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

        Thanks Antony,

        It is nice to 'meet' this way; and I wish you every success here and with your future research.

        Re Tejinder's Essay: I didn't find EPR addressed there; but I did find it to be an excellent article.

        With best regards; Gordon

        Dear Sreenath,

        Thanks for your kind words and thoughts.

        To comment briefly on the "quantum weirdness" that you mention: Not many physicists seem to recognise that part of the mystery of the double-slit experiment arises from erroneous probabilistic analysis (Feynman's included).

        As for QE, well I trust that my Essay goes some way to removing much mystery there. The correlations associated with the conservation of angular momentum (for example) are robust and tight.

        Thus my inclination to repeatedly say: Much weirdness disappears from most "strange situations" when we get the maths and facts correct.

        Indeed: Most magic/mystery is akin to that associated with crop-circles.

        As for introducing maths to your analysis, I highly recommend such: Simply start with precise definitions of the entities that you seek to study or invoke. Personally, as an engineer, I tend to discount theories that are presented via words alone.

        Wishing you every success with your work, and with best regards; Gordon

        Hi Than,

        and thanks for your comments; with my appreciation too for your interesting Essay.

        However, as you will have seen from my Essay, I hold some very different views to those that you express in yours: especially re EPR and Bell's theorem. I trust that you understand our fundamental disagreement re the following (from your Essay):

        "Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had devised a thought-experiment to show that quantum entanglement is inconsistent with his Special Theory of Relativity.

        If wave-particle duality is the heart of quantum mechanics as Richard Feynman famously said, entanglement is its soul. But for Einstein, the soul of physics is objective reality, the very antithesis of what entanglement is all about.

        Experimental validations of Bell's Theorem concerning the nature of quantum and local realistic theories has however shown that quantum particles have an extraordinary ability to communicate and affect each other in a manner contrary to dictates of Einstein's Relativity theory, which famously forbids that nothing travels faster than light."

        As for Planck's constant, I take its positive value to indicate that particles are "extended objects" and not "mathematical points." A 'point' that Akinbo develops nicely in his 'extended' Essay.

        But it is also my hope that you'll see that my ideas do support your own basic premise, tending to confirm the essential simplicity of nature.

        Nevertheless, in the spirit of your Essay, your study of Duality has me thinking of further sub-texts. Mind-body versus: the mind, conscious and subconscious; the body, alive xor dead.

        With thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

        Dear Akinbo,

        Good to see you continuing in your wonderful way with words and logic.

        However, I trust that you have, by now, received the JUDGEMENT in the case of: The WORLD versus Dr. Akinbo OJO, 26 July 2013?

        My copy arrived today. The critical part reads thus:

        !! The COURT, having regard to Dr. OJO's skill with LOGIC, orders that he submit immediately to rehabilitative counselling. The COURT finds NO grounds for his continuing distorted thinking (quoting his repeated refrain, with added emphasis), "My math is NOT strong enough to join in the task of advancing our understanding of REALITY."

        Beginning with arithmetic revision, proceeding through geometry to trigonometry, the COURT looks forward to the day when Dr. OJO recognises that much reality is revealed to the world via the simplicity inherent in the sines and cosines of angles!

        For REALITY is based on mathematical principles AND maths is the best LOGIC:

        Always forward, Dr. OJO! !!

        Happy to help, and believing that the COURT judged correctly, I look forward to further developments.

        With best regards; Gordon

        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 Jeff,

          In so far as our understanding of reality is concerned, I had not considered that "vectors" could be be part of the problem.

          I'm also a fan of GA (geometric-algebra) with its area-related functions.

          So, overall (vectors being such fundamental and handy things), I'm confident that our problems lie elsewhere.

          Regarding your own essay, I'm concerned by statements like this: "... tangents are a direct consequence of a change in area."

          As time and priorities permit, I'm looking forward to following your "area calculus" and will send you some private comments if I find anything that might be helpful.

          In the meantime, I wish you all the best with your research; pleased to see you "having a go" in the search for where we err.

          With best regards; Gordon

          Hi George,

          Many thanks for your new comments. I am pleased to again agree that we have much in common, especially around those key points mentioned earlier (above): cause-effect, maths, facts; etc.

          Even before your friendly asking, I've looked at several of your other works (from your references). In that they run far beyond my own theoretical interests, I'm not really qualified to comment without much deeper study of your details. But I certainly want to encourage you in such endeavours, particularly when it comes to putting your ideas "out there" for critical comment.

          I can see the real need for both of us is to receive critical comments on our maths, ideas, etc. However, I'm also sure that, like me, you find there is often little time left for such activities when our daily/engineering priorities are taken care of.

          Nevertheless, in the spirit of critical discussion, let me here remark (by way of example):

          In http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1208.0213v2.pdf, at equation (22), you ask why (phi)* appears.

          In my view, (phi)*(phi) is simply a faithful representation of the following mathematical fact: ANY non-negative distribution can be represented by the absolute-square of a complex Fourier polynomial.

          Whilst I agree that QM seems unable to answer the challenge that you put, the simplest test of the above is this:

          Write out a general complex Fourier polynomial; generate its absolute square; see if the result is anything other than a non-negative distribution.

          Thus my cautionary tale, from one engineer to another: We need to proceed with great care whenever we depart from, challenge, or seek to reinterpret, experimentally supported facts.

          Happy to correspond with you at any time, I'm hoping to put more time (soon) into joining in, and submitting essays to, vixra.org.

          With best regards, and hoping to advance the cause of "cause-and-effect;" Gordon

          Dear Michel,

          Many thanks for continuing the discussion. I hope we will get to do more of it in the future.

          As for my acceptance (or otherwise) of COUNTERFACTUAL REASONING, let me offer the following proposition:

          Perhaps the related problems are due to COUNTERFACTUAL TESTING!?

          For example: in my essay, referring to the CHSH Inequality -- page 7, equations (21)-(22) -- you will see that the inequality is based on a TRUISM (21). But we do NOT test the truism; rather, we test the best approximation that we can (22).

          So, by this view, it is not counterfactual reasoning that's at fault. It's the failure, even the impossibility, of testing it.

          Hence the question: Why should that be regarded as a valid strike against a rational local-realism? Especially when QM fails to deliver in the same impossible context?

          WHILE both theories deliver the same experimental outcomes!

          Thus the need for further discussions continues.

          With best regards; Gordon

          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

              Sorry Gordon - I must have Tejinder's mixed up - reading so many! Glad you enjoyed it though!

              Thanks for writing a nice essay! I think more and more people are questioning It from Bit and looking at the reverse argument.

              Best wishes,

              Antony