domain of globally continuous measurement functions means something quite different than that on an unbounded space of probability measurement.

Tom

Hi Joy,

Our replies crossed. I posted mine before I read yours.

We agree on everything except whether the issue of disproof is worth debating. You're absolutely right that only mathematicians are concerned about it; not as a debate, but as a principle of mathematical logic.

I've always said I agree with Grangier and Tsirelson on this relatively narrow yet important point.

Thing is, there may be methods of formal language that will preempt conventional mathematics in the future -- Lev Goldfarb's ETS formalism, Gregory Chaitin's experimental mathematics, and Steven Wolfram's prgram are possible examples -- yet any of these systems have to remain internally self-consistent, or else there's no need to even have a formal language to describe natural phenomena.

Yes of course I read and comprehended your reply to Boris "... A possibility is that we will find exactly where the boundary lies. More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. ... It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called 'hidden variable' possibility.'" I even agree with your reply. That doesn't change my mind that Boris is correct that the mathematics of Bell's theorem is true -- it's an easy sell, if that's the way you think of it. There's plenty of trivial mathematics in the canon.

All best,

Tom