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

Michael Goodband

4,5) The essays you mention all consider quantum gravity (QG), but this is only necessary if QT is fundamental, but it isn't and so QG is not proven to be necessary. I derive the form of QFT, which wouldn't have been possible if QT was fundamental, and Joy Christian derives the same correlation results as QT without mentioning QT, again that wouldn't have been possible if QT was fundamental.

Janko Kokosar considers black holes with singularities in a QG context, both points of which I disagree with. The black holes of my theory are the 4D GR form of 11D topological defects where space is wrapped around compactified dimensions S7, this means that the black hole has no singularity and there is no space inside - a black hole is literally a hole in space and the event horizon marks an edge of reality beyond which there is nothing.

I find the Higgs field to be a local field theory description of a global twist in the S3*S7 torus of the physical manifold of space, and the Higgs isn't the source of mass for fermions - it is for the bosons. That twist gives the topological conditions for the topological defect particles as Planck scale black holes, so it is the causal reason for the black hole form of particles.

Michael

Side-note on the first line of Janko's section 8: 11D GR can be written on a T-shirt

Fred Diether

Hi Michael,

Thanks for reading my essay. I guess my "bag" model is like an inverse bag model compared to a hadron bag model.

OK, I was able to compress the Penrose paper a bit more so let's see if it will upload.

Best,

Fred

pjackson

Michael

"The real foundational question exposed by this derivation of quantum field theory is, do there really exist observable features in classical physics that cannot be derived?"

Very nice essay and clear analysis, somewhat similar to Lawrence Crowell's. I'd like to suggest that, if you can speak another language, the answer to the above is 'No', as I offer a mechanism Unifying Classical physics and non commutable QFT in my essay. I hope you may read and comment or falsify the alternative logical assumptions offered and resulting ontological construction, reproducing the framework of truth function logic to derive space-time.

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

PS The 'other' language is English, but you may find familiarity with the iambic pentameter helps the flow!.

Fred Diether

OK, guess that didn't compress enough to work. Here it is as a link,

SpinorGR-Penrose.pdf

Best,

Fred

Janko Kokosar

Dear Michael.

Question and hint about interior of black hole (BH) I gave generaly, not linked to my theory. It seems to me, that the interior does not exist, AND that exteriors of BHs are independent from interior. That means that exteriors of BHs "(1) with interior" and "(2) without interior" are the same. Anyway, space time is emergent, thus it is not necessary to worry, what is in this hole inside horizon. I wrote still other arguments. Thus we have the same conclusion.

I DO not say that quantum BH has singularity, because I believe to Feynman's hint that "limited space contains limited information".

I have not yet read your essay, but one problem, which I suspect at you, is that you do not need quantum theory at arising at mass. I think that this is necessary. You also has 11 dimensions. I think that additonal dimensions are against Ockham's razor.

Ockham razor is also that I persist at my theory although is not compatibile with Higgs boson. The reason is, because my theory is very simple.

But I will read your essay.

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

Michael Goodband

Dear Janko,

It is interesting that we have arrived at the same conclusion about the interior of black holes and that they are the form of the fundamental particles, and yet our views of the nature of the space in which they exist are contradictory: you that space is emergent, and me that it is a real physical "fabric" (characterised by physical constants c, G, h). That perhaps makes our point of agreement more remarkable.

The point discussed in my essay is that I start from classical physics and attempt to calculate the mass of a particle as a topological defect in a real "fabric of space" and find mathematical incompleteness in the way. Changing the mathematical terms of the theory to go around this block yields the form of quantum theory. Conclusions: 1) quantum theory isn't fundamental otherwise it wouldn't be possible to derive its form 2) cannot calculate mass of fermions in classical physics, but neither can QFT.

Occam's Razor doesn't help in practise because we all seem to have different concepts of simple. My extra dimensions are in the context of a pure geometric GR theory with a physical "fabric of space", no extra fields of any form (a great piece of simplicity), quantum theory is derived, and just involves the closed spaces S0, S1, S3, S7 in the 4 normed division algebras (significant uniqueness for a metric based theory like GR).

I suspect you could present a similar argument about the simplicity of your theory.

Best regards,

Michael

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

I have some further thoughts about the issues we have been discussing. I now think that there are actually three different approaches one could take to iron out the apparent incompatibility of our models.

(1) I have already discussed the first option; namely, to go with an extension of Penrose's spinorial reformulation of GR. I think this is the best approach one can take, but I am not sure whether to go all the way to his twistor theory, which is the next stage from his spinorial reformulation of GR. I don't think we need to go that far.

(2) The second possibility is to consider teleparallel gravity. At first sight this seems to be a better option, considering my parallelized spheres. Because then the distant parallelism within them would be naturally dictated by the theory itself. But there are disadvantages in taking this option. To begin with, you are not using teleparallel gravity in your work but a straightforward extension of GR to 11D. Teleparallel gravity, on the other hand, is an entirely different ball game. In particular, there would be no equivalence principle in such a theory, either exact or approximate. So I don't think this is an attractive option.

(3) Finally one can follow Hestenes's spacetime algebra, which would be a convenient language from the perspective of my framework, because it is a natural extension of the geometric algebra I have been using. But there is something very unattractive about spacetime algebra. At some stage Hestenes is forced to introduce what he calls spacetime split to separate time from space, and this allows him to transform GR into a gauge theory. But this can be done only at a price of loosing general covariance, which again is not very attractive from my perspective. Such a split would introduce a preference in the theory. But the whole point of my work (as well as your work) is to NOT having to put any preference by hand.

So I am back to option (1). If I had infinite time, energy, and financial resources, then I would explore all three options to see where they lead us. But in the face of the realities of the real world I would go for the best possible option, and that seems to me to be option (1).

Any thoughts?

Joy

Edwin Klingman

Hi Joy,

With respect to your 3rd point, have you looked at Daryl Janzen's essay? It may be relevant.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian

Hi Edwin,

No, I haven't. I will have a look.

Thanks,

Joy

Michael Goodband

Hi Joy,

I've been aware of (2) being the option most readily implied by your work since I read your book. Although a pure geometric model could conceptually comprise of parallelised spheres - with the non-trivial map between them - it does seem to require a dramatic change that would lose key GR features. It is not just at the 11D level, the dimensionally reduced theory requires 4D GR to be recovered as I use this to obtain Planck's constant from the angular momentum bound for a real-valued event horizon radius in the Kerr metric. This then enters into the geometric expressions for the coupling constants. In addition, the radiation driven compactification-inflation see-saw is linked to a physical GR theory, without which I would be back to the assumption of Kaluza-Klein theory (no-one would want that). So teleparallel gravity looks as though it would be a GR disaster for me.

Our discussion of the spheres in both our frameworks has noticeably not mentioned the time dimension. Your framework is currently not relativistic; in adding time to make it relativistic won't you encounter the same spacetime split issue of (3) in reverse? Or do you have an alternative in mind, or a trick? I'm also wary of gauge theory gravity (GTG) because I have a critical global feature in the non-trivial map between closed curved spaces S7 and S3 which GTG doesn't seem equipped to easily handle. It looks formulated for local gravity, not the global cosmology of a closed twisted universe in 11D.

And then there was (1); although I'm not sure about how to proceed for a globally twisted space S3*S7.

Michael

PS: thanks for the Penrose paper

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Thomas Ray

Hi Michael,

You write, "Your framework is currently not relativistic; in adding time to make it relativistic won't you encounter the same spacetime split issue of (3) in reverse?"

I would be interested in how you make this conclusion. I understand Joy's framework to be fully relativistic. While I realize he makes no reference to time, the spacetime algebra (Hestenes) obviates the need for such a reference, in that Hestenes' 8-dimension model is translatable to Minkowski space.

It seems to me that a coordinate-free geometry is exactly equivalent to the general relativity principle of no privileged frame. What am I misunderstanding?

All best,

Tom

[deleted]

In fact since the begining you also poor thinker.

You are not cramped dear badband , Edwin, Georgina, Lisi,Jonathan, Joy,Christi,Don, Florin,Mickael,Brendan,Johan,Rick,Tom,Verlinde,and several others....your team is known and also you have already lost. Frankly you are not skillings , so why you insist.In fact you are blocked in your own obliged false road.In fact I have already seen uncompetents, but there you are above the stupdity.

Just for what? a confusion due to my weak english, let me laugh !!! a ball there, a sphere there, a lisi appraoch there and what after? ironical, even in team and even with your algorythmic superimposings of hackers and even with your maths, I eat you all the days. Cramped is a weak word No? Probably that you are pseudo men, I am persuaded that you are even bad in the bed band of pseudos. Your hate increases, you are going to discuss and continue your strategy.Let me laugh band of comics.If you and your team you understand the generality of sciences, me I am the queen of england dear pseudo mathematicians and scientists.

Entropy, you do not understand it.

the generality, the same

the concept of evolution spherization, the same

the universality, the same, the mass and the light, the same

the serie of uniqueness, the same you confound all the limits and domains.

the geometrical algebras, aahahah let me laugh with your extrradiemsnions of 7 to 8 to 11 to 12 and what after? let me laugh with your reductionism. Kill me pseudo scientists ahahah it is better for your credibility.

now let's continue, I love to give you all courses between us with these hackings. Even like that ,I eat your sciences at my breakfast. ahahah even the amino-acids you do not understand them ahahah

I suggest really that you return at school you know dear team, because in fact you repeat always the same stupidities. but you are not bad for the marketin,g and the publicity ahahaha change of topic, of orientation ahahah if you create for example a spaceship, we are not going to go very far ahahah. if your sciences are correlated with the engeniering and its laws, me I am the future president of USA ahahah pay attention they are going to invent a time machine.

If you you are scientists, theorists,frankly the hour is serious there. And you insist ahahah Perimeter questions institute of Holland ahahah return at school and forget the theory yes .People are made for that, other no simply.Each person at its place. People teaches and others learn.You are in the second meaning. Me I am in both of them band of comics.

a ball and a sphere and a S(O)n , with strings , yes of course. because 11 are necessary for the compactification in 2D of course of course.and a bridge between the aether and the physicality, we know we know, and also godel uncompleteness is rirrational of course of course.

THE THEORY OF SPHERIZATION , Steve Dufourny Belgium !!!

they turn so they are !!!

Regards

Joy Christian

Hi Tom,

Michael is correct to say that my framework is currently not relativistic. He is also correct to observe that in adding time to it to make it relativistic I will have to introduce the same space-time split that Hestenes has to introduce in his space-time algebra. That is why I am not so keen on his space-time algebra.

Having said that, you are also correct, at least to some extent, to say what you have been saying. My framework is *not incompatible* with special relativity, or with any other theory of local causality for that matter (such as general relativity). This is because it is based on Bell's local-realistic framework, which assumes very little prior theoretical structure. As I have stated on these pages many times before, it only requires the factorizability condition

AB(a, b, L) = A(a, L) x B(b, L)

on the actual joint results such as AB = +1 or -1. However, to turn my framework into a fully relativistic, dynamical *theory* of physics, one must correctly adapt it to some algebra, such as space-time algebra. But since I am not too keen on spacetime algebra, I am looking into other better options for this task, such as Penrose's spinorial reformulation of GR (extended to 11D).

I have to say, however, that more I look into the problem I am realizing that the apparent incompatibility between my framework and that of Michael is much more serious. It will take much more serious work to sort out.

In short, simply to say that "a coordinate-free geometry is exactly equivalent to the general relativity principle of no privileged frame" is not enough. That is just the first step. To construct a full theory based on this idea is a non-trivial task. A similar task took Einstein more than a decade to accomplish. And I am no Einstein.

Joy

Thomas Ray

"In short, simply to say that 'a coordinate-free geometry is exactly equivalent to the general relativity principle of no privileged frame' is not enough."

I think it is enough, Joy. Hestenes' space-time split does not obviate the continuum of quantum and classical domains, when Minkowski space (classical continuum) and complex Hilbert space (quantum) dynamics are reconciled in a topological model using geometric algebra.

As I keep emphasizing, general relativity suffers no loss of generality in conversion from an interpretation that is finite in time and unbounded in space, to a model finite in space (quantum dynamics) and unbounded in time (classically continuous).

Tom

Cristinel Stoica

Hi Michael,

Please check this link and find how five essays, including yours, were removed from the 35 finalists. I posted some messages with attachments containing the page and screenshots at 0:01.

Good luck,

Cristi Stoica

Michael Goodband

Space-Time: real or emergent?

This may well depend upon what you think these terms mean. Nothing prevents clear understanding quite like speaking the same language, but using the same words with different meanings. So instead of using these ambiguous terms and hoping everyone chooses the same meaning, let's call the manifold of GR an "absolute" space in the sense that the "absolute" scale of physical distances in GR is not in fact defined - this is seen in the scale factor of the universe in GR not being specified.

In any model with an "absolute" space that includes compactified dimensions, e.g. M4*X (the model referred to in the essay considers local manifold M4*S7 but the point here is more general) this problem of not having an "absolute" scale in GR is resolved by measuring ALL physical distances in M4 using the compactification scale of X - virtually always assumed to be the Planck scale (the model of the essay arrives at a Planck unit system through consistency). Of course, this explicitly depends upon grasping the meaning of the word "relative" from which the name Relativity is derived, surely not a difficult conceptual point?

As I said under Edwin's thread of 30 Sept, in any system of measurement units the intrinsic error of measurement is ½ the unit used, and when this is expressed in invariant form (i.e. 2nd Casimir invariant spin) for the Planck unit system this gives the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. It should hopefully be obvious that this implies that the relations are fundamentally NOT about quantum theory, but about the structure of space - namely that there are compactified dimensions. This also has the effect of converting an assumed smooth "absolute" manifold of M4*X (in GR) into a 4D space-time manifold MX4 expressed in terms of physical units of measurement that is NOT smooth, and has Planck's constant "built-in": precisely the features of an "emergent" space-time (i.e. MX4 "emergent" from M4*X), with an exotic differential structure such as those of the 4-manifolds discussed in Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga's essay. The Cellular Automata view of this "absolute" M4*X manifold is one where the neighbouring spatial cells overlap each other by ½ a cell (I mentioned this in the context of Vladimir Tamari's CA model) to give an "emergent" view of a MX4 space-time manifold that is NOT smooth.

By grasping the real meaning of the word "relative" it can be seen that the "absolute" manifold M4*X of GR will give an "emergent" space-time MX4 with critical features of QT built-in, e.g. Planck's constant, and a non-trivial differential structure. It has been said many times before by many people that most of the features of QT are due to the geometry of space itself, and NOT specifically about the field formulation of QT. It is also well-established that to get the physics that we already know, the compactified manifold X must have 7 dimensions - for a closed manifold that means S7, as in the model of the essay. The given model recovers the Electroweak model EXACTLY - ALL couplings, ALL particles, ALL bosons masses, i.e. including the Higgs boson, Weinberg angle, Electroweak Vacuum and the quadratic and quartic terms of the Higgs potential.

Quantum Theory itself is JUST about the conversion of a natural-number valued term for the number of particles, to a real-number valued term that includes the undecidable wave-property, and the conversion back again - THAT'S IT! All other results produced by QT are due to geometry - this is why the same experimental results CAN be obtained without ever using this QT representation fiddle. If the derivation of results that agree with experiment no longer matters, then theoretical physics would amount to nothing more than a pointless self-serving exercise - at tax-payers expense!

The 40 years of failure to take physics beyond the Standard Model is due to attempting to make QT fundamental when it isn't. The false assumption that QT is fundamental IS the answer to the FQXi question posed (I'm not the only one saying it here!) - the structure of reality is not a popularity contest, the answer is the answer because it's right, not because it's popular.

Michael Goodband

Hi Joy,

On the compatibility issue, bear in mind that my framework enables me to derive electroweak theory exactly - isospin, hypercharge and Higgs couplings (~1% of standard model values), the complete electroweak spectrum of fermionic particles, the bosons masses (W, Z and Higgs to 1% of experiment), the Weinberg angle within experimental range, the correct eigenvalues for the electroweak vacuum and the quadratic and quartic terms of the Higgs potential. I initially focused on the particle symmetry groups in our discussion because for the electrons and photons of the correlation experiments the colour portion is irrelevant, and the remainder is exactly as per the standard model. So incompatibility at this level would entail incompatibility of your framework with the electroweak portion of the standard model. But 2 experimental facts derived in valid mathematical frameworks (yours and electroweak theory) cannot be incompatible for a consistent reality (safe to assume that it is). As you say, Bell's local-realistic framework is so minimal that genuine incompatibility with the relativistic framework of (electroweak) field theory looks unlikely.

I raised the particle families because they are the unaccounted for cracks in the standard model, and seem to naturally fit with non-commutative subsets of a non-associative whole - as in the octonions. So even ignoring my framework and just considering the compatibility of your framework with the standard model arrives at pretty much the same place.

I think the experimental meta-physics aspect of your correction to Bell's analysis is brilliant, and now that I know it can be done, I am wondering about whether the same concept can be applied to my main incompleteness result in its general context. However, the downside of such a meta-physical constraints on measurements is that it seems to leave open an ambiguity in physical interpretation: from meta-physical constraint back to physics. Does the S7 constraint apply to the space of physical configurations or to the physical space itself, and in what way? If the S7 includes the physical dimensions of space, then not only is it incompatible with my framework but it will be incompatible with the standard model as there are insufficient degrees of freedom - the underlying reason why extra-dimensional considerations always ultimately arrive at 11 as the minimum. On the other hand, if the S7 doesn't include spatial dimensions then why does it work just for spin? So either way, direct interpretation of S7 as physical space has problems. That suggests the S7 constraint applies to physical configurations - irrespective of compatibility considerations with my framework.

I would argue that spinor based formulations are about the space of possible physical configurations in the physical space, and that considering the physical interpretation of the tensorial and spinorial GR formulations reveals this. In the tensorial formulation, the core consideration of covariant transport around a closed loop is for the geometric test element of a directed line, i.e. a vector, whereas in the spinorial formulation it is the test element of a spinor - the group eigenstate of a point. This is the zero radius limit of the case I consider of a hole in the space, where the S2 surface of the hole must be in a representation of the Poincare group and so have spin. When a space has curvature, or torsion, such a spinor will either process or have its angle of declination change in going around a closed loop. Such changes in the orientation of a spinor test element reveal the same curvature of the underlying physical space as using the geometric test element of a vector. This implies that the spinorial formulation is the correct way to go - again, irrespective of compatibility considerations with my framework.

I have given the differential structure issue some more thought and think Ben Dribus had a point about Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga's work on exotic differential structures on 4-manifolds, as a smooth GR manifold of the form M4*X with compactified space X would give an "emergent" 4-manifold MX4 with a non-smooth differential structure - I added a post just on this issue for the FQXi record.

Michael

Fred Diether

Hi Joy,

For me, time in your framework is simply equivalent to the radius of the parallelized 3 or 7 sphere topology and is normalized to 1. Of course in the EPR-Bohm scenario, you have the experimental results happen exactly at the same time. I think it would be interesting to see what happens in your framework if the results for A and B were taken at different radii (time). Well, there actually should be some kind of generalization of that possible also. Perhaps using Penrose's spinor method as you mention above.

Of course you know my position that the "void" is filled with "less than virtual" Dirac spinors so a spinor approach does seem appropriate modelled with the spheres of the normed division algebras as Michael has done. The fact that you beat Bell with that topology indicates to me that this is the right approach.

Best,

Fred

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

I have posted a new paper on the arXiv concerning the local origins of quantum correlations. I thought you might find it interesting. I am also attaching a PDF file of the paper below for your convenience.

I hope you are not too discouraged by the outcome of the essay contest. We must continue to fight against the prevalent ideology.

Best,

JoyAttachment #1: 2piSpinor.pdf

Michael Goodband

Hi Joy,

Thanks for the update. I see that this is the work you were referring to about an experimental test between SO(3) and SU(2).

I like the idea of something like a table-tennis ball (cut in half and judiciously stuck back together) being the required hidden domain containing two objects with orientation entanglement. The crux of the paper strikes me as being on page 9, since for your analysis to apply to the proposed experimental scenario, the L=±1 orientation *has* to be defined by the physical configuration of the objects inside the hidden domain. I note that the orientation of the 2 simple lumps inside the hidden domain can be specified by a vector, but a vector is insufficient to express orientation entanglement. This implies that the 2 simple lumps inside the hidden domain won't give the necessary physical scenario for your analysis to apply - a physical realisation of a spinor is required. The EPR scenario works out because the two objects in question are physically spinors, and although physical objects don't have spin ½, the same 2-to-1 rotation mapping is easily revealed, e.g. the plate trick (Dirac belt trick) or tangloids. In these cases, the orientation entanglement is revealed through two objects being physically linked - by your arm and string respectively - which suggests that some sort of twisted string or spring scenario might do the trick. Given the cult-like behaviour of the ideologues, I think it is important to make sure that the physical scenario is right.

I was far more discouraged by reading Thomas Kuhn, as being ridiculed and ignored (as in my case) is par for the course of a genuine paradigm shift - which is what QT not being fundamental amounts to. And the point I made at the end of my essay still stands - QT is just the beginning. The history of science is that these things always go through, and the adherents of the prevailing ideology end up looking very silly in retrospect. The nearly 40 year failure to reconcile QT and GR was a BIG hint that a false assumption was being made. As a Kuhn paradigm is fundamentally a social paradigm, the false assumption was perhaps inevitably going to be the one that wasn't allowed to be said, and gets shouted down if it is.

Given that FQXi was initially set up by a grant from the Templeton Foundation, I do wonder how they will feel about the shut-out I'm continuing to experience when they finally discover that my book and philosophy of science paper gives them a big something they've been looking for.

Best,

Michael

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your feedback. I view my proposed experiment somewhat differently from how you have viewed it. The two lumps are not supposed to provide the initial orientation of the 3-sphere. The lumps are there to provide different spin directions to be observed by the experimenter, along the chosen direction of her detector (s along a). For each direction s of the spin there are two hidden possibilities for the initial orientation of the 3-sphere, namely L = +1 or -1. The rotating fragments would thus behave like fermions rather than bosons because they would be rotating with respect to each other. A fermion is a fermion because it behaves like an anchored rock rather than a free rock, where the anchor (or the rope) has only abstract or symbolic meaning (it does not have to be physical). In other words, it is the *relative* rather than absolute rotation that makes a fermion a fermion. Since in my experiment each bomb fragment is rotating with respect to (or relative to) the other fragment, it will behave like an anchored rock---i.e., like a fermion. That is the hypothesis, and the experiment is supposed to test this hypothesis.

As for Kuhn's perspective on the scientific revolutions, there is even more depressing book on the subject: "The Golem", by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch. I highly recommend this book if you haven't read it. Because of my negative experiences since my first anti-Bell paper appeared on the arXiv in 2007, I am able to relate to every episode of scientific misconduct analysed by Collins and Pinch. It is also a more entertaining book compared to Kuhn's rather dry analysis. Sociology of science seems to follow its own laws, and by now I have learned to resign to these laws without giving up the fight.

Best,

Joy

Michael Goodband

Hi Joy,

I don't know if it has occurred to you that one obvious name for your proposed experiment is "Christian's Exploding Balls", which is a bit unfortunate ;-)

The attached pdf outlines my interpretation of your experiment and why I think that it needs the simple modification of spring loading the two halves of the sphere to give an extra axis of rotation. As something like radioactive decay is the sort of source of randomness acceptable to physicists, your proposed experiment is effectively a variation on Schrodinger's Cat. Unfortunately there may still be some physicists who don't acknowledge that the QT description of radioactive decay stops at the detector. So some sort of QT nonsense could be used ideologues, or they could falsely claim that it is what your paper is about.

I have encountered references to "The Golem" a couple of times, but not yet read it - I found Kuhn depressing enough! It must be remembered that the laws of the sociology of science are not natural laws that cannot be broken, and the social conduct of science takes place within a larger society that doesn't have the same tolerance for the social laws of science - as seen in the prosecution of the Italian scientists. Taking tax payers money to pursue something that has already been proven to be impossible (or has already been done) is known in wider society as economic fraud, and is technically a criminal offence that carries jail time. Some of the social laws of science seem to be leading to illegality because the tax-payer is paying the bill, and some people are waking up to this fact.

Best,

MichaelAttachment #1: Exploding_balls.pdf

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

I am happy with the name "Christian's Exploding Balls" for my proposed experiment. It might just get the attention of my critics, who are very good at advertising my work (albeit with malicious intentions).

Thank you for your careful analysis of what you think is a problem. I am, however, puzzled why it is a problem at all. When I say that the small weights are to be randomly affixed inside the two halves of the hollow sphere, I mean they are to be affixed completely randomly. You, on the other hand, are first restricting the locations of the weights to the diagonally opposite locations (as shown in your figures), and then introducing an additional spring mechanism to force the rotations about the central axis. But this is unnecessary if we keep the locations of the two weights independent of each other from the beginning---i.e., not affix them in the diagonally opposite locations. Then the two exploding halves will rotate about all possible directions. Moreover, the two fragments need not be symmetric at all. Although unnecessary, their rotations can then be parameterised by the Euler angles, as you have done.

In fact, one of my experimentalist friends has suggested that instead of exploding balls we can simply break some chemical bonds randomly, of large enough molecules, with asymmetrical fragments flying in two opposite directions. The reason why the details of the rotational symmetries of the fragments do not matter is because the observables are normalized as sign(+s.a) and sign(-s.b). The problem with my friend's suggestion, however, is that chemical molecules are not lager enough to be called classical.

Have I missed something in your analysis?

Best,

Joy

Michael Goodband

Hi Joy,

The issue I see is that for an exploding force which separates the two shells in Figure 3, the force is parallel to the axis shown. The random positioning of weights on the shells will turn that force into a torque that sets up shell rotation, but no positioning of weights will result in a torque about the central axis of Figure 3 when the exploding force is parallel to the axis. So the rotation of the shells will not be *any* direction, but only such that the tip of the shell rotation vector lies within the plane shown in Figure 3. An axial torque on the shells is also required to get the rotation vector to lie on S2 - this is the critical requirement of your analysis that I'm considering.

A lack of symmetry in the shell half sizes and weight positions won't make any difference to the general lack of an axial torque on the shells in the separation explosion. If you imagine an exploding grenade, the radial force of the explosion can similarly set the metal shell fragments rotating end over end, or side over side, but not set them rotating about a radial axis. The radial force is in the wrong direction to give a radial rotation vector, so each particular grenade fragment cannot be set rotating in *any* possible direction - despite appearances. Any purely exploding scenario will have the same issue. This is probably the reason why the sort of orientation entanglement you're looking for hasn't been experimentally seen before.

I chose to interpret your scenario in terms of symmetric arrangements as such an interpretation more closely parallels the EPR hidden domain scenario, and in terms of the view just given it doesn't seem to make any critical difference. So I view the symmetric case as reducing the experimental scenario to its purest form. The Euler angles of Figure 4 are not to parameterise the shell rotation, but define the random location of the weight inside each shell (theta, phi) and the angular rotation (psi) that sets the extent of the spring loading between the two shell halves.

A C60 buckyball is perhaps the obvious shell scenario in the molecular world, but has reputedly still been observed to display wave motion - so as you say, chemical molecules are just not big enough to be classical.

Best,

Michael

[deleted]

Dear Michael

You wrote "In the case of [1], this means that the shell loading and separation explosion parts of the experiment are purely classical physics".

You are right that Joy's exploding balls need a quantum input before they'll exhibit quantum correlations.This can be seen rather easily from Joy's paper, formula (86) for the experimentally measured correlation E(a,b). Mathematically, the directions s^k can be taken to represent a classical (à la Bell) hidden variable and the formula (86) can now be interpreted as a classical local hidden variables model. One can now run through any standard derivation of the Bell-CHSH inequality, to see that Joy's exploding balls experiment is predestined to disappoint him.

In order to try to convince Joy of this, I developed a new, finitary, proof of Bell's theorem: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103. However, this proof failed to have any impact at all on Joy or his staunch supporters, but maybe you will find it interesting.

[deleted]

Richard,

That would be the "proof" whose abstract claims, " ... locality, is obviously connected to causality ..."

I don't know what you find obvious about that. Neither Einstein nor Bell subscribed to your naive incomplete conclusion " ... causal influences need time to propagate spatially."

What you find "obvious" ignores the more obvious fact that Joy Christian's topological framework addresses quantum correlations, not local causal influences. That correlations that exist at one moment exist at all subsequent moments (without quantum entanglement) can be found as early as Einstein's 1919 speech to the Prussian academy of sciences. The topological basis of the Christian framework -- continuous measurement functions and initial condition -- obviate almost every objection I've ever heard you raise to the result, which in my opinion you either deliberately misrepresent or show complete innocence of what Joy has created.

You raise statistical arguments when Joy's argument is wholly analytical.

You fall for the naive "Randi challenge" model to test Joy's framework -- a program that not even Randi could endorse, without being a quantum mystic.

If your desire is to renew the debate, that's great -- Michael knows the topology.

Tom

[deleted]

Hey Richard,

You didn't ever apologize to Joy for the bet you lost with me. And you are still trying to impose the CHSH inequality on the experiment which is just plain wrong. You did in fact lose that bet.

Anyways, I don't think we should pollute Michael's blog here with this debate. You can reply on sci.physics.research to a post I did there recently if you wish.

Fred

[deleted]

Causal inference and local realism are not logically entailed by one another.

Richard Gill's paper is an excellent example, I think, of the Bell orthodoxy taken to its conventional logical extreme of a nonlocal, observer-created reality in which probabilism emerges as a physical law.

That this framework is already shot full of holes and is destined to collapse became even clearer to me in reading my new Science magazine (338, 21 Dec). Though overshdowed by the "big science" news coming out of the LHC, the quiet "small science" news is at least equally important, because it foreshadows the physical realization of topological states of matter, perfectly correspondent to Joy Christian's theoretical predictions.

Xie Chen, et al, introduce us to "Symmetry-Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Systems," a model which preserves time-reverse symmetry (as I have been preaching for years on this forum) as well as particle number. "Our construction," they conclude, "is nonperturbative and works for strongly interacting bosonic systems. Therefore, it contributes to a more complete understanding of the topological phase diagram in strongly correlated quantum systems."

In a piece separate from the research article, Xiao-Liang Qi explains, "Chen et al's approach is powerful because it describes a large class of new topological states in general dimensions, which is a major expansion of our knowledge on SPT states in interacting many-body systems. Many interesting questions follow: Because the prototype models proposed are discrete lattice models, is there a continuous field theory description for each topological class?"

Indeed.

The writing is clearly on the wall for nonlocality and quantum mysticism, to those who can read it.

Tom

Thomas Ray

If Richard Gill wishes to debate the issue in good faith, let him try and save his personal version of local realism by refuting the local realism of EPR as interpreted by Christian and Goodband.

It won't happen.

Local reality in the EPR sense is relativistic -- and therefore all continuous measurement functions (those results that demarcate what we think of as "physical" from what is not physical) are not only local, they are time-conserved. The point is that topological assumptions -- which are analytical -- do not admit a nontrivial condition where t = 1 in an unbounded measure space. This error leads Gill to falsely reason:

"I state an open problem concerning the design of a quantum Randi challenge: a computer challenge to Bell-deniers." Not only is this not an open problem anywhere except in the mind of Sascha Vongehr, it isn't a problem that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific method of defining a physical problem in terms of actual physical results; i.e., the independence of calculated result and mathematical theory. A true test of local realism in terms of hidden variables does not make this mistake -- the theoretical framework proposed by both Christian and Goodband gambles on true and precise correlation of theory and experimental result, and does not hedge the bet by assuming that computer calculation and theoretical result are the same thing (thus assuming that which was to be proved in the first place). My attempt to make this point obvious is attached. It is clear from Joy Christian's work that quantum least action is measure zero, and nature has an independent choice in the outcome of a result in every finite time interval. (I interpret this to mean that every measurement function continuous from an initial condition is nondegenerate near the singularity.)

A parting thought -- among Gill's mathematically naive assertions is this:

" . . . disproof of Bell's theorem is as likely as a proof that the square root of 2 is not an irrational number."

It is also a fact that within Dedekind cuts, there exist two numbers whose product is the square root of 2. Though these numbers are unknowable by calculation, we know that they are meta-mathematically real. The same failure of Gill to recognize the meaning of discrete results in a mathematical framework involving a continuous range of variables, prevents him from realizing the metaphysical realism inherent in discrete results obtained from a range of continuous variables in a physical experiment.

TomAttachment #1: 1_Buridans_Principle_and_the_point_at_infinity.pdf

[deleted]

Happy New Year in 2013!

Not only local realism is false, but a stronger result : EPR realism is false http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4270 This result is one positive outcome out of debating Joy. Another one is the Quantum Randy Challenge.

[deleted]

Oh! Florin, you finally did a new paper. Why don't you start a new blog for it so we can discuss it off Micheal's blog?

Fred

Happy New Year to All!

[deleted]

I would love to, but I am too busy. The above pre-print will be submitted shortly to PRL where it will be peer reviewed.

I also have much much stronger results. I started a Nature submission a paper which obtains QM from simple physical principles. I expect the publishing process to be completed sometime in between February and April this year. I'll upload the first draft on the archive sometimes in February.

Thomas Ray

"To summarize, EPR reality criterion demands the objective existence of spin independent of measurement."

My last attachment refutes your result.

No physical phenomenon is independent of measurement, and neither does EPR so demand. "All physics is local" means that all measurement functions are local and limited only relativistically (i.e., no privileged frame). This renders all measurement functions continuous in the local inertial frame.

Sorry, Florin, but the moon really is there - faithfully occupying that middle value of measure zero. That's a quantum value, not classical. That no classical theory of motion can be derived from quantum mechanics does not therefore imply that quantum correlations cannot be derived from classical mechanics, as the above simple example illustrates.

The "Quantum Randi challenge" is postmodern code for the old quantum mysticism. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom (all)

Sorry to chime in with my apparently simplistic comments, but, yet again, if people started from what the generic form of physical existence (ie that which is potentially knowable to us, and not what we can dream up), then this philosophical debate would never have occurred, ie:

-physical existence is limited (ie a closed system) because it must have detectability (either actual or hypothetically verified on the basis of that), as this is the only form of existence we can be aware of. We cannot externalise ourselves from it, except with belief, as we are part of it. Hence without proper pre-conditions and due process, as we can only ever comparing awareness with other awareness, it is easy to conflate knowledge and belief.

-there is no relativity in physical existence, which is an existential sequence. The entirety of whatever comprises it can only exist within that sequence in one definitive physically existent state at a time. And the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist, there is no physically existent 'future'.

-there is no time (or more precisely, change) in any physically existent state, this concerns the measurement of the rate at which change occurs between physically existent states

-all physics is local, a physically existent state can only be a physical cause in certain specific conditions in respect of spatial position and sequence order, as physical influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstances

-any form of sensing (ie receipt of physical input by virtue of being in the line of travel and interacting therewith) is independent of physical existence, both in terms of what was physically received and what caused that

-similarly measurement, which is the subsequent comparison of what is identified as existent against a conceptual constant, ie an abstraction of any given manifest feature

-what is sensed is a physically existent representation (in the context of the recipient sensory system) of what physically occurred. There is a timing delay between physical existence and receipt of that representation.

Paul

[deleted]

Florin

"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity".

The point is that this condition is false, although it does allude to a better understanding of physical existence than the metaphysical concept it is commenting on.

Whether we can predict or not, whilst disturbing or not, is irrelevant to physical existence. That occurred before we can do anything. Furthermore, what we physically interact with, both in order to identify physical existence and then to effect some calibration (measurement), is not physical existence. It is a physically existent 'representation' (ie from the perspective of the sensory system) of that (aka light, etc). Which, incidentally, by receiving (ie being in the line of travel) we do not affect either, except that that particular physical effect ceases upon receipt. Physically, receipt of this 'representation' by a human, or any other sentient organism, is no different from receipt by a brick, or any other inanimate entity. The difference lies in the capability to subsequently process, which is not physics.

Physical existence (or what you refer to as nature) is not determined by what we can sense, etc, etc. It occurs independently. What existence might 'really' be is irrelevant, because we can only be aware of it, and only in one form (ie physical existence), which is characterised by detectability. For hypothesis to be valid it must conform to this, ie not enable belief. Put simply, hypothesis must only be concerned with identifying what could have been known had the physical systems involved been perfect. Not with whatever we can dream up.

The physical existence we can be aware of is existential sequence, which involves a number of features I have described above.

Paul

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

A brief note to say that---since both the roughnecks and peanut gallery have finally found us---it is best we continue our dialogue in private in the New Year. You have my email address just in case you want to discuss something.

By the way, I hope you know that you can delete unwanted posts from your blog.

Best,

Joy

« Previous Page Next Page »