Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson

Hi Peter

I just read your work, which I found very creative, imaginative and well organized. I had to read it twice to grasp the details. I was about to ask you the connection with the main topic of this contest because you slightly touch it in your essay, but I realized that Ajay had a similar doubt. So, just by reading your reply to him I understand better the philosophy behind your work.

There is a widespread belief, perhaps promoted by popular science books, that there is a conflict between SR and QM, in particular with the case of entanglement. In a recent article published by Susskind and Maldacena (arxiv: 1306.0533v2) they discuss that neither wormholes nor entanglement can be used to send signals faster than light, meaning that there is no violation of causality (no spooky action at a distance).

I have studied the case of entanglement, spin and other quantum mechanical phenomena. You may know that there are many versions of QM. At least I'm aware of 5 of them. Among this I found Bohmian mechanics the most consistent, although due to the additional pilot-equation is not well accepted by the physics community. You may wish to take a look at the advantages over conventional QM in wikipedia. Some authors have suggested that there is a 4 dimension to explain the 720 degrees rotation. In the four dimension this is seen as a regular rotation. Unfortunately, at this moment I don't remember the reference, but it is not difficult to find it in the web.

I see that you are getting good rating and I think your works deserves it. I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Peter,

Given you had the chance to delete, correct, or at least better explain what you wrote on May 13 and 14 in reply to Ajay Bhatly and Stefan Weckbach.

Did you maintain utterances like these?

1 We may need to know how far away infinity is.

2 the energy of dark energy

3 the cosine^2 of the rotation angle, an extraordinary finding I suspect. Of course it's still only a model of a more complex resonance process.

4 the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

5 a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now.

6 It's a fundamental breakthrough. it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far.

7 'joined-up-physics'

You know, I am still trying to discover something that is convincing to me in your "scientific work". Nonetheless, I acknowledge that you made me aware of viXra.

Eckard

Eckard,

Thank you for persisting. I expand on my brief answers as follows;

1) The question was about conservation of OAM. My reply meant that we can't know precisely unless we can mathematically 'fix' infinity. i.e. so can't know.

2) Dark energy is a foundation of the standard model of cosmology and also the only possible source of the energy of condensed matter (fermion pairs). We should perhaps be more familiar with it as it constitutes ~73% of the total matter energy of the universe! It's ill considered outwith astrophysics because we still don't tend to use 'joined-up-science' (cross discipline consistency).

3) QM's prediction plots as Cos^2. Bell showed that it can't be reproduced classically. I show it can by using a different starting assumption; that any particle with Q/OAM has both clockwise AND anticlockwise spin, but we can only MEASURE one hemisphere at a time. That is extraordinary (so resisted by any steeped in QM). However; spherical particles are only simplifications, or 'models' of what a 'quanta' of OAM really is, perhaps more like an oscillating smoke ring than a planet. Do you know? I certainly don't. So we test models.

4)-5) Our brains work Earth-centrically. Think of it as sun-centric against the previous Earth centred universe. We can't possibly imagine the next step until we've visualised, tested and become accustomed to it. Close your eyes and take Bob's place in another galaxy. Now tell me in which direction is Earth? How could you possibly know? It may be directly above or beneath you, or moving wrt the stars spinning around you. Now imagine holding two spinning spheres by the 'poles'. You can rotate both 360^o on both the y and z axis. You can touch them together at any latitude and spin direction, and do so while also rotating YOURSELF and the 'system' on all 3 AXIS wrt the local star system, which itself is spinning!! Our brains aren't trained to rationalise that or it's implications. Bob did, and found new truths - reducable to multiple Bloch sphere 4 vectors.

6) I'll correct the double negative. Very few CAN think beyond current doctrine so (I've found) few will countenance any fundamental change in understanding See my post to Israel above. They ignore K E Drexler quoted by Mohammed Khalil; "Predicting the content of new scientific knowledge is logically impossible because it makes no sense to claim to know already the facts you will learn in the future."

7. Mohammed well describes the problem as reduced by interdisciplinary research, following my cross discipline modus operandi. I've researched invoke and derive harmonious; Astrophysics, SR, QM, Optics, Cosmology, QED, QCD, Particle, Atomic, Plasma, HE and other physics, Classical dynamics, Electro and Hydrodynamics, Geometry etc. At present many of them simply don't fit coherently together and all have their own anomalies. Discrete field dynamics draws on them all to find a consistent (and rather simpler!) description of nature needing the minimum of re-interpretation of each 'false division'.

Honest objective testing confirms veracity. Yet the human animal is not naturally objective. Most turn away or run away screaming when beliefs are challenged.

I hope that clarifies my points, but if not please do ask.

Best wishes

Peter

PS; For clarity; In the DFM, The only 'Entanglement' required is conservation of spin axis, so also of equatorial plane, between the particle pairs. i/ i.e' In space spin behaves as it does in gyroscopes.

Peter,

At least you got aware of the wrong negation in 7. Didn't you realize what I meant?

1) The good old meaning of infinite is the quality of being endless, the opposite of finite.

2) I criticize the formulation energy of energy.

3) 2cos^2(2pi)=1-cos(4pi). This is nothing extraordinary. Your vague guesses don't clarify.

4) Of course, there is no UP in space. We are living downunder if seen from Australia. Invoking Copernik is perhaps inappropriate. You seem to consider the brain a quantum computer without any evidence that supports such guess.

5) While I never had problems to imagine relative positions, directions, and velocities in 3D space it remains unclear to me what you mean by "new 'non Earth-centric' way to think." Is it meant in 4D?#

Sounds as if you meant with "it's possible now": you made something possible that was not possible so far.

6) I understand that you are convinced having solved all problems.

7) I just don't know such word. At first glance I tend to share some of your ideas. Nonetheless I would never trust in mere guesswork.

I would appreciate any tangible criticism of a serious essay, e.g. 2021. Don't you have anything to say concerning synchronization? Who is correct?

Eckard

Hi Peter , i found the essay interesting and an extension of previous research completing a scenario even more clear.

In fact , I do not think such a distraction, if the double cone in the sphere ( Figure 3) can easily correspond to the Minkowski space-time.

Then, space-time together with entangled photons, it looks like the Bloch Sphere is a very useful threedimensional object.

But, even proper revolving a straight rod, it is possible to obtain a Minkowski space-time, i mean the double cone.

The same rod, if properly bond and revolved in the middle, can give a double cone for the Minkowski space-time.

I want to believe the straight and the bond rod , can be some kind of inner element of reality, also connected to entanglement.

At last the entanglement is much more an emergent property of space - time itself?

If my research on the meaning of bit of information, somehow, is also inside this last job , is what gave me the chance to understand Your ideas.

My Best Wishes for the contest.

Dear Peter Jackson,

I fully support your idea - "The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature". Therefore highly appreciated your article.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Eckard,

1) Infinite is endless. Precisely my point and Godel's. We can't mathematically prove anything with finite precision when reality is infinite. Ergo; To prove anything absolutely we'd; "need to know how far infinity is!" which is impossible. The expression simply promotes a; "new way of looking at familiar things", (Wm Bragg).

2) Same thing as above; But 'Energy' also has a dual usage, as a 'degree' (E = quantity A or B) and as part of a noun "Nuclear Energy", "Solar Energy. "Dark Energy" is well established as a noun in astrophysics. Your own unfamiliarity demonstrated my point that it's poorly assimilated into other areas to give 'joined-up' physical descriptions (compatible cross discipline).

3) There is no 'vague guess'. Axiomatic theories must have axioms! I axiomise a particle as a spherical 'body', for simplicity, to test. As you say; 2cos^2(2pi)=1-cos(4pi) is not a guess, or extraordinary. What IS extraordinary is the way it's invoked along with other elements from various areas of physics and applied to simply do what Bell showed is impossible; REPRODUCE THE QUANTUM CORRELATIONS ('PREDICTIONS') WITH AN ENTIRELY CLASSICAL MECHANISM. Did you understand the AOM transfer distribution geometry/E change with latitude?

4-5). Most believe they already DO think outside all boxes. It was the same before Copernicus and Galileo, which was POSSIBLE before then but done only by an obscure few. That the point behind Drexler's;

"Predicting the content of new scientific knowledge is logically impossible because it makes no sense to claim to know already the facts you will learn in the future."

It's not as easy as Australia. Think back to Bob in deep space. He may set himself at rest wrt the "fixed stars" (AE), yet the galaxy they're in is spinning, and may have any orientation wrt Earth. At any moment Earth may then be at ANY position on the surface of a Bloch sphere surrounding him. The arriving photon may then come from anywhere. His detector orientation is entirely arbitrary. Now the big realisation (for the few that can do this) the relative positions vectors and speeds form a (an 'infinite!') HIERARCHY where only the IMMEDIATE background has ANY validity as a reference frame; including for 'c'. Speed 'c' is then only ever a LOCAL relative speed, so it 'changes' (and Doppler shifts) at domain boundary electrons. It's all about changing datums, ALL datums. When tested it's found that all anomalies are resolved. Most brains reject such wholly new concepts untested. THAT is the 'new way of thinking' required; beyond our familiar local datums.

6) I'm not 'convinced', but have logically 'shown' the implications of the axioms tested. I've asked for 3 years for scientific falsifications but not one has come. 'Dismissal' is only on 'beliefs', on 'lack of familiarity', or as due to other theories they can't think beyond. The dynamics may not be correct but it's falsifiable and so far entirely unfalsified. I've often asked you for falsification!

7) Do you mean; "interdisciplinary"? Mohammeds excellent essay explains well. Nature is not "DIVIDED" into disciplines ("areas" of science). Nature is ONE, only man divides it. Science has divided into specialisms, each of which has different s descriptions, often conflicting. It is then essential do study ALL disciplines and find the key; "unity in hidden likeness" (Freeman) which will unite physics and advance understanding. That was my methodology.

If you meant something different beyond that and the 'double negative' please do explain.

I'm not clear what 2021 is. Are you suggesting my essay isn't serious? I've discussed short range harmonic resonance effects, what precisely do you refer to about synchronization? I certainly find that all clocks can be synchronized, but no relatively moving clocks or clocks different distances away can ever 'appear' so.

Best wishes

Peter

Allow me, Peter - Other contenders are an understanding of man (the understander), of man's relation to nature, and of steering itself. - Mike

Dear Peter,

Well, you certainly got the physics part!

The idea of electrons actually having two components is interesting. My own thought is we're looking at a non-oriented manifold. For instance, a vector orthogonal to the surface of an ideal Mobius strip, takes twice around the strip (720 )to return to the same direction. And because of the twist, it actually takes up space, ah, is a Fermion. Can a classical mechanics be developed from this? If you take two Mobius strips, and attach their edges, and inflate it, you have a torus. And?

Is space really symmetric? In the large, yes. But if up and down were really the same, wouldn't they be indistinguishable? If indistinguishable, wouldn't they be identical. ie only one. Same for left and right? Front and back? Thus each direction must distinguishable from each other. This on the micro-level, but statistically mixed in the macro, so in the large the space dimensions are indistinguishable. The idea is that space has a 'Fermionic' structure, otherwise it would all be in the same place. (So the universe is seriously twisted, which explains a lot!) On the other hand, to say that 'space' has a micro structure seems perilously close to suggesting the existence of an ether. Argh!

Are QM and SR marriageable? This may be impossible to determine, like the Turing halting problem, or the "word problem for groups," (See Wikipedia) although it seems likely to show that one (SR) is an approximation in some limit of the other (QM), just as Galilean dynamics is shown to be an approximation of SR, in the limit of low velocity. I just don't know. It's starting to take on the dimensions of famous philosophical problems, like free will and determinism.

I had difficulty following your argument, but my physics is so rusty, (despite my being able to drop a few ideas,) I can only blame myself. I will not vote down anyone's essay based on my ignorance, but I'm afraid I must abstain on my vote here. (That may be a good thing for you, if others in my situation take the same action.)

I do believe society's problems are stopping us from solving real world problems. And I think it's getting kind of urgent.

I wish you the best of luck in the competition. And I thank you for your kind words and, I believe, strong vote.

Charles

PS I'm commenting on your comment at my essay, too.

Dear Peter,

thank you for your comments.

You wrote

"A timed pair experiment with rotating analysers will falsify the hypothesis."

Just to make it clear for myself - of what hypothesis do you speak here? I ask you for explaining the hypothesis to understand what you mean in this context. Please also explain how that hypothesis is falsified.

You wrote

"The classical experiment in the end notes has been reproduced and can be again, by anybody."

What does the mentioned experiment say about the ontological status of your main theme, namely entanglement in QM? How is this saying then justified in physical terms?

Best wishes,

Stefan

Hi Peter

Thanks for your reply. For a theoretical physicists this is the most difficult part: ...requesting testing and logical falsification of the hypothesis.

As for the purpose of your essay I understand that discovering the secrets of nature affects somehow the course of humanity, but in my opinion not merely steers humanity, because "steers" implies a plan or intention; this is why I define science just as the generation of knowledge and technology as the application of this knowledge for the convenience of humankind.

Good luck in the contest

Regards

Israel

Hi Peter,

I did think some more about your essay, but am not sure I fully got the point. This is not the fault of the essay but as I said I find Bell's theorem discussions very subtle and for me it takes time to digest. I had the same reaction the first time we covered Bell's theorem in grad school (we were using Sakaurai's non-relativistic QM text which has a good description of Bell's theorem). It took some late night discussions with some friends to get to the point where I *thought* I understood what was going on in Bell's original arguments.

Anyway let me ask some questions to see what I did and did not get from the essay. First it seems you are saying that there is a way for classical mechanics to give the same violations of Bell's inequalities as predicted by QM. I got this from the statement "Classical dynamics appeared to reproduce QM quantum correlations, which was not possible with the singlet

spin assumption John Bell inherited." Also you have some kit where one can verify this for oneself (this is the point of the technical end notes right?). There is a disk in figure 4 which then can be used to give reproduce the same (or similar?) correlations as in QM. Actually looking at the table it appears that the correlations you get are close but distinguishable (in principle) from QM. From table 1 I take the cloumn that says "Green Bias ^2" as your prediction while QM Cos^2 (theta)" is the standard QM prediction. They are close to one another but not exactly identical. For example for 45^o you have a Green Bias ^2 value of 0.54 versus the QM value of 0.5 (one technical question at this point -- it appears Green Bias ^2 column is gotten by squaring the "Green Bias column". If this is correct then I get 0.55 (after rounding) for the "Green Bias ^2" column for 45^o. All the other values seem to be rounded correctly. Anyway in principle there is a way to distinguish your model from teh QM case (I think if I have understood things correctly up to this point). If this is the case then it certainly would be very useful to do a refined version of the Aspect et al. experiments to see which is correct -- your model or QM. If I misunderstood some point let me know.

However, even if everyone in this forum agreed (and they probably would) that it would be good to re-run the Aspect experiment to to check this in some sense there is the problem that this is the wrong forum. You need to try and convince an experimentalist to do this and most of the audience here are theorists. And convincing experimentalists to invest time in doing any experiment is hard since they usually have their own ideas of what is interesting. For example, when I was in grad school and did figure out to some degree (at least this is what I told myself) that I knew what Bell's theorem was about I talked to some of the older grad students who were already doing their research in one of the many good atomic/molecular groups for which UVA is known. I asked them why they didn't work on this type of experiment (i.e. an experiment similar to Aspects) since this seemed very coll and foundational. The answer was "Well we don't set the research agenda for the group. We're grad students! And even if we did set the agenda we probably wouldn't switch from our present projects to Bell's theorem stuff. these are complex and messy experiments. The stuff we are working on (Rydberg-like atoms with super high n-quantum numbers so that the orbitals were really classical) is also very cool and the results are much cleaner and this is what our NSF grant says we are working on." The lesson I took away form this is that what and theorist thinks of as a good project and what an experimentalist views as a good project are often different things.

But I do agree (assuming I understood the general outline of you proposal) one should do such an experiment to distinguish your model from the QM model (again from the table it appears the results are close but not exactly the same).

I have some more comments that are not related to the main point of the essay which I will add later.

Best,

Doug

Hi again. The above was me. I guess you get logged out if the post is too long.

Best,

Doug

Hi Peter,

You take us, the readers, on a journey. We see reality from the point of view of characters (Alice and Bob) that seem to have real lives. I'm always amazed by the imaginative scenarios you use to frame your discussion of the physics!

Your main hypothesis, that "quantum spin includes OAM" and so "'non-local state reduction' is not required", seems feasible enough to me, but it would be great to get some experimental results to confirm it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't agree that all aspects of nature are necessarily entirely "logical". I would think that, in a non-platonic universe, logic is not the standard to measure nature - it's more a case that nature is the standard to measure logic. I think that logic (i.e. that which seems to us to be consistent and make sense) is the product of nature, not the other way round.

A very readable and interesting essay.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Hi Peter,

You write beautifully and the content is even better. The essay is packed with so much information. I read it once but I have to read carefully it again. I just give you my encouragement now because it is one of the best essay here. I will comment and rate it soon.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan