Why Quantum?

Thomas Ray

"Why does Tom object to your sound reasoning?"

Because sound reasoning belongs to Aristotle and medieval ideas of science. Modern science is based in correspondence between abstract theory and physical result.

[deleted]

Tom,

what do you mean when you state that "Particles are the eyes of a material that knows whether to eject an electron or not. "?

And in what sense are categories of information like mass or charge or wavelength of light "anthropomorphic" i.e. having human characteristics?

I think you have misread what I said. I was trying to say that "red" is a more advanced categorization of light wavelength information, that could only be available to complex organisms with the physical ability to categorize it with e.g. specialized eye cones.

Hi John (M),

re space: I agree with you that space cannot emerge from geometric principles. There is no such thing as these platonic geometric principles.

So I think that what we call "space" must be due to some sort of universe-wide law-of-nature interrelationship network between some type of information carried by all particles. This network of information relationships must be what leads to apparent geometric properties of "space", because no gravitons have been found.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine Ford

Above post was from me

Thomas Ray

"what do you mean when you state that 'Particles are the eyes of a material that knows whether to eject an electron or not. '?"

Because they are subsystems of the material, just as cones are subsystems of the eyes which are subsystems of the body. A living organism is a corporation of cooperating organs and cells.

"And in what sense are categories of information like mass or charge or wavelength of light 'anthropomorphic' i.e. having human characteristics?"

I didn't say that. Mass, charge and wavelength are measured properties of matter independent of the system in which these values are input. The system is dynamic, cooperative, and affected by the value of these variable inputs -- the parameters of the system.

"I think you have misread what I said. I was trying to say that 'red' is a more advanced categorization of light wavelength information, that could only be available to complex organisms with the physical ability to categorize it with e.g. specialized eye cones."

Understood. That isn't true, however. As I said, "red" is what we call our perception of a particular value of the wavelength of visible light in a given interval of the spectrum. Physically, though, "red" is the value reflected to our eyes' rods and cones dependent on the physical conditions that cause the light to be what we call red -- it isn't fundamental.

pjackson

Tom,

I suggest we can combine sound reasoning with your 'correspondence of theory and findings' in a version of John's bottom up approach, in which motion is properly recognised as a RELATIVE concept so always needs a datum STATE (Ko) of some REAL virial system's centre-of-MASS frame. That provides a proper definition of 0.

i.e. the LOCAL speed of light within Earth's inertial system is wrt EARTH, NOT Jupiter!

The only real difference with the common SR interpretation is that the 'infinite' distance over which light does speed c approaching a body is reduced to a LOCAL domain limit. Einstein did after all say SR did not have unlimited domain! i.e:

You and I have an adjacent planet each; Earth 1 (E1) and Earth 2 (E2), each complete with atmospheres and ionosphere's. One of us accelerates our system (E1) towards a distant light source. We both still find the light doing c on it's arrival. Now we have two possible rationales;

1) That by moving towards the source E1 instantly changed the speed of ALL light between the source and EI to c wrt E1. hmmm ..or;

2) That by moving towards the source the speed of light changed ON ARRIVAL AND INTERACTION with the local E1 system (so also Doppler shifting).

In both cases the field equations give the correct answer, and the mechanism corresponds with findings. I suggest however that while option 1) is contrary to 'sound reasoning' (which you have agreed to), option 2), which includes a local discrete 'field' or inertial frame 2 is not.

Exactly the same process works at all scales, as John suggests; from a single particle up. The domain limits simply match the mass scale. The 'transition zone' was well defined by Maxwell, between his near and far field terms.

The SR postulates survive but the paradoxes and infinity are exchanged for the 'local reality' he sought all his life. The 'DFM' of my essays elucidates.

Best wishes

Peter

John Merryman

Eckard,

People are complicated. While actions might be straight forward, the reasoning behind them is usually complex.

Tom,

"Modern science is based in correspondence between abstract theory and physical result."

And when they don't match, modern science assumes some new force of nature must exist, because the theory cannot be wrong.

Lorraine,

There is the old adage that the best place to hide something is out in the open. Space is space. Its properties are that it's neutral and infinite.

Human logic is a function of being able to make distinctions and judgements, even if nature is not always so cooperative. We can say red is red and blue is blue, even if they are just different ends of the same spectrum. Similarly, we should be able to make the distinction between space and that which occupies it, even if on the level of physical properties, the distinction can get blurry.

Knowledge is a building process and so we take the previous generations hard earned lessons and build our own structures of learning on them, but sometimes they make necessary conceptual shortcuts, which we then take for granted and build around them, until the patches can no longer serve further progress, then we go back and fix that underlaying operating system.

There are alot of points I keep making, such as that a dimensionless point is no more real than a dimensionless apple, because anything multiplied by zero is zero. Yet it is a handy mapping concept, but trying to say it is somehow foundational to reality is operating from that top down platonic realm of ideal forms. Basically there is a bunch of this clutter in the academic closets and it needs to be swept out. My long term hope is that physics has gone so far off into the realm of conceptual fantasy land, that the eventual blowback will really force a major house cleaning.

So I do see all that multiverses, inflationary, blocktime, Big Bang nonsense as having a very practical use. Just not one those promoting it care to consider.

Regards,

John M

Amrit Sorli

It is an utter mistake to compare universe and life with man-made machines which are ruled by second law of thermodynamics. Quantum vacuum is not made out of "quanta". The only physical property of quantum vacuum is its density which generates gravity. In quantum vacuum information and energy transfers are immediate, time has only a mathematical existence. In quantum vacuum there is always NOW.Attachment #1: 1_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum.pdf Attachment #2: 1_Relativistic_energy_and_mass_originate.pdf

Fred Diether

Hi Amrit,

You might be interested in my essay as it gives a perfect explanation of why the energy density or "pressure" is lower for matter.

Best,

Fred

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

I apologize for hurting the feeling of all those who are included in my reproach to be narrow minded. I consider Heraclit's, Karl Popper's, and Claude Shannon's opinion correct: The future is open to be steered in principle. Is this too easy?

Does it contradict to any solid experimental result?

I share Elizabeth Blackburn's distrust towards scientists who perform studies in order to intentionally look for something. Maybe, there is no Susy at all? Endless speculations are rarely fertile.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

" ... when they don't match, modern science assumes some new force of nature must exist."

John M, it's only you who believes that data that don't fit a particular theory (but that don't falsify the theory) renders the theory falsified. That's not the way science works.

John Merryman

Tom,

Yes, there could be some new, undiscovered property, but that possibility is only one of the options. When the theory has so far required at least three major additions to the properties of nature; inflation, dark matter and dark energy, an objective observer might think something has been deeply overlooked in the theory. Now it's on to multiverses. Does some flicker of skepticism ever occur to you?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"When the theory has so far required at least three major additions to the properties of nature; inflation, dark matter and dark energy, an objective observer might think something has been deeply overlooked in the theory. "

Then we have different ideas of what "objective observer" means. I don't find the term equivalent to "blind skeptic." Inflation is an empirical fact. Dark energy and dark matter are extensions of the theory to fit the data; they are neither ad hoc assumptions nor contradictory of the theory.

"Now it's on to multiverses. Does some flicker of skepticism ever occur to you?"

Not at all. Hawking is reputed to have said that Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum theory is "trivially true." I agree. It's only a matter of classical probability (and perhaps contradictory of conventional quantum probability, which I will risk saying I think can be formally proven).

John Merryman

Tom,

Inflation is an empirical fact?

Even Paul Steinhardt, one of its originators, has been one of its most vocal critics.

That sets a pretty low bar for empirical facts. Consider that to devout Christians, Jesus' virgin birth and ascension to heaven on the third day are empirical facts.

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

John M,

Tom referred to conventional (exotic) probability which can be negative, larger than one or even complex. Being an EE I am familiar with also fictitiously generalized electrical resistance. While Dirac's anti-matter hypothesis has been considered experimentally confirmed except for SUSY, we are not alone with our skepticism. Look also for Regina Nuzzo on "the curse of p value" in Nature 506, 150-152, February 13, 2014.

I think Espen Haug is not as wrong as it seems to be when he explains "Why so Negative to Negative Probabilities?" by asking "What is the probability of the expected being neither expected nor unexpected?"

Tom will never grasp Popper's fundamental distinction between the open reality which is neither expected nor unexpected and the expected according to models. As you quoted: The map is not the territory. Spacetime is just a model, and it is based on the untenable philosophy of Parmenides.

Eckard

Gordon Watson

RE:

Peter Jackson [via "replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT"]: I hope you'll give the short summary a very careful read and rigorous criticism.

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B.

Peter (Jackson),

I'd be pleased if you'd check the wording of your second paragraph and post it here (unchanged if you wish) for critique/discussion.

As it's written, it makes no sense to me.

Gordon

John Merryman

Eckard,

Speculation is not only normal to the cognitive thought process, but inherent to it. We constantly have to distill and organize enormous amounts of information into patterns which fit together in a useful way. This often involves making connections which might be tenuous or circumstantial, yet still provide a useful pattern. A star map only makes sense from our particular location, but it is generally unchanging. Often these concepts gain social and cultural power and become as set in the public consciousness as a star map. The conceptual fallacy physics makes is basically what Plato made, with his ideal forms, in that they consider patterns which are residual as foundational. When this chaotic, dynamic reality is distilled down to the most unchanging forms, measurements and patterns, these are not the sources from which that reality originally rose, but simply what is left when you eliminate all that might be ambiguous. It would be like reducing a body to its skeleton and thinking you have the seed from which it came. Then they try reconstituting it with all sorts of wild ideas. Tom quoted Hawking as saying multiworlds are "trivially true," yet depending on the standards applied, ie, the level of triviality, virtually anything conceivable could be considered true. Facts become whatever the majority of people believe, until overwhelming evidence comes along to convince them otherwise.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

John M, you are confusing the theory of inflation with the measured expansion of the universe.

[deleted]

Gordon,

"I'd be pleased if you'd check the wording of your second paragraph and post it here (unchanged if you wish) for critique/discussion. ...As it's written, it makes no sense to me."

(Ref PJ Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:33: "I hope you'll give the short summary a very careful read and rigorous criticism." Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. ) Delighted;

"Bohm's Gedanken experiment described a pair of particles, one spin 'up', one 'down'. On reaching distant separated Stern-Gerlach magnets if 'A' deflects up, 'B' goes down, strangely not evenly distributed but giving two 'bunches' on the screens. If magnet A is rotated; the particle deflects down. The particle at B then MUST go up. Therein is the problem. If magnet A is reversed at the last moment, how can B know without "spooky action at a distance"?

I confess it is overly 'condensed'. A diagram of Bohm's thought experiment would help, simply a central source splitting and sending 'entangled' particles in opposite directions to (Bob and Alice's) 'rotatable angle' magnets which deflect them. At identical angles we find opposite deflection (or 'particle spin'). At 'opposite' angles, we find identical deflection (spin) direction. But that gives the big issue; Reversing magnet A at the last moment DICTATES particle B's deflection/ spin state! !

How can 'B' instantly know A's setting, and which 'way up' it must be when its a light year away?! That's QM's 'spooky' non-locality. (The cause of the non-linear 'bunched' distribution of deflections is a related but separate issue).

I then show how BOTH issues are logically resolved by using a different 'starting assumption' to Bell. He assumed multiple 'random' (but each pair 'opposite') spin axes for the particles. The DFM schema is based on optics Huygens construction and the NLS equation; Effectively 'dipoles' propagating on the spin axis so describing twin helical paths (a single helix, torus or sphere propagating axially works fine for 'polarity'). The interaction with the detectors EM field electrons is then dictated by the detector setting, so each detector can 'flip' the spin. The key is that N/S spin POLES are entirely random.

100% of Aspects (assumed 'anomalous') data is then predicted (he had to discarded almost all of it). Statistically based analysis of multiple events can't distinguish pairs and uses the wrong assumption. In the DFM schema A can change setting and B is free to find either UP or DOWN entirely at random.

That does take a little getting your head around at first. Did you understand how the intermediate cos2 distribution naturally emerged from the angular momentum exchange ('measurement')?

If anyone else is struggling with it do just ask. Grasping the model before 2020 puts you well ahead of the game! Conceptually it may help to think of the distribution of spin speed with changing latitude on the surface of Earth.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Gordon,

The above post was me. I must stop composing on-line!

I'D STRUGGLED TO FIND YOUR POST (IT WAS IN THE NEXT STRING DOWN) SO I'M PUTTING A MARKER HERE WITH SOME THICK FELT TIP TO AID NAVIGATION.

Peter

Gordon Watson

Thanks Peter,

Critique follows re this:

"If magnet A is rotated; the particle deflects down. The particle at B then MUST go up. Therein is the problem. If magnet A is reversed at the last moment, how can B know without "spooky action at a distance"?

Or this:

"At identical angles we find opposite deflection (or 'particle spin'). At 'opposite' angles, we find identical deflection (spin) direction. But that gives the big issue; Reversing magnet A at the last moment DICTATES particle B's deflection/ spin state!"

Critique: IF magnet A is reversed at the last moment (or at any time) during this run so that it is antiparallel to magnet B, what makes you think that B has to know anything? It does not.

Experiment (a): If magnet A were left unchanged (ie, being parallel to magnet B), let the paired result be, SAY: [Alice = Up; Bob = Down].

Experiment (b): If (instead) magnet A had been rotated PI radians, to now be antiparallel to magnet B, the comparable paired result would be: [Alice = Down; Bob = Down].

That is: Alice's rotation of the magnet by PI radians reverses Alice's result. BUT it has NO influence whatsoever on Bob's result.

Reason: Let Z denote the EPRB experiment and let p(.|Z) denote a probability conditioned on Z. Then, surely by your own analysis:

Experiment (a): P(Alice = Up| Z, Bob = Down) = cos2(0/2) = 1.

Experiment (b): P(Alice = Down| Z, Bob = Down) = sin2(PI/2) = 1.

With best regards; Gordon

Akinbo Ojo

Yes, Gordon scrutinize Peter's proposal. I will not interfere but follow. I recall reading your essay on proof/ disproof of Bell's theorem sometime ago you are therefore in a position to criticize Peter and Joy Christian's work. You may also want to comment on Caroline Thompson's work.

Personally, because of my classical mind I don't see how turning a magnet upside down here, will make a measurement light years away to also turn upside down. No uncontroversial experiments seem to have borne out this spooky action at a distance. Also as I posted in string below, the "source" of this mystery relies and depends on accepting that the indivisibility of the photon is a fact. If this is not a fact, Quantum mystery evaporates.

So what do you make of "Statistically based analysis of multiple events can't distinguish pairs and uses the wrong assumption. In the DFM schema A can change setting and B is free to find either UP or DOWN entirely at random"?

Please note

Regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Gordon,

It's QM's "quantum state reduction" not mine! which Einstein called 'spooky'. Say Alice finds 'UP' at parallel settings; Bob's 'identical superposed state' MUST then reduce to; DOWN (at opposite settings it must reduce to 'UP'). So what if they're parallel but Alice changes her mind and switches to anti-parallel 1ms before arrival ..but still finds UP? Bob, who WOULD have found 'DOWN' will now have to instantly change to 'UP'.!!

Of course it's false as it uses false assumptions. I agree your mathematical construct is logical, but it's just that, a construct, contradicting QM's assumptions without providing actual classical configurations and mechanisms to justify doing so. The QM 'sleepwalkers' won't even glance at it! As I said to you last year; the solution needs BOTH to even get a glance! Bell wrote; "this trivial model was the first one we thought of" but was right saying "it can't be done" with QM's assumptions, and; "Indeed the discussion was for long entirely concentrated on the points |a-b| = 0, Pi/2 and Pi." (Speakable... p.146).

What I've done is identify physically exactly what 'entanglement' is and described the physical process reproducing QM's predictions. Specifically; the precisely 'identical superposed states' all have both North and South 'poles' (both 'Chiralities'). In each case one side is 'led' by N and the other by S. However the N/S distribution is RANDOM! And the detectors can FLIP the 'direction' while conserving the x axis OAM, and ALSO transferring momentum with a cosine distribution subject to relative axis angles! (physically via non-linear helical ellipticity of polarity).

Akinbo; That means take a short 'slinky', fix the bottom and move the top laterally. (Elliptical polarity of light from space is ubiquitous). The more ellipticity the less intensity/momentum transfer.

I recall Einstein complaining about mathematicians not being on the same page, or was it not seeing past just the numbers on it to the 'reality'? I was sure you'd done so Gordon. Was I wrong?

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Gordon, Peter

Please pardon me anytime I say anything on this topic that betrays my ignorance. I have not yet been fully baptized (or corrupted) by the Quantum world.

What is "quantum state reduction" and what experimental evidence supports that it is real?

Gordon Watson

Peter, Akinbo, Stefan,

Peter:

My critique of that specific wording in your Summary stands. As written, it is wrong; imho!

My analysis in terms of Probabilities equal to one (1) is confirmed experimentally (principally using photons with spin s = 1 as opposed to particles with s = one-half as in EPRB).

Akinbo:

Good to see you continuing to study in this area and asking questions. Keep it up!

Re Caroline Thompson: as I recall, Caroline believed that loophole-free experiments would satisfy Bell's theorem. I take the contrary view: in my opinion the experiments are already sufficiently loophole-free to exceed Bell's limitations.

However (NB): I am satisfied that local-realism is not negated by Bell's theorem. So I think it fair to say that Caroline and I were local-realists together.

Stefan:

I believe you and I agree on this point: it would be most helpful if Peter would allocate mathematical symbols and definitions to his (as you say) "things" -- then provide the maths that delivers the correct results.

PS: With apologies to all, I just dropped by to make my point (as above) after I chanced upon Peter's Summary. At the moment, other priorities take me elsewhere.

With best regards; Gordon

pjackson

Gordon,

Para 2 only describes Bohm's gedanken and the EPR paradox. I agree the assumptions and logic used are wrong, which I identify and show where. I agree it could be expanded, and include a 'qualifier' but don't see how the wording is "wrong" as it intro's present theory not the solution. Can you elucidate.

I'm sure your derivation is also correct but it had no explanation. I'm presently tracking down all relevant experimental results for consistency, can you direct e to which one you refer to with; "confirmed experimentally".

Regarding symbolism; Bell assumed the hidden variable lambda as a 'single continuous parameter', with result 'a' determined by A lambda and 'b' determined by B lambda, and; A(a,lambda) = +/- 1, B(b,lambda) = +/- 1.

My schema is not so much 'hidden variables' as 'hidden commonality'! Have you studied and understood the 'Bloch cones' relationship of my essay?

Best wishes

Peter

Stefan Weckbach

Peter,

i have the next question posed under your summary (below).

Can you answer?

Stefan

Thomas Ray

"Facts become whatever the majority of people believe, until overwhelming evidence comes along to convince them otherwise."

Not according to scientific method, John. If you were to understand how science works, you would see that facts are only so determined by the correspondence of theory to physical result. Evidence, regardless of your personal judgment that it is "overwhelming", does not constitute a scientific fact.

« Previous Page Next Page »