Why Quantum?

Georgina,

Yes. Your 'naive' analogies are now very close. Half silvered mirrors will indeed split the 'signal'. The claim we can't 'divide' photons is a stupid assumption derived FROM the fact that we only find a signal on one path. My 2012 essay (last fig) showed an experimental result of an orbiting charge, like a ruby ring.

It's 50:50 which of any 'semicircle' the ruby will be in, but the WHOLE distribution is the ring itself. The ring really describes a helix, but looked at in 2D from the side a helix is a wave sequence. Strike a vertical line at random anywhere on that sequence and it will cut either through the positive or negative charge position. The 'manifestation' can only be on the positive charge path, but recombining the two still gives the 'self-interference' pattern. Again that's a simplification - but perhaps still too complex to easily grasp.

LET SLEEPING LIONS LIE

They don't work well as symmetry and independent rotation are required, but we can make the basics work if ghost is lying down, belly facing Alice (or Bob). She can roll over at random, and also, as you identify, rotate her orientation, so when lying along the A-B axis both A and B see 50:50 light/dark. There are also intermediate angles on both planes (lying on her belly at 45 degrees) but as she's not a sphere or torus this 'distribution' can't give us the cosine curve! The other problem is that we also need a 'ghost' Ghost who can be rotated independently of the first. If we can't do that, then we'd need to be able to rotate the 'picture' of ghost (belly to back) by rotating the photons, which returns us to nonsense!

The problem using Lions is the same problem as using maths. We can only make it fully 'work' by assuming some physically nonsensical effect or other. Nature is simpler. Just consider the Bohm case of a central Stern-Gerlach 'splitter' sending identical spinning spheres in opposite directions on the spin axis, one then seen as the North pole the other the South (each can see HALF of the object reality!) But the pole orientations are able to be reversed incrementally by the detector EM field setting angle without affecting the spin (giving each observers subjective reality).

Understanding that is like riding a bike. Beyond human capability at first, then entirely intuitive once learned. You're definitely getting there!

Best wishes

Peter

"So it's moving around 3 different axes."

Bingo, Georgina. A vector in ordinary space is called a 3-vector, because it has three components describing direction and magnitude. Quantum mechanical functions in n-dimension Hilbert spaces, however, may or may not correspond to ordinary space. That's the crux of the foundational problem: because the quantum mechanics of discrete state spaces cannot map to ordinary space without assuming nonlocal influences, there is no escaping the conclusion that probability measures are fundamental to nature -- an attempt to "breathe in empty space," as Einstein put it. The classical model does not allow any space empty of the field.

I appreciate that the discussants here are trying to circumvent the conclusion with a simple model in ordinary space. That such can't be done, however, is what the Bell-Aspect result proves.

Thanks for nailing it down, Jonathan.

I had made a study of string theory long before I knew of Joy's measurement framework, and I always struggled with the idea of how a field theory can admit nonlocal measurement criteria.

If field influences are self-similar at every scale, however, there is an implied degree of freedom that obviates nonlocality. It was quite a revelation to me that -- as Joy describes -- the topology was lying right before our eyes all the time.

Stefan, Georgina.

To clarify. The propagation axis IS the spin axis. I didn't make it clear enough Stefan to completely depart from the fig 1 orientations. We now have two spheres, identical but propagating in opposing directions, so one 'North first', one South first. Any position ('charge') on the 'equator' (yes, perpendicular to the axis) then describes a helical path. Two opposite equatorial points then describe a TWIN helix. Observe a helix from ANY SIDE and you have a sine wave in 2D! (all as my 2012 essay).

The 'tumbling' model you refer Georgina (where also rotating 'pole over pole') is, as Tom agrees, the standard assumed model. Tom assumes I adopt that model, which is also the one Bell adopted. I DO NOT! Tom's correct that that model is what leads to the constraints of Bell's inequality (adapted from the 'Wigner-d'Espagnet' inequality as he identifies). So let's return to what I DO specify, which I show circumvents that limit; opposite propagation along a COMMON spin axis (so equatorial planes also parallel).

Stefan, Hopefully you now see the answer to your 'Bohmian set up' question as simple. Think of it as the detector electron "dominating" the measurement interaction ('momentum exchange') so there is a quanta of "energy", but it's spin direction has been modulated to the DETECTOR ELECTRON spin direction when re-emitted. That is a simple 'rotation' of the poles on the y and or z axis which CONSERVES the x axis 'spin'.

Now lets revert for a moment to the 'CHARGES' to consider the fundamentals of fractal helicity. Each CHARGE is itself a spinning sphere. That's what a 'spin/orbit' relation really is, as found experimentally ("hyperfine spin" as the Planck Inst. and Nano Optics links I posted). Joy may derive this mathematically, I certainly do so geometrically and empirically. But these two gauges are just two of a fractal sequence (as our planet orbits the sun as the sun orbits the galaxy, etc.) That is the underlying nature (of Godel's Fuzzy Logic, Chaos theory and Joy's 'infinity', but now not necessarily infinite).

Back to Bohm's magnets. We then simply have north poles going one way and the south going the other (or the SAME ways when setting are opposite), with EACH FINDING determined independently by A and B's setting, so producing the basic 'non-local' QM prediction. I'll derive the Cos^2 in another post, but first I point out the the 'entanglement' is the common AXIS, which gives a relationship between the two detectors angles (as vectors, so forming 'cones' in a spinning Bloch sphere).

A last point; If a blind observer touches the equator he's sure of energy but not of spin 'direction'. A Conversely at the pole he's certain of direction but 'energy' reduces to zero. That should be familiar as a classical Bayesian "probability distribution".

Peter

Dear Peter,

please reply to this post of mine for the sake of proving my understanding of your model to be correct or not.

Am i allowed to ask the few questions:

In the Bohm case epxeriment with both detector's EM field orientations beeing the same (north up), you imagine two particles flying in opposite directions on the spin axis. I deduce from that and from your posts below, that

"one then seen as the North pole the other the South (each can see HALF of the object reality!)"

means that only the north pole of particle A is seen by the one detector (as particle A comes towards it), only the south pole of particle B is seen by the other detector (not seeing the back of particle B, namely the north pole). Please tell me if i have understood this correctly or not.

If this would be correct, i cannot see in any way, why for particle A there should act the opposite force on it than for particle B. I think both particles should rather be deflected in the same direction, not in opposite directions. The reason for this is that the situation at one detector is identical at the other detector. What makes the difference?

It is generally possible to produce a local model of all the implications of this specific experiment (including relative angles like 90°, 180° and in between). The question for me left open is now, is it also possible to produce a local-REALISTIC model for this experiment. You claim to have done it, i want to understand it.

May i ask you to give me the needed answers?

Many thanks in advance

Stefan

Stefan, Georgina,

To complete the classical Cos^2 derivation; Envisage our spin 1 particle ('sphere') heading left to right lead by its North pole (spinning anticlockwise).

[Stefan, I forgot to mention that North ALWAYS spins anticlockwise as Georgina said. We can only see or exchange momentum with the spin direction FACING us].

Lying in wait is the detector field. A dense cloud of electron orientated as dictated by the setting dial. Now if you're not in a REALLY perceptive state skip this next bit. The photon' is not a 'particle' but a 'spread' wave('function') (Schrodinger sphere surface) interacting with MANY electrons. There is not ONE photon and ONE electron (they'd miss!) The detector may also be orientated in ANY direction wrt the approaching spin axis; upside down, sideways, i.e. with ALL degrees of freedom! But that'll be too much for some to rationalise so let's for now revert to the simplified case of two spinning spheres about to meet;

They meet at some tangent point, anywhere on the electron surface subject to it's orientation RELATIVE TO THE SPIN AXIS AND EQUATORIAL PLANE (actually 'causal wavefront tangent', but let's not confuse!). We now then have a POINT somewhere on Alice's electron's surface. We also have some other entirely INDEPENDENT point on Bob's electron.

Now the DFM's stunning geometrical extension of the cosine law; Draw the 'line' of latitude ('ring') on the electron surface. The speed of surface spin at the at latitude VARIES BY THE COSINE OF THE ANGLE FROM THE CENTRE OF THE SPHERE. Indeed there are TWO angles, one from the spin axis, the other from the equatorial plane, with inverse cos relationships! (Technically there are TWO spheres meeting, and I should say cos^2).

Now because Bob's angle relates to the same spin axis we can put BOTH angles into the same 'Bloch' sphere (forming 'cones' to the tangent point latitudes) and find a RELATIVE angle. That RELATIVE angle is the bit which we've never before found how to derive classically. Clearly a cosine^2 distribution emerges naturally (as the correspondence between a line and a circle). The CIRCLE is where Joy's 'continuous function and 'infinity' come from, but without requiring a metaphysical mathematical representation except as a 'good approximation'. I'm sure Joy's is excellent, but as Joy says; his maths is not also a 'theory'. The discrete field dynamic geometry is.

Thank you Georgina for your kind comments. You're one of very few so far who have seen the profoundly important 'new way of looking' at the 'familiar' truths of spin and randomness. Indeed it shows there is NO 'Chirality', just different observer orientations! I hope you enjoyed the 'eureka' moment. I fear only Stefan here is close but truly hope others will try rather than trust prior assumptions.

Do ask about anything unclear. Best wishes

Peter

Jonathan, "showing that the rudiments of geometry dictate the properties of space is difficult..."

Tom, "the quantum mechanics of discrete state spaces, cannot map to ordinary space without assuming nonlocal influences"

This is becoming an informative discussion. I find the Filipino plate dance (or using a wine glass) is intuitively more accessible than Dirac's belt, but not only because of our humanity. The dancer has easily recognizable points of articulation, the shoulder, elbow and wrist, from which to draw conclusion as to the transforms of continuous motion. What Dirac shows is that those points are themselves continuous, and can be arbitrarily chosen as an initial condition. Perhaps we want to assign a single point of reference, perhaps more, we could choose a 3-vector as coincidence of initial points of the dancer's skeletal articulation. For myself, this helps getting the geometric idea of the Hopf fibration.

"discrete state spaces", the key word here is the plural 'spaces'. Yet how can there be influence if there is nonlocality? Hence we call it 'entanglement'. So there must be some reality to space (and time, together) that conveys the necessary connectivity. jrc

Dear Peter,

thank you very much for your clarifications.

O.k., my picture was right, despite of the fact that the charge at the equatorial plane describes a helical path over time. I conclude out of that that both particle spheres turn around perpendicular to the spin axis (= propagation axis). I assume that the direction of this spinning movement could be anti-clockwise or clockwise, as long as both particles do their turnarounds in the same direction.

Another question: The experiment is surely made with electrons (at least i do not know about 'twin-atoms' for the Bohmian EPR experiment - sorry Georgina, i confused two different cases, when saying that the experiment can also be done with atoms).

Now the question: To compensate the electrons charge, one has to adopt a certain electrical field between the two poles of the magnet, otherwise one cannot deduce anything about spin from this experiment? Am i correct with this assumption or not?

"Stefan, Hopefully you now see the answer to your 'Bohmian set up' question as simple. Think of it as the detector electron "dominating" the measurement interaction ('momentum exchange') so there is a quanta of "energy", but it's spin direction has been modulated to the DETECTOR ELECTRON spin direction when re-emitted. That is a simple 'rotation' of the poles on the y and or z axis which CONSERVES the x axis 'spin'."

This is not entirely clear to me. Coincidentally i have replied to your post above (the lions issue with Georgina), and i remarked that in my opinion the conditions at both detectors are identical, as are the properties the particles themselves have (same spin orientations, same rotations around the propagation axis). So what is causing one particle to go one way, the other particle to go the opposite way?

Last but not least: I assume that in the magnetic field of the detectors, the particles (after the modulation you mentioned) are no more the same, but two new particles are generated and send further with the same velocity the original particles may have had. Is this correct or not?

Dear Peter, thanks for your reply. Please reply again to my questions. Until now, it was a lot to get my head round it in one go, but hopefully i can grasp the full picture upcoming.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Stefan,

I hope my answers below elucidate, but; Yes, one 'sees' N and one S. Then also No; the magnetic fields dictate electron SPIN direction, so as the spin finding is 'RELATIVE' (which Bell himself identified in "Bertleman's socks..") they will be found different if the setting is the same.

I derived the intermediate cos distribution below, but just ask if not clear. I also saw you posted some links to evaluate which I'll do the moment I can. I just spent some time with the comprehensive responses in the new string below.

Thank you for putting in the effort to understand. It's a shame most just assume they know without trying so live under misapprehensions, which is the same mistake QM mainstream makes, identified by Bell from Koestler's; 'The sleepwalkers';

"Contemporary progress in cosmology "...is made in spite of the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded... sleepwalking?." also;

"The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus." Speakable..P.170, and;

"The problem then is this: how exactly is the world to be divided into speakable apparatus...that we can talk about...and unspeakable quantum system that we cannot talk about? ...Now in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus." p.171

Peter

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

Exactly. Unless a pair of bits -- classical information bit or the analogous quantum qubit -- are independent of apparatus and detector settings, there is no way to have a local realistic theory that explains strong quantum correlations without a nonlocal model. That's what the Bell-Aspect result absolutely proves.

That is, only a coordinate free measure schema (Joy's) that incorporates a degree of freedom not found in the ordinary space of the Bell-Aspect (as well as your) result, breaks down the distinction between quantum and classical domains, to produce " ... a uniform description of micro and macro worlds."

Stefan, Pete, and everybody,

I would like to point out a blatant assumption in classical realism that is as much a problem as the defacto QM assumption that we cannot look into the quantum realm, ie: spin.

Long ago in early reading I accepted (naively) the dictum that 'spin' did not physically mean rotation. Well... okay, so what is it? In QM it is a probable outcome of orientation, which could be related to physical rotation. But in classical mechanics, spin is generally assumed as being a physical state of rotation and it is simply assumed that rotation can only occur physically as only a single axial phenomenon. This is visibly true of the wheel, or any macroscopic device.

If we accept the classical 'given' that all regions of space are suffused with a field, and that there are innumerable loci of discrete, overlapping or superposed fields, then what we are speaking of is 'fields of energy'. So who are we to say that energy must only rotate around one single axial in any discrete, self-limiting field volume? To the contrary, would it not be more likely that energy would seek an extant state of light velocity, and would have no preferred direction in space over time? It would then be a special case for energy to seek light velocity in a linear propagation as electromagnetic radiation, and a general case for a condensate of energy to assume an ideally spherical volume which would be geometrically constrained to exhibit an orthogonal axial probability. In general then, it is only our measurement of axial orientation that results in a single spin state. jrc

"'discrete state spaces', the key word here is the plural 'spaces'. Yet how can there be influence if there is nonlocality? Hence we call it 'entanglement'. So there must be some reality to space (and time, together) that conveys the necessary connectivity. jrc"

John R, you bet. As Einstein averred, "All physics is local."

Dear Peter,

I would propose to continue in the thread below opened by me. I have written down my remaining questions in the thread below and also in the one thread up the below one, if you would reply below would be fine. Sorry for having opened some different threads the last days, it all was due to inattention.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Tom,

You need to put more effort in to understand the propositions I've presented. You're still a very long way off. I'll help all I can. You also imposed your own meaning above changing Bells. He did not mean what you suggested, only that a logically consistent ('uniform') description of quantum phenomena is possible (in terms of his 'Beables' real 'be-able' qualities).

Stefan,

Agreed. I'll also try to find those links.

Peter

Jonathan said, "The thing is; Joy is simply citing facts of geometry and topology that are indisputable realities, and asserting that they explain the Physics we observe. However; showing that the rudiments of geometry dictate the properties of space is difficult, in a world where the majority of physicists feel that the Physics is determining the properties of space, rather than the other way around."

IMHO, one of the most profound aspects of Joy Christian's Joy Christian's classical local realistic model is that space has unique spinor properties. It is a solution that should not be ignored. Speaking of Dirac, what he discovered way back in the 1920's supports this notion as Tom alludes to that it was right in front of us all this time.

Stefan,

"if nothing (no force) is transfered, the electron could not change its direction." Exactly correct. It doesn't if it hits precisely at the pole. That's the 50:50, 90 degree, or 'crossover' point on the graph.

But you don't need to 'draw two lines' to get each 'cone'. Just one line for each detector, to ANYWHERE on the different latitudes. There are only TWO 'cones'. The spin of the sphere creates the 'ring' of each cone (see Figure 3). The Circumference there is the line of latitude.

Simply; The surface speed at that latitude is what produces the Orbital Angular Momentum energy. the CHANGE in energy with latitude in non-linear; changing by the COSINE of the angle with the common spin axis/equatorial plane.

"RELATIVE angle? (between which lines?)"

Angle theta is as shown in the Fig, between the 'faces' of the two cones (which have a common centreline on the propagation axis) each of which represents one 'setting angle'. i.e. If A chooses 90^o and B chooses 170^o the critical 'DIFFERENCE' angle is 80^o. Now WHEREVER say 80^o happens to fall between the poles, the surface spin energy difference varies by the Cos^2 of the angle. (familiarise yourself with Cosines, which derive from lines and circles, then just extend the geometry to planes and spheres).

We need to extend the model a little to understand the full dynamic as it works whatever orientation Alice or Bob and the equipment start at using all degrees of freedom! We also have the inverse relationship depending if we want 100% probability of spin direction or of energy, where we then get 0% of the OTHER! We can look from the 'side', and say 'spin' UP is really the equator going 'UP', but then if we rotate the poles (or go round the other side) we find the spin going DOWN! But at the poles it's doing neither!! There is a fundamental simplicity about a spinning sphere we haven't previously understood which previous methods didn't expose.

In fundamental terms the answer does NOT 'disprove QM', just the belief in spooks, and it does NOT give complete determinism, just to the next gauge down ('decoding' much Shannon channel 'noise'), and though the DFM uses absolute time it does NOT falsify the SR postulates, only showing the 'add on' original interpretation is only mathematical and does not model physical processes (and that's where we'll probably loose Tom to convictions again. Sorry Tom) but it DOES entirely allow QM and SR to converge, as the re-emission by the electron after the absorption is at c in the new electron rest frame EACH TIME.

John,

Brilliant! Wheels within wheels and 'ever decreasing circles' of all orientations. (PS. I forgot to mention the CMB helical anisotropy a few gauges above galaxies, derived in my cyclic evolution essay). And I agree that in terms of 'findings' observer orientation and interaction is EVERYTHING! As my 2012 essay showed as things translate as well as rotate this is all helical 'paths' at all scales (or double helices in the case of 'life'/DNA). Mind you I don't strictly agree the 'linear propagation' except where it's a spin axis as the whole universe is non-linear.

I've described how path integrals also emerge naturally, and the inner' red and green 'charges' in my fig 1 represent the "quantum angular momentum" which is simply OAM at the next gauge. I hope you also had a nice eureka moment there. I also hope you may perhaps 'link arms' with the DFM but run with that in parallel yourself!

best wishes

Peter

Lawrence,

I owe an apology both to you and to myself. I was preparing for a vacation at the time you posted this, and regretted that I was not able to engage your interesting and important argument. I made a promise to myself to get back to it, and forgot.

It's exactly the case that homotopically continuous functions require two distinct operations that prevents the analytical continuation from the initial condition, of a single function over the simply connected manifold of a unitary space.

Your comparison of the two-slit experiment to a homotopy-equivalent topology of genus 2 reduced to a torus of genus 1 is absolutely brilliant, in my opinion. I had never heard it expressed that way before. It's pinpoint accurate.

For continuous function physics on a topology of genus 0, analysis on the simply connected 3-sphere continues from every point to any other set of points, because all points are homotopy equivalent.

I would love to discuss the black hole case with you.

All best,

Tom

"You need to put more effort in to understand the propositions I've presented."

I would, if they didn't conflict with the physics we already know.

Since the universe is Fine-Tuned, then we have good reason to post the following message somewhere on the planet earth, in big letters.

Dear Creator of the Universe,

How are you. Hope you're fine. We're OK. Please communicate with us.

Love and respect,

Humanity

P.S. Can you tell us how to build a hyperdrive?