Why Quantum?

John,

When I said:" then at regular time intervals plotting the new location calculated from the 3 vectors," I take it back, plot all 3 vectors around the 4th and from that it might be possible to see how to calculate the resultant motion. The resultant outcome can be observed from the marked gimbaled object and compared to the 3 motion vectors to check the calculation method. It is definitely possible to have it moving in 3 different planes simultaneously -its only measuring it that is the problem. Mathematically it may be far easier to describe using quaternion algebra in which rotations fit easily and which uses spherical space with time dimension.

Are these extra degrees of freedom a hidden variable? Quote "a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism. The existence of indeterminacy for some measurements is a characteristic of prevalent interpretations of quantum mechanics; moreover, bounds for indeterminacy can be expressed in a quantitative form by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.", Wikipedia, local hidden variable theory. As the photon has a regular motion generating regular magnetic and electric fields, from its spin(pitch vector) and oscillating magnetic field (roll vector) and also polarization (yaw vector) then knowing how that motion is generated it should be possible to calculate each of the 3 vector components. Overcoming the problem of indeterminacy of the unmeasured values.

Georgina,

Let me digest that a bit, I think its a right track. Maxwell is incontrovertible and would allow greater degrees of freedom than Lorentz, and some nifty things happen with the phase shift of electric field and magnetic field, as velocity increases. I don't agree with the notion that it is only the emitter and receiver that effect the outcome. The electromagnetic inductance would be mutual in reactance between the finite physical form of each wavelength and the receiver's own electric-magnetic domain. The end result might be reducible to a simplified OAM model like Pete's, but that doesn't tell us how the emitter parcels out a single Quantum per wavelength.

The impossibility of observing more than a single orientation is in that end result, however, and I think that the four variables of orientation would be worthwhile in exploring vis-à-vis Maxwell and the Transition Zone of near field in both emitter and receiver. jrc

"The end result might be reducible to a simplified OAM model like Pete's, but that doesn't tell us how the emitter parcels out a single Quantum per wavelength."

Your second statement tells us why the first statement is untrue beyond doubt. Any measurement dependent on detector settings in ordinary space is analogous to squaring the circle with compass and straightedge.

The phenomenon of gimbal lock in ordinary space explains why there is not and cannot be a simple geometric model of complete rotations in four dimensional spacetime.

The result of axes in 3 dimensions locked parallel into a 2 dimension configuration robs the system of a degree of freedom that would assure completeness.

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.

"that doesn't tell us how the emitter parcels out a single Quantum per wavelength."

The "emitter" does not parcel out that wavelength. The emitter only parceled out the quantum. de Broglie parceled out the "wavelength"; he simply slapped it onto the quantum, like a label, in order to enable the usage of Fourier Transform based superpositions. Consequently, it is possible to manipulate the labels, rather than the underlying reality, as a form of "language" that describes that reality. But the labels are not part of that "underlying" reality.

That is why only the final probability, not the non-existent intermediate things, like wave-functions, exists as an observable; everything other than that final probability, is merely a "label", used to keep track of reality, not reality per se.

Rob McEachern

Tom, yep. You caught that. jrc

Rob,

I prefer broccoli, with melted cheese. I say the wavelength is time dependent on the change of energy state in the emitter. jrc

Rob,

If one assumes that "reality per se" is fundamentally probabilistic, there are plenty of ways, yours included, to obtain a probabilistic result from the quantum phenomena.

If reality, per se or otherwise, is not fundamentally probabilistic, there is only the first and final probability 1.0 that the continuous wave function encodes correlated observables.

"I say the wavelength is time dependent on the change of energy state in the emitter."

Right on, John R. A time dependent measure -- i.e., a measure continuous from the initial condition -- ensures a deterministic evolution of the wave state, and therefore a deterministic correlation of particle states.

Tom,

"The end result might be reducible to a simplified OAM model like Pete's, but that doesn't tell us how the emitter parcels out a single Quantum per wavelength." (jc)

You; "Your second statement tells us why the first statement is untrue beyond doubt. Any measurement dependent on detector settings in ordinary space is analogous to squaring the circle with compass and straightedge."

A little time spent understanding the hypothesis would enable valid comment and perhaps falsification. Firstly the OAM is 3D, and in two scale 'gauges' (as Fig 1). Secondly the model is not 'analogous' to; 'squaring the circle' It IS doing so, but with planes and sphere, by recognising the cosine non-linearity as the correspondence between line and circle, but with some interesting unseen characteristics and effects which I'm about to better explain to Stefan below.

It is those effects which reproduce apparent 'non-locality' and the perfect cosine intermediate distribution while circumventing Bell's theorem by not making the same 'starting assumption' of random magnetic axis. (lines 13-14 Bertlemann's socks, p146 'Speakable...' Vol 1, 1987.

As far as I can tell the actual wavelength is not significant in the dynamic, and the re-emitted quanta certainly has a wavenumber more than unity.

Best wishes

Peter

Stefan,

"For 90° the spin correlation of the particle pairs is lost, a particle is then touched at a pole. Does this imply that the other (twin) particle is also touched at a pole?"

No. They're entirely independent giving a relative theta. The below will explain;

"If not, what are the reasons for the observed result, namely that at 90° the spin correlations are lost?"

At A=0o and B=90o, If measured from the pole then the spin clockwise/CCW will be indecidable as 90o is at the equator. Conversely if measured from the equator the OAM energy will be zero (at the pole). We must also consider the y and z axis freedoms, so although we can represent diagrammatically in 2D we must use the cosine rule in 3D. That's tricky to visualise but we can do it in two ways;

Now we've established B is always opposite spin/OAM to A, so we have; +A - B. Now let's say A's cone (Fig 2) is one side of our Bloch sphere and B's is the other, as one is CW and one CCW.

Now draw a circle and "square it" (as Tom identifies) with horizontal AND vertical lines passing through each point on the circumference where radius angles at say 22.5o increments intersect. Now write in the + and - cosine value (from the tables) of each angle against each corresponding horizontal and vertical line.

Now add the cosine value of whatever angle Alice selects to the orthogonal cosine value of Bob's angle, if the relative angle with Bob's is 90o the total value will always add up to ZERO.

The simpler method to understand, ('apparently' trivial) is simply to strike the relative angle from either the polar axis OR the equatorial plane. At 90o, the relevant (direction or OAM) value will clearly always be indecidable. In this case, to account for the other degrees of freedom we simply do the same anywhere around the sphere. (But there's no point in also 'drawing' those as each diagram would look identical!)

As the relative angle changes around the circumference the cosine values change non linearly, reading off the values and plotting them onto the graph gives the cosine curve. But remember pi/2! as we're producing the Cos2 curve as we're doing it in 3D. (You may simply square each value, giving the slightly flatter curve, and may also notice the helical analogy in the 3D case).

To capture the complete rationale would take a far longer description (or animation) but I hope you can see how the relative angle reproduces the intermediate cosine distribution as well as the QM 'non-locality' predictions. I identified to Tom above what and where the different 'assumption' to QM's was. Do you have a copy of 'Speakable...?'

I'm working on some figures to help. I'll catch up with your immediate above post and track down those links you gave if I get time (I'm off yacht racing next week).

Best wishes

Peter

Peter Jackson says of his own DFM;

"As far as I can tell the actual wavelength is not significant in the dynamic,"

That's the problem with it. jrc

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 : )