Why Quantum?

Peter,

I can entangle the two lions as follows.While the lions are resting one lion is always standing on guard while the other sleeps on his back.The two lions have the following appearances. Ghost has a pale body but a dark underbelly and Darkness has a dark body and pale underbelly. The lions are next to each other and each observer is nearest to a different one. Now the two observers set off in opposite directions having synchronized their watches. Equidistant from the lions at a pre-arranged time they both look simultaneously at the nearest lion.

Observer Alice sees standing lion that has pale fur, can not know with certainty underbelly colour as it can't be seen. As Alice has seen Ghost, Bob must be looking at Darkness. And as when one lion stands the other sleeps on its back Bob is seeing a pale underbelly fur, and can't know with certainty the colour of the body fur on its back as it can't be seen.If instead Alice sees darkness Bob sees Ghost. If Alice's lion is on its back Bob's lion is standing.

Light is spreading out from the two a-lion sources in Alice's direction and in Bobs direction. Each stream of photons is associated with one of the lions and the streams of photons are independent of one another.Now Alice puts on her special polarizing sun glasses which can be set to give either a pale or dark appearance on light fur. Ghosts belly is dark only 50% of and very dark 50% of the time Darkness' belly is pale only 50% of the time and dark 50% of the time. Ghosts body is pale only 50% and dark 50% of the time. Darkness' body is dark 50% of the time and very dark 50% of the time. Now does the way Alice see the lions affect what Bob sees? If the lion is lying on its back Bob's lion is standing and vice versa.

If Alice sees a dark belly there is a 50% chance she is seeing Ghost unaltered belly fur image and 50% chance she is seeing Darkness' belly fur image darkened by the glasses, so there is a 50% rather than 100% chance of correctly guessing which standing lion Bob is seeing and so what fur color he sees. Bob has to have the opposite lion in the opposite stance whatever lion Alice imagines she sees. So have seemingly contradictory findings such as dark belly fur and dark body fur pairs and pale body pale underbelly pairs of results. Though I suppose if lots of results were collected the pairs might be mentally chopped and swapped so there are imagined to be only complementary pairs of results in the collection.

I haven't yet had time to look at all possible outcomes and possible interpretations.Must go now. Does the analogy work or has it been taken too far and fallen apart?

There are two different 'independent' cascades of photons s.d.Ghost and s.d. Darkness,cascading from the surface of the two different lions, apparently entangled and spread out over space and spreading further out over time" [l]So long as the relationship of the two lions holds IE one up one down and their complementary colouration if both equidistant observers observe simultaneously they will be selecting from parts of the sensory data corresponding to the same temporal origin which should always be complementary stance and matching colour. If they are not equidistant they may sample data from different temporal origins and so the up down relationship may not hold and entanglement is lost. Likewise if samples are not taken simultaneously.

When Alice puts on her special sunglasses it alters a proportion of the outcomes of observation for just her sensory data that correlate according to expectation with Bob's. Importantly simultaneously that alters what can be known,the probability of correct prediction re. Bob's lion manifestation. There will be expected correlation only some rather than all of the time.

Joy. Not only is 'probability' poorly understood, it is used with a certain blindness. In my paper Res. in Phys. 4, 81-82 (2014) one can read that it is wrong to use the phrase "impossible" as e.g. in: "it is impossible for LHV to violate CHSH" using probabilistic argumentation. Many important exceptions are overruled when statisticians act as though they can be certain about probabilistic claims.

You had exchanges with statisticians about your ideas. CHSH was used many times against your views. I hope that people now see that CHSH is not waterproof.

Btw did Gill or Gregor already appologize for some of their misconduct towards you? E.g. calling your papers ejaculations and more of that childish behavior?

Georgina,

A very good attempt, but two flaw and departures from a model of nature (as maths does!). One flaw is that the basic essential of "non-locality" is that the lions must be a massive distance apart, so no communication is possible. The other is that they must be 'identical' but both 'non-mirror symmetric' (see below).

The (simpler) physical mechanism should help; ALL spinning bodies have both North and South poles. If we spit on at the Equator, then BOTH have both north and south poles! If each half is re-shaped as a sphere or torus they are IDENTICAL, and the poles can be rotated (switched) without affecting the spin. That is poorly understood (as Akinbo showed) and applied.

So two spheres head off on the SAME SPIN AXIS [2 identical lions, front half pale rear dark go in opposite direction but with one walking backwards!]

Now the shutter settings on the camera 'click', making the lions turn round by some angle subject to setting, up to 360^o. (the spin 'axis' itself rotates, but this may be in BOTH the y and z planes. i.e. the lions may also roll over but we need curves for the 'intermediate cosine^2 distribution'.) The 'flip' from pale to dark (N to S) IS important as it defrocks 'non-locality.

Now the statistician analysing the 1,000's of A and B's photo's sorts them into piles. But he does NOT KNOW that both A and B can find the same colour from the same pair of lions! He assumes there's one pale one dark lion. So when he's told that Alice can 'flip' her colour by changing her lens setting, he assumes that means she much change Bob's lion as well! THAT'S SPOOKY!

Of course WE know it's not spooky at all, as did Einstein and Bell (despite his theorem), those two just didn't know what we know now. The rest are now just 'believers' who haven't applied it (and dismiss the DFM); the "Sleepwalkers" Bell referred to in "Speakable...". That doesn't 'disprove' QM, or 'uncertainty' of course, It just dramatically reduces the latter and removes the need for 'weirdness'.

The lion analogy does have the problem that we can tell a lions face from it's tail! Unfortunately the solution is rather incompatible with mainstream as it lacks all the anomalies and paradoxes. I'm struggling to solve that problem to make it publishable. Any ideas?

Peter

Stefan,

You are in the great majority. But 'weak measurement' statistical analysis can't compare single pairs, so has to make assumptions. Caroline identifies, as I did, that they make the wrong assumption. THAT is the 'mud', as the data from the few 'time resolved' experiments showed (despite the fact that what was reported was 'consistent with the theoretical expectation'!) See my post a few mins ago to Georgina below.

Thanks for identifying the 'incompleteness' of the summary description. I agree it could be misread. However I suggest the point is correct; That 'Non-Locality' arises from the apparent logical necessity for B's finding to be somehow DEPENDENT instantaneously on a decision of A, due to some unidentified form of 'entanglement'. (If you disagree with that do please explain your own beliefs).

I also identified the same flaws in the Weighs experimental analysis that Caroline also identified in the others. Weigh's also identified the 'rotation' from his (electro-optic) 'analyser' (with voltage change in that case) but was focussed in the 'instantaneous A/B choice' timing issue so just excluded it from theoretical analysis as it would have made nonsense of accepted theory.

I assume then you have no argument with the rest of my summary and derivation of the Cos^2 distribution (which being geometrical is clearly sound) and employs the NLS equation and current quantum optics. That then satisfies Bell's expressed expectations, including;

"The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro world...systems and apparatus." p.171.

"a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p172.

"Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." p.173.

Of current QM; "We differ only in the degree of concern or complacency with which we view...the intrinsic ambiguity in principle of the theory."

also; "..the 'Problem of Interpretation of QM' has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back. ..The nonlinear Schrodinger equation seems to me to be the best hope for a precisely formulated theory..." p.194.

Shocking I know, but the 'discrete field' based model I outline is then in line with both Bell and Einstein's views, and employs coherent logic. Interestingly it also supports Bohr's Copenhagen view and von Neuman's 'meter' (the detector's role) and retains a reduced gauge element of Heisenburg uncertainty. My previous (2nd scored) essay showed how the Born rule was met.

But please do keep throwing any apparent falsifications you can find at it!

Peter

Peter,

thanks for your reply.

I agree with you that

"That 'Non-Locality' arises from the apparent logical necessity for B's finding to be somehow DEPENDENT instantaneously on a decision of A, due to some unidentified form of 'entanglement'"

Please upload this paper at fqxi, because i won't sign up to academia.edu. So i can read it entirely here and see what it does. Thank you.

You cited 'weak measurements' in apostrophs. What accurately is ment by you with 'weak measurements'?

I did not understand properly your statement from your other reply, that

"They assume paired findings up/up are impossible".

Please mention the corresponding experimental setup and the specific measurement scenario for which your statement is true.

And please give me the link to the Weihs paper, so i can take a look at it.

At first glance, it seems to me that you don't accept any data of any experiment made with entanglement. Am i right here or in error?

Thanks for replying

Stefan

Han, thanks for drawing attention to your paper that nicely shows the failing of statistically "impossible" results.

Statisticians often invoke the law of large numbers to substitute for quantum uncertainty, as if perfect information is magically conferred on particle ensembles the larger the group, or the greater the number of measurements.

Things are due to change course.

In response to my question on on Aug. 7, 2014 @ 08:26 GMT, "Where in your hierarchy ladder of motion would you place Quantum vacuum? That is, is it moving around anything?"

I analyse the response thus in capital letters:

"The quantum vacuum doesn't have a 'place' in the hierarchy" (BUT IT EXISTS)

"It is as the water of the ocean" (SO IT IS A MEDIUM).

"Wherever you dive in you'll find it locally 'at rest'" (SO IT IS IMMOBILE)

I think all three are agreeable to Newton with little difference based on semantics. According him 'Absolute space' is also immovable without relation to anything external.

Akinbo

(I wont be worrying this weekend about the brain twisting clockwise-anticlockwise issues but I can discuss other things. As we say here TGIF - thank God it's friday)

I like what you wrote. I think that thought experiments that replace quantum fields with "ghostliness" will be fruitful in probing the deeper mysteries of physics.

Since nobody is refuting the "Fine-Tuned Universe", then I think it's safe to conclude that our universe really is Fine Tuned. If so, then there are two possible reasons why. Either our universe is 1 of only a few in 10^(10^137) that permits biology and chemistry, or there really is an Intelligent Designer. Since scientists cannot detect another universe, then the logical conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer exists. Anyone interested in discussing this?

Hi Peter,

Thank you for at least talking to me. I'm not sure the anthropic principle really means anything other than as atheist propaganda. Dawkin-ism affirms an ultimate meaninglessness with is depressing; for that reason alone, it should be discarded like rotten fruit. Why would anyone want to believe in something that is depressing and soul crushing?

These fine-tuned universe arguments are lost on me. Science does not even know the precision of most of its constants much beyond one part per million or so and so all of the powers of powers are modeling predictions...using a model for the universe that we know has flaws and limitations.

Besides, you can change certain constant together and you get continuously variable universe that works just fine. For example, if you change the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the fine structure constant in a concerted manner that keeps c/alpha and h/c2 constant, the universe works just fine and the Hubble expansion is a contraction instead and so on.

At each moment of lion thought, he chooses an action or inaction and each of those choices comes down to the uncertainty principle of a single electron in a single synapse. For some very short time of dephasing, the lion exists in a superposition of the two possible states of action and inaction.

Which of the states occurs is generally but not exactly knowable. So any journey of the lion will involve very large numbers of quantum superpositions and very large number of possible futures as a result. So you do not need to separately note the electron's state since those quantum states are already embedded into the lion.

Dear Jason,

there is no need to be depressed. Besides hard physics, there is personal experience. Especially from those who had one or more near-death experiences. To be able to judge those experiences (without having had one), it is helpfull to see the many personal testimonies and documentaries about this phenomenon. Maybe you will take a look at youtube. There are tons of such films and interviews (i think you need days to see them all).

One does not need physical ingredients like entanglement, superpositions etc. to judge this phenomenon to be true and meaningfull. It may be totally out of the range of physics and matter, but if nature is so, then it reveals a bit more of the nature of nature!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Peter Jackson,

i would like to continue our exchange of your model. I will try to falsify it, if i can, but foremost i need to understand it properly.

I now checked your "Classical Derivation..." paper and realized that the summary is the paper itself. So no need to upload it here, as i demanded earlier in the thread above. I downloaded it already.

Please help me understand the mechanism to circumvent entanglement in the classical Bohm spin 1/2 experiment.

If the magnets are aligned with identical field orientations, why do the two particles always travel in anti-correlated directions to the associated detectors (or detector plane)?

Thanks in advance,

Stefan

Steve,

Delighted. 'Entanglement' is achieved simply by invoking a common propagation axis. If the detector settings are the same, one 'north pole' and one 'south pole' are detected, so the particles go opposite ways.

Reversing any one detector setting reverses the deflection direction, so the findings are 100% correlated.

In fact we don't even need 'particles' as such. The NLS equation and waves do the same task with opposing helical propagation patterns (as light), modulated by the detector field and re-quantized.

Peter

Dear Peter,

thanks for your reply.

O.k., i think i grasped the idea behind your lines of reasoning now better.

To be sure, please tell me if my picture of it is correct or not so far:

North and South pole are the green and red bubbles in your Figure 1 of your actual contest paper, right or wrong?

The figure consists of 9 big circles, showing the time-dependent propagation of a particle towards the right side of the observer of page 3 of your contest paper. Right or wrong?

Let's label this particle as one of the two particles of the Bohmian experiment. The other particle then goes towards the left side of page 3, with the same internal dynamics (clockwise). The inner circles of these particles also spin clockwise (wrt me, the reader). Is this right or wrong?

Only one polarity can be measured, because in a fraction of the 9 pictures, the other polarity is "hidden" behind the polarity that is nearer to the outer circle (orbital path). Is this right or wrong?

The 9. circle has the polarity "red", means, if the spin of that particle is measured at this position, the detector indicates "red". Is that right or wrong?

In case that both particles are measured at the same time, the particle that went to the left of page 3 should also be measured to have polarity "red". Is that right or wrong?

So if the magnets are aligned with identical field orientations, both detectors should indicate "red" if measured at position 9. Is this right or wrong?

So you would need an additional mechanism to match the experimental facts of QM for this scenario (anti-correlation).

How does the common propagation axis contribute for the correct result?

Thanks in advance,

Stefan

Hi Steve Agnew,

I would like the physics community to focus on just how stable chemistry is when the physics constants are changed, and by how much. What happens if you change the speed of light, but not the Coulomb constant, stuff like that. I think that might help us predict how likely is it to get a universe that supports chemistry AND biochemistry. I think we should hug the "Fine-tuners" for giving us insight into what is really required for life; and of course hug our physicists for tackling these insanely difficult questions.

Hi Stefan Weckbach,

Honestly, I think the God versus Nature battle is, in effect, a technology seeking machine; in other words, the controversy generates lots of good questions that may someday lead to new technologies.

I honestly believe that our universe is most likely created by a Cosmic Intelligence of some kind. That would explain why individual biological cells have consciousness. I do believe that grey aliens, angels, demons, ghosts, and other non-corporeal life is more believable than a randomly generated universe that just happens to be finely tuned for biochemistry, particularly when we can only prove the existence of one universe. In other words, there isn't enough evidence for their to be 10^300 universes, so the anthropic principle gets trampled by the millions of NDE experiencers, grey alien witnesses, strange entity visitations (me), demons, angels, etc, etc.