Why Quantum?

"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."

Dear Peter,

o.k., when the two spheres meet, they touch each other at some tangential point. There is some current flowing round the equatorial plane, but not only there, but also - in the same direction - at all the latitudes of the sphere. By touching that electron at an arbitrary latitude, a momentum in the range from nothing to maximum is passed by. Nothing at the pole, maximum at the equatorial plane... But this cannot be, because if nothing (no force) is transfered, the electron could not change its direction.

"The speed of surface spin at the at latitude VARIES BY THE COSINE OF THE ANGLE FROM THE CENTRE OF THE SPHERE."

I is clear for me that the speed from a ring with bigger latitude is bigger than the speed from a ring with lesser latitude. Means, the bigger the circumference on which the charge is looping, the bigger the transfered force. But you say 'cosine of the angle from the centre of the sphere'. Can one understand this in the sense that one has to draw two lines from the centre of the sphere to the opposite points of that specific latitude?

Let me continue: the particle to the left was touched at latitude 'e'. The particle to the right was touched at latitude 'f'. We now can draw the respective latitudes into a Bloch sphere and draw the lines to the opposite ends of the respective latitudes. There are now 6 lines that intersect each other at the centre of the sphere:

the propagation axis (spin axis), the equatorial axis, two lines for cone 'e' and two lines for cone 'f'. Is this correct or not?

Now, how have i to read the RELATIVE angle? (between which lines?)

Where do the two spheres at each side of the experiment (Bob and Alice) have to touch to get anti-correlation, correlation, and random - means - uncorrelated pairs of data?

Peter, very much thanks for your replies, i hope you can and do answer my questions. Your approach seems to be very interesting.

Best wishes,

Stefan

"'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?

Dear Peter,

thank you again for your reply.

As i now understand it: when i need to draw just one line for each detector, then neccessarily the cones must be indentical at each side. In your fig. 3 the cones are such, that the two lines are perpendicular to each other. I had in mind what you said earlier, that one cone is for Alice, the other for Bob. So the two lines cannot always be perpendicular to each other. Because, say, at the left side of your fig. 3 (let's associate this side with what happens at the left detector) the left particle could be touched exactly at the pole. For this case the circumference (line of latitude) must shrink to zero. But what happens here should not influence what happens at the other detector, means the other cone in fig. 3 could well be the same and should not shrink.

For the case that at the left detector there is maximum angular momentum transfered, the circumference (line of latitude) must be at the maximum, means must be identical with the equatorial plane. This would automatically also rise the other cone's line of latitude to the maximum. Again, both setting angles are now identical again, which contradicts the independence of Alice and Bob.

So, how to draw just two lines to represent to different cones with two different lines of latitude? Or are the two lines perpendicular to each other the frame of reference for your further considerations?

I trust your cosine^2 and sine^2 functions. I only want to know how to systematically read out from fig. 3 the circumstances at Bob's and Alice's sides for EVERY case. Have the drawings to be changed for every run of the experiment? Or is it so, that the two axis standing perpendicular to each other automatically lead to the conclusion that the 'poles' are not a single point at the sphere, but are pole caps (like you suggest in your fig. 3)?

Can one read out of fig. 3 that for each one of two particles a different line of latitude has been touched?

I think that should it be for tonight.

Thanks again for replying!

Stefan