Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson

Hi Peter,

Good to see you in another contest. Finally got to your essay, which I always look forward to.

One thing I found of interest is the idea of electrons actually having two components. And these components are what creates the spin of the electron.

Please allow me to offer a somewhat similar idea that may integrate with yours. The two components of the electron are two wavelengths, a deBroglie wavelength and a Compton wavelength. The sequence of these wavelengths form what we call spin. See:

1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/33_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavelengths.html

2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/37_Visualizing_Spin.html

3. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/41_Neutrinos_and_Light.html

4. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/36_Derivation_of_the_Compton_Wavelength.html

To date, Bell's theorem is generally regarded as supported by a substantial body of evidence and there are few supporters of local hidden variables, though the theorem is continually subject of study, criticism, and refinement.

Please also allow me to put in my two cents, and argue that Bell's theorem is founded on a fundamental misconception. Bell assumed that local hidden variables were a possibility. He then showed that this is impossible. The logic is good so long as a local hidden variable is as conceived by Einstein. Both Bell and Einstein demanded that particles be "continuous in space-time". If particles are not continuous in space-time (Heisenberg's concept in matrix mechanics), the Bell theorem produces confusion because garbage in produces garbage out. We do not see the garbage in and try to find meaning in the garbage out. The fundamental reality of QM is discontinuous, it can be observed in experiments (Alain Aspect) but never proved, it is just a fact of nature (IMHO).

I believe you are pushing the boundaries of our concepts of reality.... a very practical way to steer the future.

Don Limuti

Dear Peter,

beautiful essay! I also liked the story around it. Although in trying to understand quantum physics for so many years I somehow took Bohr's side in the struggle for an interpretation of QM, I think your essay is a precious contribution to the debate and earns a hight rating.

Recently in trying to figure out how the information is transferred in a coin toss I had similar vision as Bob in space, as there is now up and down for a coin if not relative to gravitational field. I didn't come far with the informational part of my thinking. But I figured out, that the quantum mechanical probabilities could come out for the simple coin toss.

A similar realistic toy model was used by Diederik Aerts in this paper to show, that if the state is disturbed by the measurement apparatus Kolmogorovian probabilities do not hold any more and they have to be generalized.

In my essay I take a non realistic view of physics in the sense that objects get their properties by interaction with the measurement apparatus and don't have these properties per se. I hope you find the time to read, rate and comment it.

Regards,

Luca

Doug,

It took me a few years too. What Bell does is 'limit' the inequalities possible from random variables, so although the experimental results vary from QM (as they're subjective) they actually exceed the QM violations. The non subjective mechanism which the experiment models reproduces the QM (Cos^2) predictions precisely.

I think we've exposed the real problem which your proposals just stop short of addressing; If we're to try different viewpoints, so study 'outlying' propositions, then we can't judge them how we do now, which is against current doctrine. We must 'step back', disengage from our assumptions and return to fundamentals and 1st principles. So away from Bell/CHSH, right back to Bohr, Solvay and EPS.

Bohr said only 'what we can say' about particles; "superposed states collapse to singlet states on measurement". He never endowed that with any particular physical reality. Bell unknowingly did. My description agrees with Bohr and findings, but not what Bell assumed, i.e. If we can only measure the 'spin' direction of one hemisphere at a time we've satisfied Bohr, even if the other hemisphere spins the other way. Now add some modern joined-up-science; electron spin flip and angular momentum transfer and the jigsaw puzzle pieces simply all slot together; If we flip the DETECTOR electron spins round ('preparation') then the OPPOSITE photomultiplier will click!

The rest is simple geometry; The circumference at any hemisphere changes by the cosine of the angle with the equatorial plane (thus the 'cones' in the Bloch sphere). Entanglement is simply the fact that the equatorial planes are common, because they're orthogonal to the spin axis which is the propagation axis.

Now that answer is so beautifully simple (Occam) that it can't be even countenanced by those distracted By Bell and CHSH and using those to try to solve the puzzle. Though fully falsifiable, as you say, the experimenters are focussed elsewhere. I don't even get responses to Emails! Can you now help there?

So the EPR paradox is resolved without FTL or spookyness. And what's more, and even more shocking, the fundamental recognition of EM field electron absorption and re-emission allows SR to take an equal step towards QM with the simple definition that all re-emissions are at c in the rest frame of each electron. That is a eureka moment well beyond the brain of anybody stuck within present doctrinal 'brackets'.

The tests and proof are in my last 3 essays, but can we suspend reliance on current doctrine and beliefs long enough to study it? Not yet it seems. If your essay suggests we should work that way, and can implement that new view, then I suggest it's of inestimable value!

Peter

PS. I attach the 'classroom experiment' kit below, also a fig from a recent Planck Inst. finding agreeing the 'spin/orbit' - 'spin within spin' model.Attachment #1: Electron_Model_Max_Planck_inst..jpgAttachment #2: 7_Kit._FIG_5.jpg

Peter,

You are right: "no UP in space".

As I think you know from my essay, the "next Copernican step" can be very effectively catalyzed by sharing the science.

Furthermore, rather than focus on finding a way to change "who can't think beyond current doctrine", my way is to get those that can to self-identify themselves.

Thanks for your comments here and on my essay.

-- Ajay

Peter,

The fact is that humanity, as well as everything on this planet, are dynamic processes and as such nature's 'technology.' I'm certainly willing to give your paper a go, address is brodix at earthl!nk.net.

However, as you have well experienced, we all interface with our world on our own terms and your set of criteria are likely somewhat different from mine. Having been following the various debates over on Joy's thread at a distance, I can well understand there is a solution buried in all the assumptions. As I've been pointing out, even a moving car doesn't have an exact location, because it wouldn't be moving if it did and yet if we examine it in very precise moments, great detail does emerge. Much the same with the subatomic reality of which it is composed. If everything had a precise location, there would be no car. It is all that quantum fuzziness which makes up the fields that create the spatial and temporal illusion which is the car. This then goes to my observation about the dichotomy of energy and information, that while energy is inherently dynamic, information is necessarily static and since physics likes to think everything can be defined down to exact forms of information, all that fuzziness just comes up as noise in their search for the signal.

Now if you can either show me where this is wrong, or more that I'm not seeing, it would be helpful to the extent is makes better sense of the reality in which I exist. Similarly, if you want to move vast numbers of people to be on their better behavior, with regards to the future health of the planet, you need to show how your model affects them directly. Simply improving the technology doesn't necessarily slow the overall rate we burn through resources. As people have understood since the time of Adam, Eve, the apple and the serpent, knowledge can be a double edged sword.

"A billion bumper stickers or preachers won't change behaviour. However profound it mostly reduces to esoteric waffle. I'm a doer. Only the guy who turns the wheel can steer. Look back, it's always been technology ('tools') that's changed our path and opened new roads and ways of seeing ahead.'

Remember, the rudder is in the rear and steering requires taking more than just the path ahead into account. Sometimes the esoteric waffle can be just still air and sometimes it can be blowing gale force. Moving people is as much art as science.

Regards,

John

Peter,

I would also argue the proper measurement function of that collective fuzziness is thermal.

Regards,

John

Hello Peter:

Thank you for logging onto my essay discussion. I'm afraid I'm swamped and won't be able to getting round to reading & rating your essay until next week.

best regards

Kevin O'Malley

Here a link for the Logical Bell inequalities that works.

Luca

Hi Peter,

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to offer you much helpful feedback on the physics of your essay. To be constructive, though, I will mention that I found it hard to understand how your theory relates to the theme of the contest. I would have been helped by a more explicit statement of how you're recommending humanity should steer the future, and more direct arguments for why the way you propose is a good one.

Best of luck!

Daniel

Peter,

No! It's an i.

I have to say I think I offer a pretty foundational observation, that the vector of time, on which our cognitive processes and civilization is based, as in narrative, sequence, causality, history, etc. is actually an effect, not foundational. Yet even you are unwilling to see it as anything more than a pet obsession of mine.

In case you haven't noticed, I do express a lot of ideas and interests and the reason I keep coming back to this one, is because I do see it as fundamental to many of our misconceptions about reality. Not just the modern epicycles of spacetime, but our inability to see beyond our own particular perceptions, based on that singular narrative of our lives, to appreciating the essential fuzziness of our mutual connectivity.

As it is, I like things simple, so hopefully you have distilled your premise down to the clear points and applications.

No, heat is mostly amplitude of oscillation. Even rapid oscillation only projects as heat to the extent it ramps up the amplitude of reception. Lots of little waves quickly creating one large wave.

The measure of time is frequency and that is much more like temperature, than space!!!!!

Regards,

John

Hi Peter,

I wanted to add one more comment in regard to a technical part of your essay that is interesting. You're proposal (or at least Alice and Bob of the essay) do this EPR/Bohm experiment with electron spins rather than photon spins. As far as I know the actual experiments have only ever been done with photons. You have looked in the experimental status of this to a greater degree so if there was an EPR experiment done with electrons I would be interested in the reference. Anyway electrons carry a gauge charge (i.e. electric charge) in addition to spin. Interactions between charges, unlike spin, is mediated by a gauge boson (i.e. the photon). Thus doing a Bohm type EPR experiment with electrons would be of intrinsic interest since this would take the quantum weirdness to the next level -- since electric charge is associated with a gauge boson which when real (as opposed to virtual) is restricted to interactions within the light cone (i.e. no causality violation). In any case aside from other issues doing the Bohm version of EPR with electrons rather than photons would be interesting.

Now to the point you mention above -- that you have had trouble getting any interest (or even a response) from experimentalist about doing this experiment -- this is not unusual. Now my understanding is that you don't have an academic affiliation. This shouldn't matter, but it does. And in fact even if you have an academic affiliation but if it is at a more teaching oriented place (e.g. my university) vs. an R1, research university, then as well it is hard to get people to notice. And even if you are at an R1 but you want to move into some area that is not "your area" you'll have a hard time. For example, a colleague of mine at UC Davis has worked in soft condensed matter physics for most of his career and is a Fellow of the APS, has published in Nature, etc. Anyway a well established person in his field. A few years ago he started working on protein folding with some connection to various brain diseases like Mad Cow, Alzheimer's, etc. These diseases are somehow connected with protein folding. Now when he first moved from condensed matter to this more biological area he had papers rejected without any good reason. He eventually figured out that biologists didn't know him, recognize his name and thus simply rejected the papers out of hand. The reports didn't even give any specific criticism to his concrete and falsifiable (or verifiable as it turned out) predictions. Basically he kept submitting papers to various biological journals (some in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th tier -- in journals his "own" field he usually breezed through the review process even at the 1st tier journals) until he had built some recognition. Is this good? Of course not, but there is nothing to do but keep submitting to journals. If the work is good it will eventually get noticed. Also going to conferences to give talks helps since then people are forced to listen to your ideas :-). Again not a fair system, but almost nothing in life is fair.

Also you might try to submit things to mathematical journals if you can write things in their style (and Bell's thm. stuff is can be related to math/math physics). I was talking to a colleague in the math department here at CSU Fresno and he mentioned that he was waiting for 5-6 months to get the first reviews back on a paper he submitted and that probably he would go several rounds with the referee so that the paper would probably be published 2-3 years hence. My original idea was that math referees where much lazier than those in physics (usually you'll get a review back in 1 maybe 2 months and maybe have to go one extra round with the referee unless they simply reject the paper from the outset). My colleague said it was not that math reviewers were lazier but exactly the opposite -- they go over in painful detail every equation, every statement, every comma in the paper. This takes time, but if the paper is mathematically correct it has a better chance of getting accepted, just it will take more time. Anyway this is one suggestion.

Again the system is not the best or even fair but then again almost nothing in life is, and the only thing to do is keep working. Also do pay attention to the referee reports. Even if the referees are wrong they are often wrong because they had a misunderstanding based on how you presented the argument; by re-wording things, adding extra background it might help them understand better. Anyway unless the referee report is a flat rejection without any reasons there is always something one can take away from the reports. That being said I have seen some reports that are pretty "content free". BUt if the report is fairly substantial so that it looks like the referee put some time in they are worth thinking about.

Best,

Doug

Hi Peter,

I'll answer the questions you raised in my forum, here, as the most appropriate venue.

Repeatedly, I have offered my solicited opinion that your program is too ambitious, and repeatedly you've rebuffed that opinion as close-minded and dishonest. Dishonest would be telling you that I think you've made a breakthrough in quantum physics.

Fundamentally, Bell's theorem -- and despite Gill's charge, I am not a "Bell denier" -- is a mathematically true statement (hence, 'theorem') about the size of space. That is why Richard is now on a campaign to eliminate 'inequality' from the vocabulary that explains Bell's theorem, because there would then be no basis for an analytical framework. Richard is saying, in effect, that the world is foundationally probabilistic even though there is no theory or evidence for this assumption. The evidence for a classical world, as Bell pointed out in deference to EPR, is in the difference between quantum configuration space and physical space (hence, 'inequality'). If any of the probabilistic interpretations of conventional quantum theory are foundationally true, general relativity is false.

If the inequality is not violated -- contrary to Bell-Aspect experimental results -- there has to exist a theory of hidden variables that bridges the gap between what general relativity experimental results show in the classical domain, and what Bell-Aspect does not show in the quantum domain: that there exists some definite point where quantum reality smooths out into the classical world. Joy Christian's program specifically and rigorously identifies that point as the non-zero torsion of the parallelized 3-sphere. In other words, he removes domain dependence from Bell's inequality, such that the space is now big enough for analytical continuation. Local quantum correlations without entanglement and nonlocality show that the physical space is equal to quantum configuration space, so Bell's inequality cannot be violated in principle. Then the experimental challenge is to demonstrate that strong quantum correlations exist without entanglement, because that mystical assumption is all that supports a probabilistic schema (there would be no starting basis, no initial condition, for probability calculations).

Therefore, this statement of yours, among others ...

"Entanglement is simply the fact that the equatorial planes are common, because they're orthogonal to the spin axis which is the propagation axis."

... is contrary to a complete space of measurement functions. The simple geometry isn't big enough. You need a topological model of global characteristics that compels the local result.

I know that you would like me to tell you that I agree with your program. I can only hope you understand why I don't. I would actually just decline comment -- but you persistently solicit my review.

All best,

Tom