Is Quantum Linear Superposition an Exact Principle of Nature? by Angelo Bassi, Tejinder Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht

Excellent essay. Forgive me for not seeing how relevant it was earlier. It seems Continuous Spontaneous Localization is very similar to what I call the Loading Theory. If we are talking about the same thing, my evidence for CSL dates from 2001. The works of your team are new to me, so I am studying it. Very encouraging. I think my experimental technique can measure your lambda time constant. For light (if CSL=LT) it is easy to measure. It may have been measured by Lawrence and Beams ~1928, as the average loading time for the photoelectric effect. You may also like how I re-interpret some fundamental constants to be maximums; we are only able to measure their maximums. In equations for famous experiments exhibiting duality, the constants (e,h,m)are in ratios. We do not see that action, for example, has gone sub-quantum because the ratio is conserved. Hope you liked and rated my essay.

Thank you

Eric Reiter

You mainstreamsians controle science for over 50 years. You mainstream and Hawking failed. The bad science is because of the Top-Down controle of the people like you. Why do you need money and fame from FQXI where the authors are mostly jobless, are mostly independent researchers, are mostly viXra.org authers? Do you need money and fame by controling jobless???

I want to rate you 0!

Jim He,

If you are tired of top down physics, may we suggest www.CIGTheory.com - as bottom up as it gets.

It explains the described superposition problem by positing that matter turns spatial as it moves ( the faster the rate of travel, the more spatial the manifestation). It is based on a new interpretation of relativity. It is "Plenty Good"!

Bottoms Up!

(OK - maybe I should have left out the part about he alien beings)

I will try to be more professional.....

Did anyone watch my three stooges Dr. Feinstein post??

OK - need feed back on :

Can someone familar with & allowed to post on Google finish my work?

I am trying to fit my theory into Interpretations of Quantum Physics: see -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Please take the time to understand my theory & fill in the blanks below.

So far, as I understand physics, I have fit my theory into the following:

Interpretation : CIG Theory

Author(s): Douglas Willaim Lipp

Deterministic? YES

Wavefunction real? YES

Unique history? What does this mean?

Hidden variables? NO ( no need for them - I think)

Collapsing wavefunctions? YES (actual - space back to particle)

Observer role? Must be breathing. (i.e. what does this mean)

Local? YES

Counterfactual definiteness? YES ( I think)

Other examples -

Ensemble interpretation Max Born, 1926 Agnostic No Yes Agnostic No None No No

Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, 1927 No No1 Yes No Yes2 None No No

Bottoms Up!

THX

doug

I visited your website, and I found out that

The mainstream theories are not better than yours.

Therefore, you should be happy with your own life.

MAX PLANK:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

Jin He, (I got the name right this time)

Thank you for visiting my website.

I think I'm getting there, let me know if you agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

definition (partial) from WIKI

Subject: QI CIG

1) COUNTERFACTUAL DEFINITENESS (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured)

YES

2) LOCAL - The principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings

YES

In the context of quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a term that has been used to describe a hypothetical class of theories which evade Bell's theorem by virtue of being completely deterministic. Bell's theorem depends on the assumption of counterfactual definiteness, which technically does not apply to deterministic theories................... It is conceivable, but arguably unlikely, that someone could exploit this loophole to construct a local hidden variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics..............

YES = CIG is both deterministic & is CFD , thereby constructing a local hidden variable theory that predicts QM

3) COLLAPSING WAVEFUNCTIONS - In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function--initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates--appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.

YES - A REAL COLLAPSE

4) HIDDEN VARIABLES (I love a good game of hide and seek) - Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incorrect, and that a correct theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism.

NO WITH CIG, Nothing needs be hidden - the variable was found (MTS) EINSTEIN vindicated

5) WAVEFUNCTION REAL - A wave function or wavefunction is a probability amplitude in quantum mechanics describing the quantum state of a particle and how it behaves.

YES

7) DETERMINISTIC - Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen. Different versions of this theory depend

YES GOD does not play dice

8) UNIQUE HISTORY -

YES - particle and wave dependent upon % "c" = explains Dark matter, Dark Energy, Red Shift Anomalies, Horizon Problem, Double Slit, Combines Spacetime Continuum with the Mass Energy Equation, more

9) OBSERVER ROLE -

YES - based on motion - assumme stationary observer

If anyone knows or wants to try CIG (www.CIGTheory.com) and wants to verify my placement of CIG into the QM interpretation categories, please do so

THX

doug

Tejinder et al.

Congratulations on your place, also with mine a top 10 finish 2 years running. You did say you hoped to read my essay soon, but have not been able to respond yet, or to my subsequent post of Oct 2nd. I will be very interested in your comments. I paste from that second post below;

"A real mechanism for 'Continuous Spontaneous Localization' or it's equivalent is discussed in my essay, which you hoped to read but may not have yet. CSL and the STR postulates emerge from the quanta, consistent with your prediction.

An extension towards curved space time then also emerges. I'd still be very interested in your views on my rather ontological construction.

I've now also looked through your recent arXiv paper, and think I agreed with the rather limited areas amongst the mathematics that I understood! There was more conceptual commonality with the foundations of my thesis than I'd expected."

Thanks, and very best wishes

Peter

interesting

Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

As the fundamental matters are described as string like structures rather than point like particles, the wave particle duality is not expressional with Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, and thus the phenomenon of superposition differs in this paradigm, in that the string-length is imperative for the description of the nature and variability of this phenomenon and a different physical theory for observation is applicable.

With best wishes

Jayakar

This is quite interesting. I have only glanced at he first pages, up to the first diagram. It is my belief that you may have missed a crucial factor, the observer plays a very important role, our detecting brains, do not record superpositions via our consciousness?

In spite of the fact that FQXi suggests the topical questions for contest, many authors simply ignore these questions. For example Rajna, Crowell, Barbour, Singh.. and others offered their pet theories instead of answering the topical questions. Many other scientists (Dribus,Wharton, Amelino-Camelia..) offered only a few neligible 'wrong' assumptions for formal agreement, whereas the rest of the paper is filled by pet theories. Moreover, it seems that the authors that respect FQXi's questions are considered as "crackpots" and "cranks" by those who ignore the topical questions.

In such a case, FQXi must do one of the two: 1) Since some authors ignore the topical questions then FQXi could prepare an essay contest without any questions. (And all authors simply will republish here their pet theories). 2) The other option is that FQXi must NOT award essays that ignore the topical questions. If FQXi will award an essay that ignores the contest' questions then it will mean that FQXi does not respect its own rules and questions.

Also I should mention that the public and community voting are not able to establish the best essay because most of voters are not competent to judge essays; moreover some voters use fraud. FQXi must establish the best essay using experts but not the public/community voting.

Hello,

It is not the fault of FQXi, but it is the fault of several uncompetents inside a kind of team. It is not well indeed. The sciences are not a play. The natural sciences are so important. The business and the economy is a kind of under sciences. If people confounds what are the foundamental roads, so it is sad simply. But it is not due to FQXi,but simply due to several persons implying confusions with their algorythms and bad tools. I beleive that FQXi is a beautiful platform. The play of "known persons" is just a play of unconscious people. In fact,Mr Tegmark and Mr Aguirre have a responsability, they must sort the members and optimize their algorythmic systems. They must also be rational and dterministic. The ideas must be shared with a total transparence. The critics must be transparent and the exhausted publicity of irrational extrapolations is not necessary for a correct universal innovant platform. The strategies must be universal and respectfull of universal values. The natural sciences can save this planet. It is not with extra-irrational-extrapolations that this planet can be harmonized.

Several sockpuppets are not necessary. Like is not necessary the strategies of lies. A general scientist cannot accept these comportments. To be or not to be that is the question dear Jedis of The sphere.

This planet is bizare, but we evolve after all....fortunaly furthermore.

Regards

it is true there in fact, put your name dear anonymous , you are a celebrity ? :)

Robert,

Let me object to "Superposition and the uncertainty principle are merely properties of Fourier Analysis."

The authors did perhaps decide to ignore such claims.

Eckard

Dear authors,

You see "a need for reconciliation between CSL induced localization, and the

causal structure of spacetime dictated by special relativity."

If I understood your argumentation correctly, CSL is a starting point to an alternative theory that preserves all confirmed predictions of quantum theory; and the CSL model is a stochastic generalization of the nonrelativisitic Schroedinger equation. In other words,

- quantum theories are not entirely wrong but incomplete, and

- CSL doesn't fit to a predefined global causal order.

Isn't a pre-defined order anyway at odds with mere probability?

See Fig. 1 of my essay.

Isn't the still assumed predetermined causal structure of spacetime unrealistic?

Schroedinger did indeed calculate the correct hydrogen spectrum without using SR which seems to require reconsideration too, at least in part.

Could quantum theories be based on cosine instead of Fourier transformation?

With CT there are conjugate pairs like time and frequency, radius and wave number, or position and momentum and therefore uncertainty too.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Angelo Bassia , Tejinder Singhb, and Hendrik Ulbrichtc,

The answer to your essay question is "no". Quantum linear superpositions are only valid as approximation to an underlying stochastic nonlinear theory. I am glad to find so many points of agreement between our respective approaches; however, I would object to some few points.

First, I would object to the claim that the linear superposition principle is valid for fullerene molecules. The superposition principle applies to the electronic part but not the nuclear framework. Precisely the no-applicability of the linear superposition principle to this molecular entity, as a whole, is the basis for the existence of a well-defined molecular shape, with each Carbon atom vibrating around a well-defined position. In fact, as chemists know very well, the application of the linear superposition principle of quantum mechanics to the full molecule (electrons more nuclei) is at odd with the experimentally well-tested concept of molecular shape.

It is very interesting that you discuss the CSL model because your nonlinear equation (1) can be derived from the generalized Schrödinger equation in section (3) of my essay, in the specific case when there is only one Lindblad operator and this is given by

[math]L = \sqrt{\lambda}q[/math] we recover your (1).

Precisely in my essay I emphasized how this kind of generalized nonlinear equation solves the old Schrödinger-cat paradox because prohibits that a cat was in a macroscopic superposition of a live-cat and a dead-cat. It was a delight to discover that you use (1) for essentially the same.

A difference with the CSL approach is that here the generalized nonlinear equation in my essay is derived from a more general Liouvillian approach. I would add that the explanation for the nonlinearity is not related to any hypothetical gravitational effect of the kind assumed by Penrose and others [*], but has a very different physical origin. However, it is true that nonlinearities depend on the size of the system and that is why cats are not found in superposition states.

Due to size limitations for this contest, I could not discuss all the details, but in my subsequent paper positive phase space quantum mechanics (here and thereafter denoted by "PPPQM") I offer additional details and theorems of the Liouvillian approach mentioned in my Essay. It is remarkable that this new formulation/interpretation of quantum theory has an alternative matrix representation (I am going to prepare a paper on this; here and thereafter denoted by "MQM"), and that we can find resonances with the trace dynamics mentioned in your Essay. I will discuss some similarities but also fundamental differences.

In the general case, MQM deals with matrices whose elements are ordinary complex-valued functions obtained from the quantization rule in PPPQM. It is interesting that trace dynamics also deals with such matrices.

The non-commutative structure of the matrix phase space is here derived, as in trace dynamics.

A fundamental difference is that the general equations of motion in MQM are not obtained from an action principle as in trace dynamics. The action principle and Hamiltonian-like equations for the matrices are valid only in the 'pure' case limit. The trace dynamics analogue of Liouville's theorem is valid in the same limit. The consideration of a much more general kind of equations allow us to study far-from-equilibrium phenomena.

It is again interesting that both approaches introduce their corresponding generalization of the Poisson brackets. Although, I do not know what is the interpretation for trace dynamics; references that I know merely introduce the generalized Poisson bracket using the trace formula; maybe you could explain this to me! In MQM the matrix generalization of the Poisson brackets has a clever interpretation in terms of Fréchet derivatives.

Congratulations by your high ranking in the finalists score. I wait you will win some of the prizes.

[*] Their arguments about hypothetical superposition of spacetimes are traced to an incorrect interpretation of general relativity plus an inconsistent quantum gravity approach.

Sorry, I post above a non-working link. The working link is positive definite phase space quantum mechanics