The Trick of the Light by Stefan Weckbach

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Abraham,

i give you two links to papers concerning amongst others the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer.

You find the referring passages under "II. BEAM SPLITTER EXPERIMENTS", especially there under the points A.-C.:

Another good resource to understand the interferometers' architecture is this:

I am looking forward for your answer why there aren't simultaneous clicks at the two (identical) detectors in the MZI or not.

All the best,

Stefan

Jonathan Dickau

Interesting,

The question is still relevant, Stefan, but these experiments might not reveal important subtleties. A very recent experiment by Menzel et al. on Wave-Particle dualism, takes things to the next level, in trying to test for both particle and wave-like properties at once. I have attached a copy of the paper in PDF form, but the article can also be accessed at:

Wave-particle dualism and complementarity unraveled by a different mode

Using a laser that emits two different frequencies that are also coherent beams and use one as signal and the other as an idler, so knowledge about the position at the slot can be obtained by measuring the non-signal photon, which allows the wave interference pattern to be maintained. At least that's how I remember it. Edwin Eugene should get the credit for bringing this to my attention.

Regards,

JonathanAttachment #1: WaveParticledualism.pdf

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Jonathan,

thank you for your hint regarding Menzel et al.

I have analysed there lines of reasoning in another's essay blog, but copy my opinion about this experiment into my essay site:

"Edwin and Robert, you both are right by determining that there is much confusion in the attempts to explain/interpret the QM behaviour. Let me just give an example recently made by Menzel et al.

In their paper ("Wave-particle dualism and complementarity

unraveled by a different mode", Ralf Menzela,1, Dirk Puhlmanna, Axel Heuera, and Wolfgang P. Schleichb) they write:

"The precise knowledge of one of two complementary experimental

outcomes prevents us from obtaining complete information

about the other one. This formulation of Niels Bohr's principle of

complementarity when applied to the paradigm of wave-particle

dualism--that is, to Young's double-slit experiment--implies that

the information about the slit through which a quantum particle

has passed erases interference. In the present paper we report a

double-slit experiment using two photons created by spontaneous

parametric down-conversion where we observe interference in

the signal photon despite the fact that we have located it in one

of the slits due to its entanglement with the idler photon. This surprising

aspect of complementarity comes to light by our special

choice of the TEM01 pump mode. According to quantum field theory

the signal photon is then in a coherent superposition of two

distinct wave vectors giving rise to interference fringes analogous

to two mechanical slits."

Their experimental results are interpreted as outsmarting the classical "dictum" of complementary between interference and which-way information. But there are some differences here to state. First of all, the "thing" that comes from the source is in a "superposition". Secondly, if we believe in superpositions, due to this superposition the down-converted thing going through the double-slit aperture cannot be thought of as being attributed in the sense "the lower maxima goes through the lower slit, the upper maximum goes through the upper slit". Despite the fact that the two maxima are macroscopically distinct, if we want to speak meaningfully about A PATH it went/will go through, we must take into account that due to the superposition of the maxima it is undecidable which path the thing went. Despite the fact that in this experiment the idler detector was fixed to a certain maximum of the down-converted control-beam, the 1 to 1 assignment of a "collapsed" superposition at the idler detector and the fact that interference occurs at the signal detector isn't possible. The reason for this is, that the state of the signal-beam was entangled with the double-slit until the signal-detector measured it. After this, the superposition of position at the slits "collapsed" but the superposition of the original beam is still there and produces the interference pattern in the far field.

So, D1 and D2 don't "speak" about the same "thing"." END of quote

In my opinion, the subtleties in all cases i came across were due to an improper analysis of the experiments.

Greetings,

Stefan

Jonathan Dickau

Thanks Stefan,

Due to hidden responses, I had missed the links above, and have now downloaded the paper from Ellerman, the photon quantum mechanics paper from the Colgate folks, and the Mach-Zehnder paper. I thank you for your forbearance, and will comment further after a little time to digest.

But at first glance, it looks like two of those papers caution against an assumption made by Menzel and his team, and that you point this issue out in the comment above.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Stefan,

I enjoyed your essay. A couple of points stand out.

1. I agree with you that space and time cannot be fundamental. (I have my own ideas about what the "more fundamental" structure is, but I won't try to expound on that in your thread; you may look at my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics if you are interested). I will offer a couple of thoughts on entanglement, nonlocality, etc., since you wrote about this in some detail. First, it's at least worth considering that we ought to define locality not in terms of the "spacetime metric," since we have good reason to doubt that manifold spacetime is fundamental, but in terms of causality; in other words, A and B are local if A directly influences B or vice versa. From this point of view, nonlocal phenomena at small scales (i.e. the quantum level) would be viewed as evidence that the manifold structure is only a large-scale approximation. I think that entanglement itself has more to do with superposition, but both ideas are worth thinking about, in my opinion.

2. I like your allegory involving the Genesis account. If I weren't too busy doing math, I could steal this idea and make a lot of money writing conspiracy-theory books claiming that the Bible is the work of ancient aliens who were trying to teach us quantum theory.

Take care,

Ben Dribus

[deleted]

Haha cute. If you ever get bored of both math and thinking, then you could write a book on the many-worlds interpretation.

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Ben,

thank you very much for your comment.

I will read your essay and leave a comment on your page at the weekend, when i have some more time to carefully consider the essays i promised to read.

As to your point with the bible, i am happy that you like my allegory. I hope nobody misunderstands this as a conspiracy theory, but as a hint that there could be a metaphysical level involved in QM at the very beginning of our physical universe (whatever the beginning was/is).

I really don't hope anybody steals my ideas at all!

Thanks again and best wishes,

Stefan

[deleted]

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

"a source...produces two particles at a time which always propagate in exactly opposite directions". This is how I calculate the spherical wave emitted from a dipole.

I am collecting notorious mistakes. You might be interested in my success to make obvious in my Fig. 5 why the Michelson Morley experiment was flawed.

Regards,

Eckard

Janko Kokosar

Dear Stefan

I enjoyed your essay.

You write that information cannot be transmitted with infinite speed. I deeply agree with this. This was also my thought. In my essay I added that the foundations of physics are also dimensionless masses of elementary particles and of black holes. They include speed of light, and they are base of space-time. In the opposite case they would communicate with infinite speed.

(I claim additionally that what is possible to calculate precisely ahead, always the same, is like that it does not exist, or it cannot live. So free will and quantum randomness create, something what is live.)

You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time. It is an interesting idea. (But I am not sure. How it is with weak measurement? You wrote about backwards-causality, so you know this?)

I get also one strange idea about your presentation of Heisenberg Microscope. : what if aperture is linear combination of big and small...

You main idea is that existence and nonexistence is not possible at the same time. This is idea about which I need to think about correctness and I need to connect it with the next idea:

1. Space-time is stretched by path of light. (This is given by general relativity)

2. Three space dimensions are stretched by three dimensions of light. (This is my idea.)

3. Path of light exists where it is possible to notice it. If it is not noticed, it cannot be known, if it was there or if it was not there. (If light can go through two apertures, it goes through the both, because we cannot know where it was not present.)

4. The point three has similar motivation as points 1 and 2, thus in is a hint for quantum gravity. I believe that space or space-time is emergent and maybe quantum mechanics on very small scales show how it is with this.

5. Let us say that space is emergent, thus that only measurements uncover and create it. In that case a particle exists everywhere if it is not measured. Thus this is not in contradiction with simultaneous existence and nonexistence.

Another example of nonexistence and existence at the same moment is superposition of spin -1/2 and 1/2. It does not need inclusion of space.

Best regards

p.s.

One grammar correction: ''are are''.

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Janko,

thanks for enjoying my essay!

You raise many questions and i try to answer them step by step. But before i do so, i want to say that i read your essay and i enjoyed it too. Very differenciated lines of reasoning, well-grounded on experimental and theoretical facts. And last but not least, you do differentiate between assumptions and proven facts. well-done!

As for the Libet-experiments, i must say that my point of view is, that the experimental framework does produce the measured signals in the brains such that before the experiment begins, the tested person has incorporated *what to do*! This then leads - in my opinion - to the measured signal of his/her brain. The information of the experimental setup is simply stored in the brains short memory and executed/triggered. As in QM, here one cannot logically infer that the mentioned brain signal does "cause" the will of the tested person, because the will of the tested person has incorporated the experimental needs before the experiment got even started ("initial conditions"). So, the brain signal is only a *result* of this, not a *cause* of the person's actual behaviour.

But now to your questions.

In my lines of reasoning i assume QM to have the non-local feature that is usually called "entanglement". Yes, i do believe that the information-transfer due to "entanglement" does happen instantaneously (as far as no experimental counter-examples exist up to date). The question is, what is an infinite speed? In my previous essays i have always argued that the very concept of "infinity" is void of any physical meaning. I think the same is true for the term "infinite speed". Infinity for me is just another term for "not defined", means "not sufficiently defined". That's why in my framework QM-weirdness is due to information-deficits in the physical network of measurements - there are void placeholders, call them infinite structures or call them transcendent structures as you like, for me that does not make a difference in the epistemological view of the information-deficit i mentioned. Non-locality is just "not defined" in our classical einsteinian/newtonian framework and i think that's one reason why QM and GR are so hard to reconcile.

"You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time."

Do you refer to the double-double-slit-experiment i described in some post above or to some statements in my current essay?

Unfortunately i do not know much about weak measurements, but i assume that the interpretation of "backwards causality" due to the results achieved there, is due to the "continous" function of "complementarity" (or maybe just due to the Heisenberg uncertainty). You can measure a little piece of a complementary value and gain another little piece of the corresponding complementary value. Doing this in a specific sequence, may leave the impression of backwards-causality, but that's only a wild guess from my side.

"I get also one strange idea about your presentation of Heisenberg Microscope. : what if aperture is linear combination of big and small..."

Yes, one never knows... until one designs an experiment to find indicators that the lens itself is in a superposition. I would guess again that this could be possible, but only for the price of destroying the superposition of the entangled electron... and therefore compensating the whole argument ad absurdum...

"You main idea is that existence and nonexistence is not possible at the same time."

No. I wrote this only to demonstrate how our everyday-logic works. In the microcosm of QM i think existence follows some kind of continuum. Its just another continuum similar to that of position/momentum in HU. The more "existence" from our point of view, the higher the QM probabilities are and vice versa. From the view of "QM", "existence" seems to be an interdependent feature of the constituent parts of a system. In other words: Existence is somewhat a wholistic thing (as you rightly state in your own essay by mentioning that spacetime would vanish if we erase all of the matter out from it).

"1. Space-time is stretched by path of light. (This is given by general relativity)".

I am not sure if this would be consistent. Because light is to be considered without rest mass, how can it influence some void "space" that posesses also no rest mass? It would depend on a classical explantation of how "light" does interact with empty space (surely space, due to QM, cannot be empty at all and this could be a way to introduce some interaction between light and the space it occupies).

"2. Three space dimensions are stretched by three dimensions of light. (This is my idea.)".

Maybe this makes sense due to our concept of spin/momentum defined in three space dimensions separately.

"3. Path of light exists where it is possible to notice it. If it is not noticed, it cannot be known, if it was there or if it was not there. (If light can go through two apertures, it goes through the both, because we cannot know where it was not present.)".

Yes, if we notice light, we conclude that it must have travelled to hit our senses/devices. We have no other "proof" than this to conclude that the microcosmic realm does behave as classical as the macrocosmic realm. But if the macrocosm emerges from QM, then i would doubt that QM itself can be described classically (and i am a believer in the emergence of spacetime out of QM-dynamics - whatever it is).

"5. Let us say that space is emergent, thus that only measurements uncover and create it. In that case a particle exists everywhere if it is not measured. Thus this is not in contradiction with simultaneous existence and nonexistence."

I would say, that the particle "exists" everywhere is somewhat a circular argument, because this "everywhere" can be understood as classical space and classical space is considered to be emergent due to particles "existing everywhere". But if - and i think you would have it interpreted as follows - "everywhere" is ment to be a non-physical realm that causes non-local connections, i would say yes, it exists "everywhere" where it is interdependent to other particles.

"Another example of nonexistence and existence at the same moment is superposition of spin -1/2 and 1/2. It does not need inclusion of space."

Yes! For the definition of existence, it is not neccessary to preclude some space or some time - otherwise we would arrive again at our "non-emergent" classical spacetime!

I would be happy if you would post me your point of view about the things i wrote here!

Best wishes and thanks for reading my essay,

Stefan

Stefan Weckbach

Correction:

Instead: "...it is not neccessary to preclude..."

please read: "...it is not neccessary to assume..."

Stefan Weckbach

Correction:

Instead: "...it is not neccessary to preclude..."

please read: "...it is not neccessary to assume..."

Eric Reiter

Please:

I read your essay. I could not understand your resolution to the double slit paradox. However, after you see my work, you may see consistency between what you and I are saying. Concerning the double slit experiment, you wrote: "Note that it was never observed that a particle could be detected at both detectors at the same time." That WAS true. However, I have experimental evidence here in the essay contest that resolves mysteries in a straightforward way. It is not a double slit experiment, it is a beam-split experiment. However, it addresses the crucial issue of detecting a particle-like event (not a particle) at both paths at once. I detect both paths at once, but it requires gamma-rays to see through the noise and illusion of past experiments. The resolution to the paradox is called the loading theory (LT), something almost everyone gave up on long ago. LT was given up for poor reasons and I explain its history. In LT the wave goes both ways, the particle-like effects are due to loading to a threshold that responds with a quantized emission, and absorption is continuous. Matter can take on either a contained wave or a spreading wave state. Light is classical but is quantized at only the instant of emission. A similar experiment was performed with matter-waves. The wave-particle paradox Was for both matter and light, and both are addressed. Our key experiments of past all seem capable of being reinterpreted successfully by LT. However, there are some experiments by others that I show must be re-done more carefully. Please see A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory. Also, Ragazas' theory essay supports LT. I am also supported by Vladimir Tamari's essay.

Thank you, Eric Reiter

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Eric,

thanks for your comment, i will surely read your essay carefully.

Hope you have chosen some suitable referees for your essay, so, if it is true what you claim, they will give you credit.

By the way: how do you interpret "entanglement" in your reinterpretation?

Best wishes for your work,

Stefan

Janko Kokosar

Dear Stefan, here are some answers:

-----------

Weckbach: "Libet experiment...the tested person has incorporated *what to do*!"

Kokosar: It is possible also that your explanation is true.

--------------

Weckbach: "Yes, i do believe that the information-transfer due to "entanglement" does happen instantaneously"

Kokosar: So this is counter-motivation against mentioned in your essay? Are you maybe motivated with para-phenomena? However, This resulted from five assumptions:

1. The basis of physics are dimensionless masses of elementary particles, and they implicitly comprise speed of light.

2. If transfer of information happens momentarily, this is not information transfer. (This is your sentence).

3. Let us imagine c as some resistivity of vacuum, this means if virtual particles did not exist, interactions would be momentarily.

4. According to the model of Markopoulou I suspect that points, which are closer together, have only larger number of connections. Thus fast connections exists also between distant particles. Like some wormholes.

5. I suppose that it exists upgrading of quantum randomness into quantum panpsychism, where quantum randomness can be explained with conscious decisions. Thus randomness, which forbids transfer of information in EPR paradox, is maybe violated.

Thus the above points deny and confirm instantaneous moving of information. however, the simplest ones above deny it.

-------------

Kokosar Old: "You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time."

Weckbach: Do you refer to the double-double-slit-experiment i described in some post above or to some statements in my current essay? Unfortunately i do not now much about weak measurements,

Kokosar: I mentioned the newest your essay. It is an important thought, but it also needs to be confirmed in light of weak measurement. This is also described in an article of Aharonov http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224 and other articles of him.

---------------

"Kokosar old : 1. Space-time is stretched by path of light. (This is given by general relativity)".

Weckbach: I am not sure if this would be consistent. Because light is to be considered without rest mass, how can it influence some void "space" that posesses also no rest mass??

This is a claim without use of quantum world, where space-time emerges. Although my claim is consequence of diffeomorphism, which gives clue that space-time is emergent, general relativity also gives that straight line is defined where photon is moving. Thus it is not yet necessary to exclude space-time.

--------------

Kokosar old: "2. Three space dimensions are stretched by three dimensions of light. (This is my idea.)".

Weckbach: Maybe this makes sense due to our concept of spin/momentum defined in three space dimensions separately.?

Kokosar: As I wrote, I claim that Weizsacker's idea of three Pauli matrices is the essence of arising of three dimensions. My idea is only an additional aspect.

-------------

Kokosar old: "3. Path of light exists where it is possible to notice it. If it is not noticed, it cannot be known, if it was there or if it was not there. (If light can go through two apertures, it goes through the both, because we cannot know where it was not present.)".

Weckbach: Yes, if we notice light, we conclude that it must have travelled to hit our senses/devices. We have no other "proof" than this to conclude that the microcosmic realm does behave as classical as the macrocosmic realm. But if the macrocosm emerges from QM, then i would doubt that QM itself can be described classically (and i am a believer in the emergence of spacetime out of QM-dynamics - whatever it is).

Kokosar: I also believe in emergence of space-time, but I think that this explanation is possible at quantum world. Emergence is at lower level. But, this is a first hint of emergence of space.

------------------

Weckbach:

Kokosar: The same answer: I also believe in emergence of space-time, but I think that this explanation is possible at quantum world. Emergence is at lower level. But, this is a first hint of emergence of space.

But I admit, your claim demands more precise answer, and I do not conceive it at the moment. I believe in my claim, but I am not sure about my answer to you. :)

-----------------

Thank you also for reading of essay. It is a problem with new theories of amateurs that rarely one read them.

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Janko,

thanks for your reply and for dig deeper due to my - maybe ambivalent answers. I will answer your questions again step by step.

"So this is counter-motivation against mentioned in your essay"

In my essay, i take the "speed of light" for granted. But i do not make any statements about what "light" "really" and ontologically is. I assume that the "speed" C is only another formulation for the fact that one can gain some sensual information (via eyes, detectors etc.) from a "spacetime" separated event only after a certain *time* has elapsed (-> namely the speed of light).

For me, this does not neccessarily or logically imply that there has been a propagation of "something". Because if one looks at the whole procedure from an informational point of view, the informational content of the procedure of "something travelling a well-defined trajectory through space and time" has only a substantiated/objectifying meaning if a measurement takes place (even if no conscious observer does make the measurement). With measurement i mean the *interaction* of two or more quantum states - thought as space-like separated trajectories - that interact at their cutting point in "spacetime".

If we propose that entanglement is a real feature of the emergent spacetime, then at the point in the already emergent time the two or more quantum states meet, there is an instantanious information transfer. But this information is not accessible via logics of opposites because, for example, you can code 2 bits (one bit for every of the two "particles" that "travel" through "spacetime" and "interact" at a certain spacetime point) either separately to each one of the particles, or you can code the two-particle system as a whole with two bits to encode a certain information that is *shared* by both "particles".

"Are you maybe motivated with para-phenomena?"

I do not exclude para-phenomena from being possible. But most literature on this is exaggerated and not really scientific. I do believe in the reality of near-death-experiences and in the reliability of the information they deliver to the experiencer. In this sense i really believe in some kind of para-phenomenon and panpsychism. I outlined this point of view in my very first essay here at fqxi, maybe you want to take a look at this piece of paper (i think it was 2009?).

"1. The basis of physics are dimensionless masses of elementary particles, and they implicitly comprise speed of light."

I think the basis of physics is informational, it is a realm of coherent and consistent relational information that is structured interdependent and dynamically and is able to evolve towards new and extended structures of sense, meaning, consistence and interconnectedness. This is the reason for me why spacetime must be emergent.

"2. If transfer of information happens momentarily, this is not information transfer. (This is your sentence)."

No, the other way round. What is carried by the speed of light is no information except the information *when* the instantanious information transfer "inside" an entangled state must happen. Namely exactly at the point the entangled state "decoheres", or is "decoupled". Entanglement and decoupling need time due to the information-deficit in our world. More precise: Decoupling of entangled states (irregardless of the components that in the course of this procedure again get entangled with new components and so on) is an expression, a result of a world that consists of some more or less separated parts. Separation only makes sense if the one part is not fully dependent from the other part. QM realizes this by being not fully deterministic, but by offering a huge variation of possibilities for interaction results (measurement results).

"3. Let us imagine c as some resistivity of vacuum, this means if virtual particles did not exist, interactions would be momentarily."

I am not so firm with vacuum physics, but i think this would be maybe a viable way to imagine the propagation of "light".

"4. According to the model of Markopoulou I suspect that points, which are closer together, have only larger number of connections. Thus fast connections exists also between distant particles. Like some wormholes."

Unfortunately i cannot comment on this, because i don't know the work of Markopoulou very well. But i will study again yours own essay and will leave a comment on your essay page, Janko.

"5. I suppose that it exists upgrading of quantum randomness into quantum panpsychism, where quantum randomness can be explained with conscious decisions. Thus randomness, which forbids transfer of information in EPR paradox, is maybe violated."

Yes, this is similar to what i wrote in my first essay here on fqxi. An indirect proof of this could be found in the results of near-death-research. Only one of those near-death experiences that could be verified (and for me this has been done long ago) would indicate that you are right ("right" insofar if the information that has been achieved by the experiencer is quantum physical in its nature).

"You said that photon was never measured at two apertures at the same time."

O.k., i understand, you mean the classical double-slit experiment. In my essay i wrote "Note that it was never observed that a particle could be detected at both detectors at the same time." I think this is true up to date as long as there are no counter-examples that could be verified by the physics community.

I nonetheless will read the articles of Aharonov and look for more information about weak measurements - i promise!

Weckbach: I am not sure if this would be consistent. Because light is to be considered without rest mass, how can it influence some void "space" that posesses also no rest mass??

You: "This is a claim without use of quantum world, where space-time emerges."

Yes, you are right! Thank you for remarking this - it fits well into your assumption how the vacuum could come into play!

"This is a claim without use of quantum world, where space-time emerges. Although my claim is consequence of diffeomorphism, which gives clue that space-time is emergent, general relativity also gives that straight line is defined where photon is moving. Thus it is not yet necessary to exclude space-time."

Yes again!

"Kokosar: As I wrote, I claim that Weizsacker's idea of three Pauli matrices is the essence of arising of three dimensions"

I have to take a closer look what Weizäcker wrote about this.

"Kokosar: I also believe in emergence of space-time, but I think that this explanation is possible at quantum world. Emergence is at lower level. But, this is a first hint of emergence of space."

Yes, i absolutely agree. QM, from my point of view, does really "force" us to think about spacetime as an emergent "thing". Let's see how the physics community (professionals *and* non-professionals) can further work out this hint. Personally i am convinced that this year there are so much very interesting and intelligent essays here that i would bet that out of some of them there could arise new and insightfull paths.

"But I admit, your claim demands more precise answer, and I do not conceive it at the moment."

I am not sure which of my claims you refer to. I hope my answers could be helpfull for you and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. After i have read your essay one more time, i will leave a comment on your page.

Best wishes,

Stefan

[deleted]

Dear Stefan,

Very nice essay with many challenging ideas. I think "The trick of logic" or "The trick o language" would be also good titles that reveal the content of the essay. In many senses you have shown how our logic and language lead us to paradoxes or misunderstandings in relation to quantum theory; that quantum mechanics contradicts a lot of our reasoning and expectations. You have shown that we are really in need of a truly consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. Our interests are really the same, and your idea of measurement as a kind of information flow and information deficit was also something I thought some time ago.

But now I would to point some aspects that are the source of many paradoxes. As you noted, I said that the principle of excluded middle (PEM) is the source of most paradoxes, and curiously, when you talked about logic you didn't mentioned it.

"The key features of logic are that opposites do exclude

one another and that logical systems must be consistent."

The principles that you mentioned remains valid in the quantum world. But the problem is that your view and the common sense about particles presuppose the validity of PEM. When you say that every particle has defined properties, and so defined position and momentum you are saying that the PEM holds for every particle! In the conclusion of my arXiv paper I show that this principle implies that the observables must have defined values! All properties have defined values when PEM holds! Where I want to get is where we should realize that our concept of particle includes, as a hidden assumption, the validity of the principle of excluded middle. But this principle does not holds in general in the quantum world then particles the way we understand do not really exist in the quantum world, which I think reinforce your conclusions.

Beyond the scope of this contest you should rear my arXiv paper. There I propose a new interpretation of quantum theory, and this is a subject that really interests you. I'm sure you would come with new challenging questions and ideas for me and interesting talks.

Good luck for your essay!

Frederico

Stefan Weckbach

Hi Frederico,

thanks for reading my essay and for evaluating it as some positive piece of work.

I hope you didn't have misunderstood me, because my point of view is that beyond the PEM there is IT'S OPPOSITE, namely the non-PEM.

"When you say that every particle has defined properties, and so defined position and momentum you are saying that the PEM holds for every particle."

I only "say" this to illustrate the mainstream oppinion of a "particle". I outlined the alternative of a "particle" as a "messenger", the message is always carried within the limit of the lightspeed, but as soon as light interacts with some new matter, a non-local interaction with the former matter the light originated from does take place. In both cases i do not assume that there is real "particle" on its way with definite properties and so on.

I will definitely read your arxiv-paper this weekend and post my thoughts on your essay-website!

Again much thanks for your appreachiation!

Best wishes,

Stefan

[deleted]

Dear Stefan

I'm not sure I could understand what is the non-PEM or its opposite. I understood you were only saying the common sense about particles, and my point is really against that common sense. I hope you will read my paper and we could discuss it out of the scope of this contest. Then we can share ideas and even get into hard discussions without the idea that I might be judging your work.

Best Regards

Frederico

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Frederico,

a non-PEM is defined - by me - as a system in which our "classical" opposites no more do exclude each other. For example the opposites "existent" and "non-existent" in the non-PEM framework built a continuum, not a digital unit of either-or.

I assume the same is true for the quest of free will. In my opinion there could be a continuum of more or less freedom. Starting with determinism and ending with "free will" (whatever we define it in human terms which are restricted to our restricted ability to execute a really *free* will).

Best wishes,

Stefan

« Previous Page Next Page »