Why Quantum?

There is a major problem with the discussions on this forum: the fact that the universe has no fundamental geometry of "space". "Space" merely exists as a relationship between other information; it has no existence of its own. "Space" is a derived concept.

Though distance between things can be measured using an appropriate "measuring stick", "space" itself cannot be measured. "Space" has no natural co-ordinates or reference points; "space" has no natural parameters or numbers associated with it. "Space" can have no influence whatsoever on the things it seems to contain because "space" itself contains absolutely no information.

So "space" information is not fundamental information: "space" information seemingly derives from relationship between more fundamental-level information about reality, like momentum. Any information about "space" is relationship information carried by things that actually do exist in reality, like particles.

"Space" is not a fundamental entity that carries information and relationships. "Space" SEEMS to have geometric properties because "space" is DERIVED FROM properties and relationships.

Cheers,

Lorraine

John, I'm glad you think the approach has potential.I do hope this can be related to Maxwell's equations as you suggest.

All, I've been "watching" three different mulitcoloured wave forms over time, but they are just for 1 location on the particle. It occurred to me that there isn't one spin(roll) at any given time and position in space of the particle but it will also depend upon how, the angle at which, the particle is intercepted, which is very promising. The particle only has one definite spin if a set location on the particle is taken as the reference point and its measurement taken to apply to the whole particle. Remember it is spinning both clockwise and anticlockwise to a hypothetical outside observer, which depending upon orientation of observer relative to the particle (also meaning the orientation of the particle relative to the observer.)

I did realize that I wasn't being consistent when I gave my earlier descriptions, the ones pertaining to the gimbals. My old spin should be roll, my old flip should be pitch and my old roll should be yaw. Probably not important at this time but want to be consistent and not confusing - this is from the head on perspective wave approaching.

I read John's post re how wavelength or quantum is parceled out by the source. It makes sense. The greater the energy of the source the the more the released particle flips in a given time,giving shorter wavelength. It seems serendipitous that in gimbal terminology that is the greater its pitch, pitch being the name for (my) flip but also frequency when using musical terminology.

That Anonymous Aug. 14, 2014 @ 00:32 GMT was me, Georgina

All,

Topologically, parallelized spheres are free of gimbal-lock, and it's nice to see more interest in that aspect of topology by whatever name we call the Rose. Several orientations can be convergent. In aviation, pitch is nose up or down, roll is rotation around the line of flight, and if you are flying across the wind it will drag the vertical stabilizer off the center line of flight and is referred to as yaw. Perhaps we could adopt that scheme as a memory aid in referring to orientational attitudes.

The goal of course, is to realize what is physically happening that causes a specific energy quantity (h) to be consistently emitted per wavelength in a continuous repetition, whether each successive wavelength is identical (coherent light, as in Lasers) or as a mixed bag. It occurred to me in this recent exchange that we have been thinking along conventional lines when stating that only a single orientation is observable. But we already have two, a wave-like form and a particle form. If several orientations can converge, they can also diverge. In time, we will find the measure of space.

Despite the ad hoc nature of QM, or actually because of it, Quantum rules do seem to be prevalent. If we can discover why the Quantum is an end result itself, it could possibly make QM rational. jrc

Lorraine, I don't know to which discussion you are referring. I am discussing orientation of an object from its "own perspective" and from an outside observers perspective who has a reference frame aligned with the forward propagation of the object head on. So its about the would be "perceived" relationship of the object to its own motion (if it were capable of awareness) and the relationship of the observer to the perceived motion of the object. Nowhere has the coordinates of space been called upon, only relative orientations such as clockwise/anticlockwise, left and right, forwards and backwards of object either compared to itself or compared to the position and orientation of the observer.I have mentioned describing it in space and just said I think spherical space with a time dimension would be easier than flat space. Which is considering the spatial representation of the aforementioned relationships not saying in any way that space is imposing those relationships.

Dear Peter,

as always, thank you very much for the effort in explaining your model.

I have a problem with your statement that

"Now we've established B is always opposite spin/OAM to A"

When measuring a particle pair at relative angles of 90°, one measures - for one of the particles - along one plane and for the other particle along the remaining plane. So to speak, at one side of the experimental setup there is a measurement relative to the polar axis (P), at the other side relative to the equatorial plane (E). Lets define these measurement axis' such, that at one side of the experimental setup, the spin is measured in the plane of my computer monitor P (up/down). At the other side of the experimental setup the spin is measured perpendicular to the plane of my computer monitor E (in/out).

The experimental results for this scenario give the following 4 possible outputs:

1. (up/in)

2. (down/out)

3. (up/out)

4. (down/in)

These experimental results are the same, independent of the direction of the magnets' field lines in the E plane (despite of having the south pole of the magnet in front of me or the north pole of the magnet in front of me).

We can label the outputs 1 and 2 as perfect correlation, the outputs 3 and 4 as perfect anti-correlation. This would indicate that either only 1 and 2 could be measured in such an experiment, or only 3 and 4. Regardless of how we define the correlations, this holds also for other definitions of correlations from these 4 possibilities. In real experiments however, in the case of a relative angle of 90°, there can occur all 4 possible states, and, as tested in real experiments, each output occurs with 25% probability (surely this result also holds for all other scenarios where the two measurement axis are perpendicular to each other, say for 37,7° and 127,7°).

For the reasons described above, i do not understand that in our case of a relative angle of 90°

"Now we've established B is always opposite spin/OAM to A"

This would indicate, that for the 90° case, for every tested pair of particles we should observe an (anti-)correlation of their outcomes ('anti' in reference to wether the second magnets' field orientation points in or out of my computer displays' plane).

Note that if the relative angle is not 90°, but say, 10°, the perfect correlations are already destroyed, because in this case the experimental outputs deliver not only (up/down) and (down/up) results, but also (up/up) and (down/down) results.

Let's return to the second section above. Let's assume a 'counterfactual' experiment where the anti-correlations which i mentioned above are obtained - by turning the "in/out"-magnet by 180°. Under the exact *same* conditions (except the 180° turn of the magnet), for a local deterministic theory one should obtain the *inverse* results (anti-correlation) of our 90° experiment. How to discriminate this local deterministic assumption from the QM-assumption of randomness? The only way is to specify the physical processes that do lead to the different 4 output cases listed above.

So, now i am again at the point of my previous post, asking for a full description of the physical processes going on in our Bohmian experiment in the case of 90°. You gave a theoretical description - an algorithm which compresses the known data. But the point is, any local realistic model must not only be local, but also realistic. You know that Hans de Raedt has constructed algorithms which can simulate the QM outputs. But these are only algorithms, not real particles which fly in different directions and therefore are spacelike separated from each other. To clear the whole confusion, you should tell us the physical processes that are exibited on the two spacelike separated particles in the 90° case. In other words, you have to explain the occurrence of all of the 4 possibilities listed above and their respective probabilities (25%) in terms of physical processes.

I'm looking forward for further discussions of the whole issue - for me, it's the most interesting and exciting thread discussion i've had over years here.

Thank you very much for your effort!

Thanks also to the other participiants in this discussion!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Yes agreed John. I was thinking of a ship but the plane analogy works fine.If we keep the plane in mind it will be easy to get the correct names for the different orientations of rotation.Glad you find it interesting. I want a set of gimbals to play with don't you : )

Hi Georgina,

I guess I was more specifically referring to the following, which seem to indicate a belief in the primary reality of "space":

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 03:21 GMT:

"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."

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 12:36 GMT:

"Thanks for nailing it down, Jonathan."

John R. Cox replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 17:51 GMT:

"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 ..."

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2014 @ 13:45 GMT:

"Joy Christian's topological framework restores the missing degree of freedom such that 3-spheres (4 dimension objects) are parallelized, rather than the axes of common 3 dimension axes in ordinary space. Ultimately, this framework opens the door to a completely local realistic theory of physics, i.e., one that precisely maps elements of quantum configuration space to elements of physical space."

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine,I see what you mean. I think its just that that topology allows an explanation of whats happening but not fully the why. I don't think its the topology of space that is the complete answer but rather the type of particle and the energy and momentum given to the particle by its source is dictating behaviour. And Tom says the particle is exhibiting a continuous function. In the case of the photon moving in such a way as to create the familiar em wave form. That's what I have been doing, explaining how I think the photon particle generates the EM wave. The behaviour can then be put into a representation of space and time that illustrates what is happening. The particle can be imagined in a 3D space with a time dimension allowing its motion to be described. However it isn't staying in that space it is also moving through space, so into a new sphere with time dimension where once again its motion can be described and so on which I think will give paralellised 3 spheres (IE spheres with a time dimension.)that Joy is talking about. Of course Joy is the one who can best explain his work but if it works as I have described it makes sense to me. If it isn't I'll admit I don't understand what he is doing-and I'll just carry on doing my own thing.

" ... 'space' is DERIVED FROM properties and relationships."

True. Which is why space has no physical existence independent of spacetime.

jc,

I don't understand what that means. Can you elucidate?

My own meaning was that in trying to understand the dynamic geometrical derivation of the primary 'non-local' findings and intermediate distribution, the delta lambda is a secondary consideration which could act as a 'red herring' if the only focus.

'Wavelengths' of course change in the helical as well as 2D representation as well as adopting ellipticity, and the 'spin/orbit coupling' (de Broglie type) relation between gauges is included and also important, but was there some other specific aspect you were thinking of? And if so what do you see as it's importance?

Have you understood my geometric rationalisations to Stefan? They're very tricky to fully describe in blog posts.

Thanks

Peter

Only an unmodulated (time invariant) wave, of infinite duration, can have a single frequency or wavelength. Since quantums of energy, like photons, are not infinite in duration, they cannot be a single frequency. Hence, de Broglie's "association" of a single frequency with a quantum, is not a mathematical description. It is merely an associated "label". The actual mathematical description is based on a Fourier Transform, that has an entire "spectrum" of frequencies.

Distributions of multiple quantum, are part of reality, and are inherently probabilistic; different subsets of quantum may be scattered differently when passing through double slits, for example. The Fourier Transforms describe these distributions. The "internals" of the Transforms (wave-functions) have no one-to-one correspondence with any reality pertaining to an individual quantum. Only the amplitude "spectrum", of the complete transform, corresponds to reality, specifically to the probability distributions of sets of quanta.

The reason this works, is because a Fourier Transform can be thought of as a filter bank; a set of tuned detectors. Consequently, by simply measuring the amplitude (counting quanta) that each detector detects, one obtains a probability distribution.

Rob McEachern

Stefan,

I omitted the condition; "at the same setting" for; "opposite spin/OAM." I'm sorry that confused. Of course when the 'field direction' is reversed, the SAME spin and or OAM is found, (crossing over at 90o.)

I agree the physical mechanism is key. I already had to abstract too much. But we must depart from Bohm's assumptions which are too 'particulate' ('particles' don't; 'pass through' a slit!). I use contemporary optics applications, including a Schrödinger (S) Sphere (from the central splitter), his non-linear (NLS) equation, 'coherent forward scattering' (CFS) and Huygens Construction. Those give us an almost planar "causal wavefront" carrying the signal to A and B magnetic fields (and aligned spinning electrons).

Now for the 'visualisation' I perversely also invoke 'invisibility optics'!! or rather the proof it gives that the 'optical axis' (apparent source position) is NOT on the 'wavefront normal', i.e. not orthogonal to the sphere surface (my 2013 "Intelligent Bit" essay gives the proof and links). That fact implies elliptical polarisation (which is modelled as ellipticity of the helical progression(s) of any point on the (S) sphere surface).

SO; We're using light; as a 'plane' wave, with different scale surface 'shimmy's' ('spins') and some degree of ellipticity (picked up because Schrödinger sphere's don't have smooth surfaces, they get 'dented' by moving propagation media en route). This (parallel at A and B but never quite perfectly) plane then interacts with the electrons of each field (more than one, but considering one will do). The field may have ANY x,y,z orientation, subject to both settings AND orientation of the detector, but always with a known A,B relationship on ONE axis. However in Bohm's thought (and most real) experiments this is the ONLY 1st order delta theta!).

Now each electron absorbs the wave energy (is 'charged') takes charge of it, and re-emits the energy (in almost not time at all as n=1) but now with the ELECTRONS spin direction! (again as recently shown experimentally, see fig below). In the 'twin photomultiplier' set up the new emission meets BOTH but will only ever trigger one.

You already understand how the cosine distribution emerges from the 'tangent point' longitude, so we can forget the cones and move on. Dynamically we can now take either of the "setting angles" and set it as "zero" anywhere (randomly!) on the equatorial (longitude) or polar (latitude) planes of a new Block sphere), then subtend the other relative angle from that. This is the 'simple' diagrammatic method, recognising that the sphere itself is (y,z) 'featureless'. It reverts to the case you referred to with TWO (electron) axes in the sphere. Bearing in mind the negative cos values, what we find is;

1. At exactly opposite settings the findings are identical (apart from a residual 2nd order uncertainty).

2. At exactly the same settings the findings are opposite (apart from ditto).

3. At 90 degrees from the polar plane the spin direction is undecidable.

4. At 90 degrees from the equatorial plane the OAM energy transferred ('measured') reduces to ~zero.

5. The intermediate 'value change' is non linear, slow near 0o and 180o, fast near the 'flip' at 90o. i.e. for the 22.2o between 67.5o and 90o we have cos = 0.0761, but between 0o and 22.5o we have 0.3827 (and the reciprocal for the orthogonal value relationship).

I'm glad you enjoy and (hope you still!) understand this. I expected few to at this stage, but it's all only geometry with no mysterious 'properties of space' invoked. It helps me to develop slightly comprehensible descriptions without needing the full discrete field model ontology each time! jc has the right concept with 'spin' propagation at all scales and in all directions. The 2nd fig below is a simple(ish!) 'fractal' spin/orbit case.

Best wishes

PeterAttachment #1: Polarisation_flip_pt.5.7087figure1.jpgAttachment #2: FIG_1.jpg

Robert,

I agree. But I took jc's comment to refer more to how the energy in say a 3 wave 'group' is conserved on compression (Doppler Blue shift) to a shorter wavelength, which is then valid. Might you be arguing a little 'across' each other?

I find the energy to be fixed in the wavenumber (for given amplitudes), which seems an important measure in quantum optics.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, in my local science museum, there is an apparatus equivalent to Laithwaite's that involves a bicycle wheel and spindle, and a chair that is free to rotate. A participant in the experiment sits in the chair, spins the wheel and takes hold of both ends of the spindle. With the slightest effort, changing the orientation of the spindle's axis spins the participant in the chair. Kids get a big kick out of it.

The explanation for the effect, however, is simple and concerns only Newton's laws of motion. Briefly, energy conservation -- the energy input to Laithwaite's device, or in spinning the bicycle wheel -- accounts for the inertial effects.

Tom,

I think most know the description that far, even a little further. But that's rather like saying gravity is 'simple'. It's 'true' but only superficially. What nobody has yet successfully rationalised is the detailed mechanism of precisely 'HOW' the effect counters the gravitational potential. (Including in terms of particles and classical or quantum mechanics).

That's what upset the guardians of doctrine so much when Laithwaite pointed out it was anomalous in theoretical terms. It was, and they had no answer! Despite all the explanations and dismissals it still is at the fundamental level, unless you've discovered something new?

Best wishes

Peter

". But that's rather like saying gravity is 'simple'. "

No it isn't. There is no theory of quantum gravity. There is, however, a theory of inertia, explained in Newton's laws of motion. The Laithwaite demonstration is just another physical correspondence between Newton's theory and its predictions.

"It's 'true' but only superficially."

No, the theoretical description is mathematically complete. There is nothing to add or subtract. If there were any more to it, Laithwaite would have discovered 'anti-gravity.' The fact is, though, that energy put into the device equals the energy output.

"What nobody has yet successfully rationalised is the detailed mechanism of precisely 'HOW' the effect counters the gravitational potential. (Including in terms of particles and classical or quantum mechanics)."

I am sure plenty of people have successfully rationalized it. Just add a few ad hoc hypotheses, and if those don't work, add a few more. Isn't that what you've been doing?

"That's what upset the guardians of doctrine so much when Laithwaite pointed out it was anomalous in theoretical terms."

Where's the anomaly? By what theory?

"It was, and they had no answer! Despite all the explanations and dismissals it still is at the fundamental level, unless you've discovered something new?"

No, I say the experiment is entirely consistent with the known classical laws of motion, whose equations have exact solutions.

Where's the anomaly?

Tom,

You suggest mathematics can replace physical descriptions. I disagree. So did Laithwaite. It only supplements or 'stands in' until we understand what's happening physically. i.e. my explanation to Stefan is a real physical one. The maths of QM have had your "exact solutions" for decades, but they can only tell us as much what's happening as the metaphysical art of manipulating ancient Arabic symbols to predict it's effects. (what DO they call that?)

If you've resolved the issue Laithwaite identified at last then do tell. It couldn't be done within doctrine (beyond some maths). It may be worth a Nobel prize!

"Just add a few ad hoc hypotheses, and if those don't work, add a few more. Isn't that what you've been doing?"

Nothing can be further from the truth. An ontological construction is coherent. Many feel that if THEY can't understand some rationale then NOBODY can! It's a common and well known erroneous assumption, making living in the dark tolerable.

Would you like to truly understand how I suggest QM's predictions are fully reproduced with physical geometrical evolution? It works so requires falsification. Only possible with a comprehension you don't yet posses. I'm very happy to help anybody overcome their misapprehensions.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, what is the anomaly explained by Laithwaite's 'physical description' that is not explained in Newton's mathematical description?