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

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]

from Tom's modest list of great new ideas above:

"Ray (the source of all information is a point at infinity)"

How do you plan to go about proving that one?

[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

[deleted]

Anon

Hmm, especially since there is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining anyway, which must, by definition, be a closed system, leaving aside the practicality I suspect you are alluding to. This is of the same genre as, take any point of 'nothing in space' and then draw a circle, or whatever. Er, but how do we know of nothing, and how do we track nothing, even if it existed in he first place??

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

Thomas Ray

Anonymous,

In fact, the point at infinity demonstrably exists in the cosmological condition of expanding Minkowski space. It is not controversial that the source of creation in a 4 dimensional spacetime is any point of the observer's choosing.

For the statement "the source of all information is a point at infinity" to hold, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the universe is expanding -- which is an empirical result. Because the geometry R^3 differs from the topology S^3 by a single point at infinity (generalized C*, the simplest Riemann sphere), a topological model of continuous measurement functions demands a continuous range of variables for each discrete measure. This implies that real (Lebesgue) measures on S^3 are complete, while measures not taken for the same time interval are metaphysically real. This is in contrast to the Bell measurement interval {- oo, oo} on R^3, where nonlocality is an assumption of quantum entanglement. Classical orientation entanglement requires no such assumption, such that any/every point an observer can choose is local -- and contains all the information of a cosmological initial condition, independent of the time interval in which the point is chosen.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Forgive my not understanding the meanings you assign to words, but how does one have participation without change? Isn't the event of my participating in this discussion going to recede into memory and the past, as I continue my participation in other aspects of life?

I fully agree reality is participatory, in fact it's one of my arguments for time as emergent; In that if the present is simply a dimensionless point on a vector from past to future, then we cannot change the past, or affect the future, but if change emerges from action, then our actions are part of the reality, it is is forming and changing.

Thomas Ray

John, any reference I might make to "past" or "future" should be understood in an operational context, not as something fundamental. So when you say, " ... my participating in this discussion going to recede into memory and the past ..." I agree operationally, with prejudice that the objective past and future is independent of your personal memories. Your past memory is in the future of a reader perhaps not yet born who will see your words at an arbitrary moment some time hence.

You could be dead at that point; no matter, the information available to that live "future" observer is independent of your lifespan. And that future observer is participating in your reality, in his present, which is your past. So the "stubbornly persistent illusion" of time cannot be physically real, i.e., independent of physically real spacetime. So it is with the cosmological initial condition. We all participate in the past of our universe, in our present, which is the future of the universe.

That the source of all information is a point at infinity, however, does not imply an infinite universe, any more than the source of the future observer of your past implies for you an infinite lifespan. (I'm reminded of the Woody Allen line: "I don't want to live on through my works, I want to live on by not dying.")

What the point at infinity means, is the same thing we mean by the arithmetic theorem: any point can simultaneously approach any other set of points, provided that the point is far enough away. In our finite universe, how far is far enough? -- infinity. Why? As any graphic artist knows, a 3-dimension reality can be projected onto 2 dimensions by a point at infinity where all lines converge. The same applies to a 4 dimension reality projected into 3 dimensions.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Yes what I write now would be in a potential reader's future, as it would be in my past when it is read. Very much like light being radiated by the sun will be received by the earth 8 minutes in the future, as the light being received by the earth is equally in the sun's past. Yet because energy is neither lost or gained, cause cannot co-exist with effect. The sun radiating that particular quanta of light, or me writing these words cannot physically exist when it warms the earth or the words are read, because only the energy is conserved, not the prior act.

Three dimensions can be projected onto two by converging lines, but in the three dimensions, they are not converging, only receding. The effect is that information is being lost. An object appearing half its original height will also be half its width and thus appear a quarter its original size, so the image is only conveying a quarter the original information. At the point of infinity, the only information would be directional location. Of course, if you are only talking points in the first place, it isn't a big deal.

To paraphrase Trotsky, You may not care for space, but space cares for you.

[deleted]

Tom

"In fact, the point at infinity demonstrably exists in the cosmological condition of expanding Minkowski space. It is not controversial that the source of creation in a 4 dimensional spacetime is any point of the observer's choosing."

How about the "point at infinity" demonstrably existing because it is existentially provable? Particularly since this is the only basis upon which we can have knowledge. Though actually, since what we are investigating is a closed system, there can be no infinity.

How about the physical existence we can know being what is physically existent? Particularly since observation (or indeed any other form of sensing) does not 'create' physical existence, physical input about it is received.

"For the statement "the source of all information is a point at infinity" to hold, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the universe is expanding"

So you know it is expanding into something, which means that that something is part of the universe, and something is finite. Or more precisely, we cannot know infinite, therefore it is a belief to deem something to be so.

It is then noted that you subsequently define this concept in responding to John, this not being the normal meaning of infinite, as John points out.

"any reference I might make to "past" or "future" should be understood in an operational context, not as something fundamental"

What is the difference? Either something is existent or not existent. What is in a memory, or written down, etc, is not physically existent. There are however, two physically existent possibilities: 1) physical existence, 2) the physical effect caused by that which if received is a representation of it.

Paul

[deleted]

John

"I fully agree reality is participatory"

How? You, or any sentient organism, receives a physical input about it. The fact that these, as opposed to a lump of gold, can then subsequently process the result of that interaction is physically irrelevant. You are not participating in reality. Sentient organisms are generating an awareness/knowledge/belief of reality.

"we cannot change the past, or affect the future"

We cannot change anything, in that both the past and the present have occurred before we are aware of it. By definition, as we cannot be aware of something unless there is something to be aware of. Since the 'future' is physically non-existent, we cannot have any influence on it. Something different occurred from what would have otherwise occurred, had the circumstances been different.

What you write and light radiated from the sun, are not comparable. The former is not physically existent (except as ink on paper or electronic impulses), the latter is.

"Yet because energy is neither lost or gained, cause cannot co-exist with effect."

? Cause cannot co-exist with effect because they must be in sequence, effect superseding cause, which ceases to exist.

Paul

[deleted]

" ... if you are only talking points in the first place, it isn't a big deal."

John, geometry is made of points. Physics is made of changing relations among points. Big deal? I guess not, if one expects to explain how nature works without using mathematics. Personally, I've never seen it done in a complete and convincing way.

Tom

[deleted]

Paul.

We consist of energy and energy has effect, even if it is more complex than a ray of light.

Tom,

As I've pointed out previously, a dimensionless point is a mathematical contradiction, since anything multiplied by zero is zero. It's as real as an apple with zero dimension. It's just that it's less complicated than giving a point some unspecified dimension. Physics, on the other hand, can't do that. A quantum of light has some minimal dimensionality and the information it can give you is finite. Therefore a dimensionless point can be projected to infinity and not lose anything, because it didn't have anything in the first place. On the other hand, if an object is further away, the amount of light it will reflect directly to your eye is reduced and thus the amount of information transmitted is reduced.

[deleted]

John

"We consist of energy and energy has effect, even if it is more complex than a ray of light."

I do not understand how this relates to what has gone before, or answers any of the points raised.

Paul

[deleted]

Those observations are trivial, John. You're always trying to make what you think of as physical into a mathematical contradiction which doesn't actually exist. The rules of mathematical models are independent of the physics. Analogously, the rules that govern natural language are independent of what they describe.

For example, if I placed a bowl of food in front of a picture of a feline accompanied by a big caption CAT, would you therefore expect food to be consumed? And OTOH, would you fail to understand what the picture and caption describes?

So it is with your misunderstanding of what a dimensionless point in geometry means. And misunderstanding why zero plus zero is zero -- which is what you really mean to say -- because zero is the additive identity element; zero times zero is properly defined as one times zero (one being the multiplicative identity).

You need to know these things before you even begin to give opinions of what "dimension" means.

Tom

[deleted]

I think Eric Weisstein did an excellent job of explaining the concept of dimension without much technical jargon.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

"The rules of mathematical models are independent of the physics."

So very true.

[deleted]

Dimension

When considering anything associated with relative spatial position, the reference is a conceptual spatial matrix. Any given entity at any given time has a spatial footprint, ie it 'occupies' a certain combination of grids on this matrix. Dimension is a specific aspect of this spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'. So, three is the minimum number of spatial dimensions that is ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation, ie up and down, side to side, back and forth. But is not what is physically existent. At that existential level, the number of possible dimensions is half the number of possible directions that the smallest substance in physical existence could travel from any single spatial point.

[deleted]

I wonder how many dimensions it would take to describe a cat playing with a string?

« Previous Page Next Page »