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.

Dear Jason,

i do not know what strange entity visitations you experienced and in what circumstances/context. But if it were in the context of esoteric/occult practices, i recommend to not further engage in those practices.

The whole armory of esoteric/occult disciplines seem to me to be a huge swindle, with sometimes dangerous consequences for psychical and physical sanity.

We live in the age of exaggerated narcissism on all levels of society. Self-optimation and omnipotence have full prosperity, as well as self-orchestration. Books like "the secret" sold millions of copies. What do you think why the people buy this? Because their narcissism tells them that it should be true. What is the global effect of such books? Millions of people think they can wish Millions of money (besides other desires). The apparent money system seems to reflect that they are right - that there is a mechanism to receive money out of nothing. As outlined in my actual essay, our money system seems to prove such assumptions. But the price for this is high. It's self-delusion and destruction of others lifes.

Summary: The self-delusional forces increase on this planet. May your strange entity visitations have been an encounter of the narcissim's field of force or not (that has nothing to do with you being narcissistic or not), i recommend to not invoke unknown forces. Some of them obviously have big delusional power when you psychically entangle with them, may they be natural or supernatural forces.

Concerning the fine-tuning aspects: In my essay for the contest "is reality digital or analog" i mentioned, that in a finite universe (big bang), our universe could have processed only about 10 exp 123 bit-flips. A protein consisting of 100 amino-acids (there are 20 types of amino acids) as we know it from earthly live-forms is one out of 10 exp 130 possible combinations of the 20 types (there could be 10 exp 130 different proteins consisting of respectivly 100 amino-acids). So the whole universe hasn't had the capacity to calculate them since the big bang.

Arguments against this are, that other combinations as well do the job. Or that there was no big bang and the universe is infinite. I don't believe in the latter. All empirical data shows that our reality is driven directly or indirectly by limits/differences. A concept of infinity is against all we know today about animated and unanimated reality. Maybe infinite "structures" exist, but i bet, surely not in the physical realm, but maybe in the metaphysical realm.

I hope you can make some sense out of it all.

Regards,

Stefan

Peter thank you for replying. I'm going to complain though. The experiment you are talking about uses the polarization of the light and so is using a photon as the entangled quantum particle. The macroscopic version of that is to be using many, many photons. The two lions are merely the means to set up the entanglement of the two "independent' photon streams.

The two observers can be very far apart where they view the photon data. If they are opposite each other with the lions in the middle it would take twice as long for them to signal each other than for them to receive data that is leaving the surface of the lions. Bear in mind it is the photons that are the entangled particles under consideration not the lions. Once the sensory data s.d.-lion has left the surface of the lion it is independent of the a-lion. Any communication between a-lions is not going to alter the sensory data already spreading through the environment.Thinking about lion communication is the equivalent of a problem with the production of entangled quantum particles, not communication between particles already entangled.

In a macroscopic example where there are many photons rather than just one it will be hard to get the two streams identical but the lions could be equally illuminated with the same intensity and wavelengths of photons. Each encoding one of a pair of non mirror symmetric lions.

I like your explanation of the poles. Also I understand, Quote "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!]" Thanks for that explanation.It makes it very easy to visualize.

Peter said,Quote "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."

I've got two streams of photons. Changing how they are looked at will change what is seen. The stances of the lions mean that knowledge is incomplete if its body colour is known its belly colour is uncertain and vice versa. To overcome that I suppose the lions must be on a glass platform. So there will be some sensory data from the underside of the glass in each stream. Now instead of using sunglasses (which haven't done the trick) The observer Alice will have to

change her body position so that her head is held low to the ground and looking slightly up (would that work?) if she is able to intercept the light rays that have come from the underside of the glass the colour of her lion manifestation changes colour as she is seeing the part that was obscured. There has to be the assumption by the investigator that the lions are just of one colour. Correlation is transformed by doing that change of position because she is now seeing the underside of her lion, its belly if its standing and its back if its resting and Bob is looking at the top side. If Alice's lion manifestation is standing Alice is looking at its belly. Bob is also looking at his lions belly manifestation. If Alice's lion is resting she is looking at its back manifestation and Bobs lion also appears standing and he is looking at its back manifestation. Alices' lion manifestation colour has changed and Bob's lion manifestation colour is now complementary rather than matching.

Let me try this, modifying your paragraph--> Now the statistician analyzing 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 matching back-back and belly-belly from the same pair of lions! He assumes from the initial runs that there's one set of pale lion sensory data one set of dark lion sensory data as Alice and Bob always get opposite colours. So when he's told that Alice can 'flip'her colour (by changing her veiwing position), he assumes that means she must change Bob's lion manifestation as well!

But couldn't individual runs be conducted and each analysed in turn for the different angles??? Then it would be clear that the correlation has gone from matching colours to different colours. And we know that's because it has gone from back-belly and belly-back pairs to back-back to belly-belly pairs.Or vice versa if the two lions start with the same stance.

Peter I often find your explanations confusing. Your explaining your version of the analogy to me has helped me understand what you are describing. I can easily visualize a piebald lion walking backwards,a photon is not so easy. The type of explanations that I need. knowing very little about quantum physics, would probably be considered patronizingly simple/ naive by those who already have a good grasp of whats going on.

Jason,

"Ghostliness" is around us all the time. I mean that literally, because "all the time" has to accommodate an infinite number of vectors in infinite directions.

Locally, though, the 3-vector (we measure in 3 dimensions) has only the choice of two directions -- past or future.

The New Scientist article I referenced was preceded in 2011 by a Jeff Tollaksen talk at the FQXi sponsored conference on the nature of time.

Shown on p.6 is a pair of atoms. One decays (emits a photon) in 1 minute. The other decays in 1 hour. The slide reads: "There was no difference between them in the beginning, but they behave differently later." This is not exactly true, though -- they behave exactly the same at times recorded (relatively speaking) in the past and in the future.

So while we conventionally deem the quantum wave function a 1-state vector (past to future, p.8), Tollaksen's 2-state vector (p. 11) comports with the classical time-symmetric function, where the local state is described by 2 wave functions, one forward and one backward in time.

The attachment is from my essay of 2012, illustrating the lack of boundary between 2-vector wave functions. In the quantum domain and in the classical domain, there is no ghostly action at a distance. The action is all local, all real, all the time.Attachment #1: Pages_from_Ray_The_Perfect_First_Quest.pdf

Georgina,

In truth they only THINK they know the quantum world better than you. A 'naive' view often sees through false assumptions. But not 'too' naive! (after AE). Following a complex description needs harmonic brainwave coupling!

You ask; "couldn't individual runs be conducted and each analysed in turn for the different angles?" Exactly. Tricky to do, but it's what Aspect and Weihs 'time resolved pair' experiments did. But you know how experiments work in schools; if the results don't match predictions you 'massage' them till they fit so you pass the exam! Aspect only had to discard 99.999% of his data and the rest fitted averagely well (see Caroline's analysis) so got his PhD. Weighs just subtracted all the 'rotations' assuming they were a systemic 'analyser' effect.

A 'stream' of mass data ('weak measurement') can mislead because it requires statisticians to make assumptions about pairs, and they make the wrong one. That's what produces apparent "weird quantum non-locality". If they realised each camera (or change of viewing position) can independently affect the findings then the issue is solved.

The problem is that there are now tens of thousands of quantum physicists absolutely convinced that only a 'probabilistic' explanation of quantum weirdness is possible. It's the same situation as SR; The simplest of answers (the same one in fact; detector particles modulate propagation speed to local detector c), may be staring us in the face (literally spread across the surface of our lenses!!) but if we have long embedded belief in some other 'religion' (doctrine) we will never recognise the truth of how nature works as it's unfamiliar.

I'm glad you've now glimpsed the logic. But be aware, it's tricky for the human mind to hold on to (one too many levels of abstraction) so you need to embed it before it goes way again! Best of luck.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

Stefan,

Fig 1 simply showed quantum spin 1/2 classically producible diagrammatically. We need twin helical charge paths to apply in 4D so best to revert to simple 'Polarity' (of a spinning sphere = N and S poles).

In that case both North poles face the same way (at random, but say left) so both South poles right. The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser. If the A,B 'analyser' ('filter') settings are the same, the particles then go in OPPOSITE directions. Reversing just ONE of the analysers, so A,B are opposite, means that both particles will then deflect the SAME way.

Alice and Bob can thus both reverse their OWN findings independently, always producing the quantum correlatons. And they can also do so 'by degree'.

Now the magical part exorcising the spooks; They can change the findings a way RELATED to each other because of the common spin axis. The DFM coupling dynamic shows that if A chooses 30^o and B 120^o (relative 90^o), then the TOTAL distribution between A and B is 50:50.

The Bell inequality is violated perfectly by the Cos^2 of the RELATIVE setting angles by extending the cosine rule to bivectors in the case of rotating spheres (Fig 3). The two vectors are related ('entangled') by the common spin axis (and so also common 'equatorial plane'). Hopf fibration and Lie Algebra can be used for those into manipulation of ancient Arabic symbols but I introduce the concept 'Bloch Cones' to describe the 'ring of latitude' circumference which gives the OAM exchanged ('measurement') at any tangent point.

I hope that's clearer. I know that's a lot to get your head round in one go (I keep forgetting bits myself!) but it 'is what it is' and it seems to work. HOWEVER - back to the red and green charges; They are smaller fractal versions of the SAME spin case so retain uncertainty at the 'next gauge down'. If fact Einstein never demanded 'determinism' only that A could not change B's finding 'at-a-distance'. As Bohr's 'observer' (detector) DOES affect the results we end up near Copenhagen (Malmo's nice) so we can say BOTH were virtually correct (as was Bell) and can now join up.

Sorry, I say "now", but what I really mean is perhaps by 2020? (If we arrive there safely!) I genuinely fear some may want to throw themselves off the Malmo-Copenhagen or Zeeland bridges if it's correct. What do you think?

Best wishes

Peter

I have read (can't remember where or when) that it isn't possible to actually divide a photon but as there is an equal probability of it carrying on at a half silvered mirror as being reflected. So it can be considered to have taken both paths and upon detection by one or other observer the wave function collapses into just one particle. The detectors though always find the complementary photons.

Which has given me a thought, that might be terribly naive but, there is something different about the photon when it arrives at the half silvered mirror. Picturing it as a wave - if a peak arrives just before the mirror and then a trough it might skip through the clear side but if a trough arrives just before the mirror then the first part of the next peak will hit the mirror and the photon would be reflected. So the two imagined half photons are out of sync with each other. It would explain why it is difficult to check the result after each run as there is only one photon found never two halves.

I don't know how that relates to various spins. Though from that I can understand why for such a tiny particle the two observers will always find opposites. However with that naive explanation, agreeing with your (Peter's) premise, how one observer alters their perspective should not alter what the other observer sees upon receiving their particle. Trouble with my two lions s.d. is that correlation alters from complementary to matching which seems at odds with the experimental results implying there are still complementary pairs and so spooky action. Unless there are two sets of results for each observer still showing same proportions of each kind but unbeknownst to the investigator there has been a switch from complementary pairs to matching pairs. But that seems too simple and surely has been considered and rejected as an explanation.

I have taken on board what you said about requiring identical non mirror symmetric particles which makes me think I require just one of the lions, Ghost, but suspended in space. Which gets surreal. Observer Alice is inverted in comparison to Bob and on the left hand side of the lion and Bob is on the right hand side from the lions perspective. Alice sees lion manifestation with legs in the air exposing a dark belly. Bob sees a standing lion manifestation with a pale flank. The lion is rotated 180 degrees their views are reversed. So Alice and Bob always have complementary pairs of views of the lions colour. But if Alice moves she can see the flank of the upside down lion manifestation and Bob is seeing the flank of his and as it is the same lion source they both see pale and if the lion is rotated 180 degrees both see dark. I think I'm homing in but as you said it is lacking, especially the nuances of the different angles. Though I suppose as the angle of view is altered there will come a point where it is more of one colour than the other and if there are only two allowed outcomes pale or dark it must be said to have flipped colour.

If it isn't actually possible to get pairs of results for single photons after each run of a single photon but amalgamations of results have to be used and assumptions made I feel a bit cheated. Why there should still be the same proportion of each colour found makes sense without spookiness.

For the different angles of polarization there seems to be different explanations from different. Peter you relate it to spins and poles Joy Christian seems to me to be relating it to distribution of different photons in quaternion space. It kind of makes sense to me on several levels. In the macroscopic illustration it is clear that the photons are spreading out through space over time and in my opinion it is happening in space over time not space-time as it is an Object reality. What the particles are doing unseen. Also that as the polarization is altered different sub sets of all of the photons in the experiment are intercepted and the different subsets for each polarization relate to different proportions of "pale/dark"

Is the distribution in quaternion space related to spins IE are the two points of view compatible?

Dear Peter,

first of all, thank you very much for your reply. Step by Step i understand your approach better now.

For the moment, i am reading the Thompson paper "A chaotic Ball". So give me time until tomorrow to reply in detail. I have to think about it all overnight.

Just a few remarks:

The first part of the Bohmian experiment is easy to interpret in terms of local reality. If both detector's magnetic fields built a common angle of 0° or 180°, the pairs are perfectly (anti)-correlated. This could be explained by the source sending out only pairs whose overall spin is zero and the gross spin is always anti-correlated, but in arbitrary directions (as is assumed in QM).

The harder part to explain are the intermediate angles between 0° and 180°.

I summarize what i assume to have understood until now:

"In that case both North poles face the same way (at random, but say left) so both South poles right. The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser. If the A,B 'analyser' ('filter') settings are the same, the particles then go in OPPOSITE directions. Reversing just ONE of the analysers, so A,B are opposite, means that both particles will then deflect the SAME way."

O.k., every 'particle' has both poles, the equatorial plane of them is the plane in the common propagation axis. The boundary between the both poles (between the both colors green and red), so to speak the equatorial plane of the two particles, are parallel to the equatorial plane of the earth (or my writing desk)? Have i understood this correctly?

Now let's say our two magnets (analysers) have their north poles above and their south poles below. What causes the left particle to go in one direction, the right particle to go in the opposite direction? What forces will do this? There is an identical field orientation for both magnets, both particle's magnetic fields are the same, as are the ones of the magnets. O.k., their OAM may point into opposite directions wrt the magnets. Also the north pole of the left particle enters the magnet first, the south pole of the right particle first.

But the latter scenario implies that one must measure both particles at the same time. This is not neccessary.

Maybe i am allowed to give you two resources from the internet. Could i ask you to tell me what are the wrong assumptions made by the authors? That would be fine, so we can probably save us much exchange and discussions here.

Here are the two sources:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

http://everything2.com/title/Stern-Gerlach+experiment

Thank you very much for your time investing in my questions!!!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Stephan,Peter,

Stephan wrote "the equatorial plane of them is the plane in the common propagation axis." How is that known?

Peter you wrote-Quote,"Fig 1 simply showed quantum spin 1/2 classically producible diagrammatically. We need twin helical charge paths to apply in 4D so best to revert to simple 'Polarity' (of a spinning sphere = N and S poles).

In that case both North poles face the same way (at random, but say left) so both South poles right. The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser. "End Quote.

How does that motion reconcile with electromagnetic wave propagation? Having got to grips with the spinning sphere that "from its own perspective" always spins in the same direction but from observer perspective at each pole is spinning in opposite directions.Its cool. But is the motion your describing too simple, with North pole left, South pole right or vice versa and propagating along the equatorial plane so rolling with a pole each side.

Now instead let it flip end over end and imagine it coming to wards you. It is now alternating clockwise and anticlockwise rotation without changing its own spin. Which is a really cool motion. That doesn't seem related to what you are describing.If the equatorial plane is also turning it gives alternating top-bottom rotation so from forward view alternating clockwise anticlockwise; and then side to side and giving alternating LHS anticlockwise RHS clockwise, LHS clockwise RHS anticlockwise. The motion is now starting to look something like an electromagnetic wave.

What do you think?

Dear Peter, Georgina,

a minor correction - for describing it as i understood it during writing, but wrote it down false - of my new thread's post above:

The boundary between the both poles (between the both colors green and red) is not parallel, but perpendicular to the earth's 'equatorial plane'. Means, my writing desk has to be tilted - to the left or to the right - until it's perpendicular with the floor of my room.

Anyways, after Georgina's post here, i am no more sure how to imagine the term 'clockwise' Peter mentioned by saying

"The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser."

If i am sitting in front of the propagation axis, to my left is an analyser (magnet), to my right there is another one. In the middle there is the particle source. So clockwise means for me the particle to the right, imagined in 2D as a circle, spins clockwise ('rolling' clockwise towards the right analyser). The particle to the left, as i understood it, spins also clockwise, but simply flys in the other direction as the right particle does. So both, from my perspective, spin clockwise, as Peter indicated in his essay on page 4 by writing

"and sent out particles with both poles orientated randomly left or right, but both the same way round".

Clarifications are welcome!

Best wishes

Stefan

Stephan, All,

the terms clockwise and anticlockwise are relative to the perspective.A Southern hemisphere clockwise is a Northern hemisphere anticlockwise as the "viewers are each inverted relative to the other. Peter's insight.

South view is opposite of a North. So really it should be required that when clockwise or anticlockwise are specified the perspective of the viewer also be given. That is why when viewing the spin flip motion from outside,flip coming North pole forwards then South pole forwards there is a change from anticlockwise rotation to clockwise but only from the perspective of the viewer who is looking along the line of travel with the particle approaching, which is orthogonal to the top/bottom flipping and the lateral flipping, lets call it rolling to avoid confusion.

For the particle the spin rotation is not changing from clockwise to anticlockwise or vice versa (depending on whether we consider the particle to have a North hemisphere or South hemisphere viewpoint.)

To get the electromagnetic wave motion it isn't top/bottom flip then lateral flip but spin(clockwise/anticlockwise), flip( top/bottom) and roll(lateral,left/right)simultaneously.

Imagine the North pole at the top as you look at it the hemisphere around it is spinning anticlockwise, lets say; looking along the line of propagation of the wave/particle coming towards you. The North pole comes forward and to the viewers left lets say (it could go to the right but that would give the opposite polarization) so midway in its top bottom flip it is now spinning at 90 degrees to its starting position on the left hand side ignoring for a moment the forwards motion it has just made for the sake of visualizing its current location. As the downwards flip continues the roll motion continues on the oblique angle taking the North pole to the bottom. It then continues to roll and flip as it spins taking the North pole to the right hand side and from there back up to the top. Meanwhile of course the South pole is taking its compulsory journey. Again from the outside perspective South pole flips up and right then up to top carrying on the same oblique route then down left and back to bottom. Spinning (clockwise /anticlockwise) flipping (top to bottom bottom to top) and rolling lateral rotation RHS to LHS, LHS to RHS (outside viewers perspective looking along line of propagation wave/particle coming towards.)

Now we have a motion that will permit light speed travel. With, from outside perspective, top-bottom and side-side alternating clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. Which could disrupt the surrounding environment including that ubiquitous resistance said to give particles mass.It is tunneling. The "resistance" can not resist the alternating "swirling" all around motion so there is no (or very, very little inertia.) Hence a light speed massless particle.

How can we test the hypothesis that that is how the photon wave-particle is moving? replicate the motion in a prototype model or vehicle and see how fast it will go. Who's interested?

(I take it back Peter, I can visualize a photon.)

Clarification. When I wrote "South pole flips up and right then up to top carrying on the same oblique route then down left and back to bottom. Spinning (clockwise /anticlockwise).............)" I don't mean the South pole is changing its spin but that it could be going clockwise or anticlockwise depending on perspective, and convention.That was a confusing statement to jot in there, sorry.It would have been better to just say clockwise which is the convention being used for the South pole external viewer looking along line of propagation.

Dear Georgina,

these clockwise/anticlockwise labels are in fact only conventional. Peter could have been writing

"The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (anticlockwise) to the right polariser."

as well as what he really wrote

"The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser."

It's only the language that describes a common point of view, so we can communicate what goes on in an experiment.

For example, when i say to you

"my cirle (clock) i have drawn on the paper with a 'clockwise' arrow at the 12 suddenly runs anti-clockwise"

i have to add that i have just reverted the front side of the paper to be the back side. Then the arrow points 'anti-clockwise' (a thin paper with a big edding, so you can see the drawing from the other side of the paper).

Similarily, without rotating the paper, i can gain the same result by walking around it and look at its back side (same result).

Simulating an electromagnetic light ray by projecting some axis of rotation of a ball into sinus-like curves is not a suprising thing.

I am mainly interested in understanding Peter's case of the Bohmian experiment and struggled with some terminology to properly imagine what he has in mind.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Hi Stephen Weckback,

I am just stunned at the implications of what it means that our universe *is* fine-tuned. I am surprised that the scientific community doesn't announce this discovery as the most shocking revelation of our time. It could mean one of two things, or both. It could mean,

There is an Intelligent Designer,

or, it could mean that our universe is part of an even greater multiverse,

or it could mean that both are true.

It is a shame that there are so many atheist physicists who are polarized cynical because the implication of these facts are truly amazing. The fact that some people bump into grey aliens, UFO's or have other encounters with strange lifeforms should fill us with awe and excitement. SETI is this fearful attempt to spy on other intelligent life. But if scientists were really bold, they would beam the message into space that we know that you guys are out there, please stop by for a visit.

Stefan, apologies for spelling your name wrong earlier.

I am interesting in visualizing what Peter is describing in my own time. Had to get the hang of visualizing the spin/s moving. It then seemed natural to seek the motion that must be occurring to get the double perpendicular sinusoidal light waves. That correlation of motion lets me know, according to the chosen convention for describing it, where/when there is spin that is anticlockwise and clockwise. Seems to me the motion visualized over time has implications for interpretation of the experimental results.

Looking at the direction of wave propagation with the wave coming straight ahead the spin changes from anticlockwise to clockwise, that's not convention, I'm not just calling it clockwise when its still turning the same way. Its objectively happened from that given perspective because the sphere has been inverted. (Though from the perspective of the North pole the whole sphere is moving anticlockwise.) Likewise looking from one side there is swapping of anticlockwise and clockwise spin but each hemisphere retains the same spin whatever position it is in.

I think that is really fascinating and wonderful to behold. Also very interesting to me is that it isn't an electo-wave and a magnetic wave is is frequently depicted but magnetic-magnetic waves generating the electric field because the magnetic field is moving. That may be old hat to you but its new to me, so interesting.

Peter has found something very profound that should alter how we think about particle spins. That is they can't be just clockwise or just anticlockwise.Its always relative to the viewpoint of the observer or detector!! I must compare Peter's description of the particles motion to see if it is compatible but just differently described OR if it is different how his model of the motion has the better explanatory power.If using an unconventional materialist interpretation to explain the results of an experiment using photons it has to also fit what we know about electromagnetic waves it seems to me.If it doesn't I'll have to say nice try but that isn't happening. Unless the experiment is so unnatural that it is changing the way a photon naturally behaves and so is irrelevant to our understanding of nature. (At present I don't think that is the case.)

Also from my point of view it also answers how up and down magnetic detectors can intercept the different/ spins as well as the left right ones, which is something you asked Peter about.

I will not trouble you further.

  • [deleted]

Georgina & all, if you will kindly forgive my intrusion:

" ... according to the chosen convention for describing it, where/when there is spin that is anticlockwise and clockwise."

That's a problem that Joy Christian's quantum measurement framework has solved, with an extra degree of freedom analogous to the 3-dimension phenomenon inherent in the Dirac belt trick, or the Filipino plate dance. At what point (where?) and at what time (when?) can the belt be said to have transformed from one state of motion to the other, or the plate in the dancer's hand? The motion is continuous; the pair of states is continuous. And yet because the states are a pair, a quantum bit, they have 2 discrete values. As fundamental quantum mechanics informs us, a pair of values can be correlated or anti-correlated; correlation is the coincidence of 2 spins, anti-correlation is the opposite of coincidence. Quantum theory allows that the values and their correlations are entirely random for each measure, while classical (i.e., continuous function) physics allows a continuum of correlated values measured from an initial condition, without random coincidences.

The problem with classical physics is that to solve the equations, which are ordinary differential or partial differential equations, one must define boundary conditions. The equations can be solved exactly, yet not satisfactorily, because there are too many solutions. On the other hand, the equations of quantum theory can be solved satisfactorily though not exactly. Indeterminism is built into the model.

"The motion is now starting to look something like an electromagnetic wave."

You got it, sister. :-) Classical theories are based in continuous wave phenomena, and continuous wave phenomena evolve deterministically; correlated and anticorrelated points of the wave are not discrete objects. It requires an extra degree of freedom imparted by an extradimensional framework, however, to show that mathematically -- and it takes a continuous measurement correlation function experimentally (catching measured values 'on the fly').

Joy Christian has met the challenge mathematically -- quantum correlations are points of the 3-sphere Hopf fibration that precisely correspond to locally real measures in 2-sphere classical space. Think of how sine wave amplitudes are smoothly correlated with their troughs; if this mathematically smooth and continuous function is shown to underly all basic physics, then there is no true randomness and cherished ideas of conventional quantum theory (probabilism, entanglement, nonlocality, wave function collapse) have to be discarded.

The big question is, where does the extra degree of freedom come from? It's beautifully built into the topology of the 3-sphere -- where every point of origin is a point at infinity. It takes a little study and training in topology to appreciate the implications, though to make a long story longer, the simple point at infinity is such that while dividing by zero is an arithmetic no-no, the 3-sphere structure defines n/0 = oo. Because this feature is also available to real analysis via the real projective line, the 3-sphere topological framework projects as well to the curved manifold of the 2-sphere.

So getting back to the where and the when of spin characteristics, if the qubit state is continuous, there is no where or when that one of the pair's state transforms into the other -- although the transformation (as with the Dirac trick or the Filipino dance) is completely described and determined by the initial condition of a measurement. And this goes for the initial condition of all measured quantum correlations, whether one is measuring spin (which in the quantum world does not at any rate actually correspond to classical angular direction and momentum) or any other quantum characteristic.

Well said Tom,

Your post as Anonymous sums up the salient features of Joy Christian's model nicely. I think that the existence of an extra-dimensional framework is essential to understanding the quantum correlations problem, and that Joy goes to the core of the issue. Peter's approach seems mainly to deal with the phenomenology, which may be more like the conventional approach to Physics in some ways, but JC points out that the assumption of an underlying reality with a topological twist provides an elegant answer why some of those intriguing phenomena occur in the first place.

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.

Regards,

Jonathan