Is this description of physical reality complete? by Gordon Watson

Hi Akinbo; and thanks for the "naive" inputs, for I'm very much from the same school myself (as you've no doubt seen).

Thus: my use of the term "Lorentz invariance" simply echoes Bell's desire to Bell's supporters. My own terminology is "a fully relativistically covariant formulation" so I'd be pleased if you could expand on your alert. Especially if you thought that there were situations where my own term failed.

Now as to those socks. Can you access Bell's Bertlmann article and Bell's sock analogy therein? [Please let me know.] And can you be wary of that term "measurement"? For I'd like you to seriously analyse the sock case yourself; then get back to me.

HINT-1: Do not subjugate your naivety! Consider, for example your statement above: "... Alice measures her sock." Does Alice know that it's a clean and present sock before "measurement"? Or before the post-person shoves its parcel into the letterbox?

And what if the person who sent the sock to Alice had made it from the finest thread -- such that it's impossible to tell the inside of the sock from the outside? And what if -- in the post-person's haste to deliver, or in Alice's rough haste to unpack the parcel -- the sock was unwittingly turned inside out?

HINT-2: For, reversing the analogy: I trust you can see that the interaction between a spin-half particle and an SGD is far more disorienting and lasting to the particle than an accidental turning-inside-out is to a special sock.

Enjoy! And please stay in touch so that our shared naivety keeps flowing; Gordon

WHAT! And let you be the first to ever draw with me. AND THAT on the basis that it was I that blundered! Moreover Mate: I'm naive enough to ask: In chess, how does one "offer" stalemate!?

Anyway; here goes, to put you out of your misery: 6: GW: - MAAATE! (With no requirement for sealed move to be opened.)

Interpret that! 1,2,3,4. Yes, that's right; you got it: me saying thanks again in the context of your earlier kind remarks!

Thanks as always; see you at your blog for the next match soon; Gordon

Edwin, by way of welcoming your return, here's another brief comment on Bell's mental entanglement of physical entanglement.

In the lead-in section of equation (X) -- see my Jun. 19, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT post above -- the word "crazy" appears twice. And we understand that those "crazies" apply only to that particular Bellian context: ie, where particular sets of pristine particle-pairs have been subjected to their once-and-only-once EPRB test.

BUT NO inherent problem would arise had we re-allocated the sets of particle-pairs and instead tested P(b,c) via A(b, L1)A(c,L1) or via A(b, L2)A(c,L2).

Because there is NOTHING special about particular particle-pair sets: so long as we remember that each pristine particle-pair can only be EPRB-tested ONCE. Thus either of the above revised allocations would have given the correct P(b,c)!

However, we'd then need a consequent re-allocation of pairs to test for P(a,b) or P(a,c).

So, to save that hassle, let's do the smart thing and test for P(b,c) under the condition A(b,L3)A(c,L3); ie, from a new set of pristine pairs.

The condition that Bell, you, and I then need satisfied in accord with our earlier agreement -- see my Jun. 19, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT post above -- is this:

A(b,L3)A(c,L3) =?= A(a,L1)A(b,L1)A(a,L2)A(c,L2). ---(Y)

And that satisfaction is so easily delivered: Just take the simple case of a = b!

For (Y) then becomes:

A(b,L3)A(c,L3) = A(b,L1)A(b,L1)A(b,L2)A(c,L2) = A(b,L2)A(c,L2); ---(Z)

no question mark in sight. So it's QED; no problem at all, and hardly a challenge.

But for Bell and his followers: It's a pity about the new super-restrictive boundary condition: a = b!

So, Edwin, when you return, please make these equations your own. DO NOT be mislead by any error on my part. For if I have a minus that should be a plus, or vice versa, we're back to square zero.

PS: In that we've employed L1, L2 and L3, we sure need a neat notation that matches the Essay and fits the approach here.

What do you think about the simplicity of these sets?

{(pi, p'i) -- (pn, p'n)} = p0,

{(pn+i, p'n+i) -- (p2n, p'2n)} = p1,

{(p2n+i, p'2n+i) -- (p3n, p'3n)} = p2, etc;

where the shorthand code-number on RHS is the w-value of the twin-set. For all are happy members of that interesting family of twins

{(pwn+i, p'wn+i)} = pw;

all their co-identified lambdas readily discerned; set shorthand-identifier p1 not the same as particle p1; etc.

Gordon

Dear Hai.Caohoàng,

Thank you for friendly greeting. I hope my age is not showing in Essay? Maybe you can help? I like criticism more than praise. So if Essay has things to fix, please tell me. I am happy to fix things.

Thank you again; Gordon

Dear George,

I hope we will continue to talk because there is much in your Essay that I agree with: return to realistic principles, cause-effect explanations, critical interpretation of key facts. I found no problem with your English. Like many of us, you would be helped by a good editor. I will make more comments on your Blog.

As for the English in my Essay, let me know of any problems. I hope you find the mathematics is much easier? I have used many of the fundamental principles that you emphasise and support.

With best regards; Gordon

Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I've got it: YOU'RE OUTED! Man; your chip-designing smarts has given you a NONLOCAL gizmo AND you're using on ME!

Alas: Unfortunately for you -- me alone knowing the truth of what I'm about to write -- there'll be no endorsements here for such a nefariousness. "Turn it up!"

1. Glad you saw that Bell's logic holds for settings parallel AND antiparallel. I was going to do the general case: a = ±b! But, wary of the math-text limitations here, thought that I'd just mention it in my next post here. So there it is.

2. I was next going to mention this (exactly as cut from yesterday's draft)! "Have you wondered what values Bell (and his supporters) thought his rho(lambda) could take? Can they be anything other than 1/2PI if he's inhibited OR 1/4PI if he's serious? Please think about it." Glad to see that your gadget intercepted that (genuine) note-to-self! And I'd still welcome your comments (some time) as to what else Bell (and his supporters) could have seriously contemplated, given his formulation.

3. I was also going to advance the simplicity of the discrete 1/n formulation that I use in my Essay; part of my campaign to promote fuller appreciation of the lovely simplicity of the 1/n approach. When you show high-school kids the physical-significance of 1/n, they say (in my experience) something akin to this: "Oh; ok; no problem; that's just an average over n results then!"

4. NOTE: I'm glad that you're chasing Bell down by "parallelising" [sic] his integral approach! But, to me, that's a little more difficult to explain to high-school kids.

5. So that should answer your perceptive comparison of 1/n versus rho(lambda).

6. Now: Being the experimenting engineer that I am, here's a test for your bloomin' nonlocal gizmoid: What have I just decided to cut from here; for another time!?

Until then, ciao; Gordon

Counter-offer: WIN-WIN. GW maintains unbeaten record; AV records first win.

Hi Jim, and thanks for being both critical and constructive; I appreciate that.

1. Yes; there are many acronyms, and I know first-hand how confusing that can be to any newcomer; yet how easy and convenient they are for old-hands. I live in hope that my list will become second-nature as newcomers become old-hands via engagement with my work.

2. With "IMO" (that one was in and out several times), I fight to exclude it from many of my statements: it's like an apology for having so many negative opinions about nonsensical (IMO) aspects of modern physics; nonlocality especially. However, I find it an acceptable shortcut these days for "to my mind," "it seems to me," etc; such is the remarkable fluidity of the English language. Nevertheless, your mainstream view is understood and appreciated.

3. The situation re the Figures is mentioned on the first page of my Essay: the 4th Note to the Reader. Being keen to obtain many critical comments (to guide future improvements), launching early, without the Figures, was a compromise. I'm confident that some of the Figures are worth waiting for ... especially if one chooses not to engage with the Essay by that means.

4. I trust you mean that Einstein was correct with his objection to the way Podolsky had written EPR? For Einstein escapes my EPR critique via this get-out-of-jail card.

5. Regarding Bell expressing himself: as a matter of interest, did you look at my reference, Bell (1990)? I agree with Bell that Einstein was "the rational man." But Jim, please note, as in my Essay: EPR does NOT work ... because EPR is not the "reasonable" thing.

6. My Essay proves that Einstein's idea [of classical, causal reality] is valid. NOT EPR's unreasonable idea! It's Einstein's idea that works; Einstein's "reasonable thing" does work ... according to my understanding of his common-sense reasonableness, at least.

With thanks again for your approach, I'm happy to welcome and discuss any other matter that you care to raise; particularly where my technical views here appear to differ somewhat from your own.

With best regards; Gordon

Hello again Hai.Caohoàng, and thank you for your good question.

1. The purpose of my Essay is to answer the FQXi 2013 question: "It from Bit or Bit from It?"

In that we are responding to the creative challenge issued by John Archibald Wheeler in 1986 -- for the question is his -- I give a creative reply.

2: To creatively demonstrate "the hard part" -- It from Bit -- I refute Bell's famous theorem to show that an important family of particles (ITs) emerges from critical analysis of Bell's information (BITs). This is a nice result because this family of particles also refutes a host of nonsensical Bell-inequalities. So that's the hard part done, so to speak.

3. In the interests of completeness, I then deal with the commonly accepted FACT: BIT from IT. Here I show that an important BIT of information -- "our common knowledge of physical disturbance" -- emerges from the IT of our daily experiences. That is, correcting EPR by extension: Some physical properties change interactively!

4. So, with Bell corrected as in #2, and with EPR corrected as in #3, I go on to eliminate the BOUNDARY between classical and quantum mechanics: A result in line with the hopes of many ordinary folk; as well as many famous physicists like Planck, Einstein, Born, Bell; even Wheeler. (On this interesting subject, I'll put an Addendum in a new post.)

5. All of this brings us to an area where I trust that you and I have a strong common interest:

I give ABSOLUTE answers!

I do not say, "Maybe realism must go OR maybe locality must go." I say NONSENSE must go:

For -- properly understood -- a wholly local and realistic philosophy is AFFIRMED by my work.

AND, of equal importance: LOCAL-CAUSALITY is restored as a fundamental principle in physics.

6. So, dear Hai.Caohoàng, hoping that I have clearly answered your nice question: I would welcome further discussions here with you to see if the following is true, in your opinion:

I strive to put into practice your idea -- the focus of your own interesting Essay -- as captured in your very important title:

"With each question, the absolute will only have a single correct answer!"

With my thanks to you again for encouraging me to talk further about my Essay, please feel free to ask more questions if you would like to know more about my thinking; Gordon

PS: In your post you have the word "deduct" while in modern English we would say "deduce." In olden times these words were very similar because they come from the Latin "deduct" -- "taken or led away" -- from the verb "deducere." If you look up "deduct" and "deduce" you will see how they have now come to be used differently. With best regards; Gordon

Dear Hai.Caohoàng, here's that ADDENDUM: Another way to look at my Essay:

1. Read the carefully crafted Essay by Mark Feeley here -- http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1819 -- thinking of it as an INTRODUCTION to my Essay.

Then note Feeley's conclusion:

"... We must not believe in magic. We can be optimistic that a physical theory underlying quantum theory can be found -- that "It" can be restored to primacy. Indeed, it is Wheeler himself who best inspires us to continue the search:"

"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it -- in a decade, a century, or a millennium -- we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?" -- John Archibald Wheeler (1986).

2. Read Max Born -- "The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics" (Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1954; freely available on-line) -- thinking of it as another INTRODUCTION to my Essay.

Then note Born's conclusion:

"The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road."

3. Then please consider this: Given the core problems and mysteries of modern quantum theory, I am not aware of any approach that is as straight-forward and as effective as that taken in my Essay: After Wheeler, "surely an idea so simple, so beautiful." Using what is essentially highschool maths and logic, we find: Bell's theorem and Bell-inequalities refuted; EPR corrected; the so-called boundary between classical and quantum mechanics eliminated: After Born, that boundary eliminated "to open up the road."

What's more, I am not yet aware of any error there.

4. Thus, based on the experience reflected in my Essay, I trust you understand why I so happily endorse the title of your Essay.

For here's my conclusion:

"With each question, the absolute will only have a single correct answer!"

With best regards; Gordon

Dear SNP, thanks for contacting me; I look forward to some good discussion. BUT let us first clarify your Essay, for it looks as though you have an ACCIDENTAL CONTRADICTION.

It appears that you have also misunderstood my Essay and have rated it incorrectly. For I think that we agree re the nature of IT and BIT. Let's see:

In your Abstract you write: ""Material objects are more fundamental" is being proposed in this paper; or in other words "IT from Bit" is true."

In your Essay you (similarly) conclude: "Hence we will conclude IT from Bit !!"

But you also have this powerful claim: "It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material."

So, to avoid a contradiction and maintain your claim, your Abstract and your Conclusion should read: "BIT from IT." For BIT = information, IT = material things.

Have I read your Essay correctly? With best regards; Gordon