Is this description of physical reality complete? by Gordon Watson

Dear Watson,

I have no words to praise your valiant effort to rewrite whole of QM from your new mechanics called wholistic mechanics and its commonsense philosophy of wholistic-local-realism. I whole heartedly appreciate you if you succeed in reformulating QM from 'classical point of view' so that all weirdness of QM disappears and then it looks like 'classical mechanics'. But the point is how you succeed in eliminating quantum weirdness and mystery in cases like double-slit experiment, quantum-entanglement (QE), quantum-tunneling, etc. to mention a few, on the basis of your WM.

I appreciate your attempt to falsify Bell's theorem and explaining QE on the basis of your WM. I, too, have written a paper on QE and I view it from quite different perspective and in it also super luminal speed would not arise. But it is completely non-mathematical and I would like you to have a look at it and give a mathematical touch to it. I want your response regarding this. Your idea of describing QE in terms of "the law of linked correlations: correlated tests, interactions, disturbances on correlated things produce correlated results, without mystery", is making me think about reconciling it with my interpretation of QE.

In your last sentence below conclusions, "Is wm's description of EPRB complete? Please respond critically", is making me think critically on QM as I am having my own version of QM (i.e. a theory on QM). If you want to have a look at it, I feel you should have, I will send it to you. Please post your comments in my thread so that I can respond to them immediately.

I wish you all the best in your endeavor to dethrone QM and establish your theory in that place. I am going to give your essay highest rating for its originality and elegance.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Dear Gordon,

I am now taking the time to read and understand your approach. Fist of all, I have to say that for me Bell's theorem is difficult reading (laziness?). It is why I prefer to refer to Mermin "Hidden variables and two theorems of John Bell (1993)" to grasp the point. May be there is something wrong in Bell after all.

If we accept counterfactual reasoning (do you accept it?), then Mermin's square and Mermin's pentagram tell us a lot about the the structure of observations in quantum mechanics. I went back to the structure of Bell's inequality (in fact CHSH) later, as in Sect. 3 of my essay.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

No need of entanglement here, my two-qubit square has only IX,XI,IZ and ZI as its edges (IX means the tensorial product of I and the Pauli spin matrix along x and so on). If you believe in the virtue of mathematics of giving clear statements (and I think you do), then you should be interested in the graphs, more precisely the maps on the Riemann sphere, underlying CHSH and Mermin. Possibly, this may have impact on your future research.

I intend to give you a very good appreciation taking into account your courage in working on these topics and the enthusiastic style you have. FQXI seems to be a living place where to meet alternative opinions on several important topics dealing with the foundations of physics.

Good luck,

Michel

Hi Gordon,

I'll read over sections 9 and 10 again. Yes my essay doesn't explain EPRB at all, but Tejinder's does.

I simply look at the converging pathways that limits information exchange when it energy falls into a Black Hole, such that the Fibonacci sequence from -3 to 3 emerges.

Best wishes to you too with the contest & nice to "meet" you! :o)

Antony

Hi Gordon

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Best of Luck,

Than Tin

Dear Gordon,

I have been hoping to see someone fault the assertions in your paper theoretically or mathematically but I have not seen or is there? I am asking a few people on the relational space divide for a clarification:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Gordon,

I have perused your paper, but it will take more time to become familiar with the notation. What did catch my eye were the use of unit vectors (i.e. momentum) and your reply above of:

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

"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!"

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

and whether you have considered whether "somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road." could be given meaning by understanding what can and cannot be inferred from a "vector". I don't yet see anything upon which I can argue with or ask for a deeper meaning but if you should get the chance my essay can be found HERE.

Dear Gordon,

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, including your respected self, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. Thanks.

Indeed I have recommended Armin Shirazi (background), Don Limuti (uncertainty principle) and yourself (Bell's theorem) to help out with a quantum version of the judgement. I still don't think my math is strong enough to join in that task.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Hi Gordon,

Now I have reread your essay (see our's early dialogue) and have concluded that we really have many of common views (particularly, on Einstein's drama, that I see very interconnected with the drama of physics!)I have rated your work on high core, as one serious individual position. I just friendly asking you try to read the mentioned references (on my works)in your free time. Hope you will find some interesting for you.

Best wishes,

George

Dear Gordon,

Thank you for your continuing interest. I really appreciate your feedback at this time of the competition. We can certainly learn more from each other after the end of the contest. I will rate your essay highly, as it deserves, I would like to see you in the finalists, hopefully I will be too.

Concerning counterfactuality, as soon as a good theory of quantum observability is written, one will be able to check it as others assumpions in science. I claim that Grothendieck's approach with dessins d'enfants is an excellent starting point because it has all attributes of an archetype (read Dickau's essay) or a monad (read Ojo's essay) and other good ontological properties which I don't list here. Topos theory is not too far.

There are important essays here that pushed me to see the dessins d'enfants as "explicate imprints" of a more general (possibly spatio-temporal) algebraic geometry. I have in mind the Hopf fibrations as an excellent tool. For example you can lift S2 (the Riemann sphere) to S3 (the 3-sphere, i.e. the space of a single qubit (Jackson's intelligent qubit?), also the conformally compactified Minkowski space (see Matlock' essay and in relation to Bell's theorem Joy Christian 'realistic' approach).

Local/nonlocal arguments are insufficient, I think, mathematics should help in revealing the hidden machinary of the physical and ontological universe. May be this is Einstein's dream, not contradicting Wheeler, at the end of the day because we are, more or less, their children in knowledge.

Yes our discussion should live.

All the best,

Michel

Thank you Gordon,

Now I can say this only.

My position looks not so bad thanks of mutual support

some of adherents to ours line.

Regards,

George

Gordon,

Sorry I already rated (highly) your essay on July 23.

Good luck.

Michel

Dear Gordon Watson:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Nature your fathers, give you and splendid brain that deserve to be highly rated.

But maybe you, as a young man would like to see how an old man can see an old problem from a new point of view and maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Thank you Gordon,

I have rated your essay as ,,high,, because I see there right points (in my view.)

You also have find some communications between our approaches, but not rated my work - as per as ,,my score already is good,,! My dear, if follow your logic is need send to me one nice ,,unit,, also, to be somewhat balanced score of broders/adherents! And we want push ahead ,,our right science,, in such way?

Sorry, if I am wrong in my judgements.

George