Why Quantum?

John Merryman

Steve,

How are numbers going to divide light's speed from its spectrum? While this focus on abstraction over the reality being abstracted can clarify details, it can also obscure connections with other details. Is your intention to clarify, or to obscure?

Let me repeat the point one more time;

Redshift means the source is moving away. If the speed of light isn't increasing proportional to this increase in distance, then it isn't relativistic.

The problem isn't different frames. The problem is a contradictory assumption based on different features of the same frame.

Regards,

John M

Steve Agnew

Let me repeat one more time. Redshift means redshift...that is all. The derived speed of light depends on the frame. The motion depends on the model. Relativity means c is constant. Period. The math all works fine.

If you have another interpretation, so be it. But do not deny the validity of spacetime...show with numbers how your interpretation improves our predictions of action.

John Merryman

Steve,

I AM NOT DENYING THE VALIDITY OF SPACETIME!!!!!!

I am saying that it doesn't apply if the time component doesn't remain CONSTANT with the space component!!!!!!

Regards,

John M

Steve Agnew

Good. Then its settled. I thought that somehow you were denying the validity of space time.

Joy Christian

Hi Teresa,

Bell's so-called theorem is a make-belief of the topologically naïve. I have repeatedly shown this to be the case in my work on the subject (which concerns the origins of quantum correlations in general). Those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, however, do not seem to want to hear about it. They seem to "know" that I am wrong without having read (let alone understood) a single line of my argument.

In any case, good luck with your quest for local realism.

Joy Christian

pjackson

Teresa,

I think t'Hooft should respond, but it's not just arrogance, if he responded to all contacts he'd have no time for real work!

I meant to respond to you earlier and thought I had. Firstly, note you links above are the same one, the second NOT to your video as intended. You may wish to re-post, and check you sent t'Hooft the right one.

I read Joao Especial's paper and agree with most all, including it's conclusion that non-locality can be derived classically. However I should point out he did not actually demonstrate that, and how, it could be done via that route (or that route 'alone') so I fear his work will just be dismissed with the rest, including Joy's.

However; What I've done in my essay (including experimental confirmation) and short summary is identified a particular false assumption used by QM and inherited by Bell, which when changed reproduces the effects of non-locality AND the intermediate distribution ('violation') in EXACTLY THE WAY BELL ANTICIPATED!

That solution leaves his theorem standing but not blocking the 'circumvention' he identified should be possible in 'Speakable..').

Unfortunately as most don't fully understand QM, and most of those who do are indoctrinated, very few seem to grasp the ontology and consequences. Even Joy can't assimilate it (but then he has his own maths model). I hope you may read the papers and do so. Perhaps focus on the 'Block Cones', which explain the effects of so called 'entanglement' and produce the effects of 'non-locality' (at least down to the next gauge). Please let me know how you get on or ask questions.

2014 fQxi Essay; Do Bob and Alice have a future?

Breif Summary; Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Best wishes

Peter

[deleted]

Teresa,

I am an unabashed supporter of Joy Christian's measurement framework for quantum correlations because it's good solid science, complete, without ad hoc assumptions.

As Professor 't Hooft implies, the Bell-Aspect framework is classical -- i.e., it is based in continuous function physics. So convinced, however, are followers of conventional quantum theory that local realistic quantum experiments are impossible, that they must make ad hoc assumptions to close the loopholes between classical experience and discrete quantum measurements:

Independently, Christian and Boris Tsirelson derived the upper limit of observed quantum correlations by the CHSH program, 2\/2 (as compared to the classical Bell limit of 2). To derive this result mathematically requires the discarding of the excluded middle -- zero, or the null result. Christian's model restores completeness by allowing an added topological degree of freedom that accounts for the null result by dichotomic variables that avoid the singularity in a manifestly local way, without having to assume the excluded middle. This is done without superfluous assumptions.

I like your video. I hadn't thought about the possibility of applying the simplex method to quantum correlations, and I am going to look into it -- thanks!

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

Forgot to log in. Last was mine.

Thomas Ray

"I AM NOT DENYING THE VALIDITY OF SPACETIME!!!!!!

I am saying that it doesn't apply if the time component doesn't remain CONSTANT with the space component!!!!!!"

John, you know the Pythagorean theorem, right? Imagine that the theorem is applied in 4 dimensions instead of 2.

Then you should be able to see that the coordinate points of spacetime maintain a constant relation no matter how the shape changes. Spacetime does not imply, as you see to be suggesting, that a constant relation between quantities means that they are constantly equal.

Thomas Ray

Rats. I wish we could check these links before posting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pythagorean+theorem+in+4+dimensions&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

John Merryman

Tom,

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not seeing how that disproves a very simple observation;

That if the measure of space is contracted, by gravity, or acceleration, then the clock rate/speed of light is also reduced, so the speed of light remains constant to this frame. So why doesn't the opposite hold true, that an expanding frame would require an accelerated speed of light/clock rate, in order to remain constant?

The issue is that they don't maintain a constant relation.

Now there are various side issues, such as that if space is what is expanding, where does this stable speed of light come from? What is that vacuum it crosses at C, if it is not space? If it is space, then how is this space, defined by the speed of light, being carried on space defined by the redshift of the very same intergalactic light??? It sounds awfully complicated.

The fact of the matter is that this explanation was applied as a patch to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion. A far simpler reason could be that it is an optical effect, as we are at the center of our point of view. We do not fully understand the force of gravity and use the equivalence principle to relate it to acceleration. Can we be sure there isn't some lensing effect here that can be modeled as recession, in a form of reverse equivalence principle?

As it is, the rather enormous patches of inflation and dark energy have had to be added to explain other gaps between predictions and observations. How can this theory be falsified, if every wrong prediction is simply an excuse to conjure up another enormous force of nature? It's like adding one more gearwheel to epicycles.

Among other points, as a lensing effect, it would explain why the redshift goes parabolic, which would explain the curve in the rate, currently being described as due to dark energy.

Also, once it has crossed that horizon line of appearing to exceed the speed of light, then it is actually being shifted down to black body radiation and that is exactly what we see in the CMBR, coming from the edge of the visible universe.

Every so often, the wave of speculation has to crest. When it does, it doesn't plateau.

Regards,

John M

Jason Wolfe

I had an idea for how hyper-drive physics might work. You have to straddle between this space-time and another space-time with a faster speed of light. Instead of passing energy through this space-time as light, you're going to pass energy from this space-time into the other space-time. But you're not going to pass it as light, you're going to pass this energy through the infrastructure of this space-time and the infrastructure of the faster space-time. Depending upon how the energy emitters are set up in this space-time, it will create a directional burst of energy in the other space-time that will carry your space-craft in your steered direction at velocity c'. It will also curve space-time and vary the gravitational constant. Your space-craft will sit in the center of this space-time anomaly.

[deleted]

"I had an idea for how hyper-drive physics might work. You have to straddle between this space-time and another space-time with a faster speed of light."

That's actually feasible, by known laws of physics. It has to do with the symmetry of action in general relativity:

A photon, which is born at the speed of light and never goes faster, is the anti-partner of the hypothetical tachyon, which is born faster than light and never goes slower.

Lots of theoretical difficulties here. It's a fasinating subject, though.

Thomas Ray

Ach. I guess secure addresses won't link.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q295.html

Jason Wolfe

If there was an adjacent universe with a faster speed of light to straddle with, the space craft would have to move all it's mass their, or at least disconnect its gravitational connection and speed of light connection so that the space-craft can become an object in on the faster space-time.

If another faster space-time cannot be found to straddle with, than you can also generate a permittivity/permeability suppression field around your space craft. If you do so in a way that creates a closed surface, the relative position of the spacecraft in space-time will become uncertain; special relativity might become unenforceable.

Thomas Ray

" ... if the measure of space is contracted, by gravity, or acceleration, then the clock rate/speed of light is also reduced, so the speed of light remains constant to this frame. So why doesn't the opposite hold true, that an expanding frame would require an accelerated speed of light/clock rate, in order to remain constant?"

John, do you really not understand the Pythagorean theorem? Let me try yet another way to explain:

A right triangle in 2 dimensional space is always a right triangle -- i.e., always defined by a 90 degree angle, regardless of its orientation, and regardless of the lengths of its sides. The same is true of a 4 dimension triangle; the coordinates maintain the same relation regardless of being stretched or expanded. When one of these is the time coordinate, the same applies to its relative 'speeding up' or 'slowing down.'

Stop apologizing for your ignorance and do something about it. The glory of our age is the amazing availability of information resources; you don't have to struggle alone in your own mind.

John Merryman

Tom,

You are always going to be able to find some tool in the tool box that half assed addresses some peripheral issue, but the question here is; How does the doppler effect work in the first place?

By movement in a frame. The source has to being moving away in the frame its signal is being propagated, such that the signal is stretched in that frame and when it reaches an observer that is stationary in that frame.

In the case of cosmic redshift, it is proposed that those galaxies are "moving away." No angles involved. The medium they are moving away in, is the vacuum defined by the speed of light, such that as they move away, the signals/light they emit, is stretched in the frame of that medium. Since the source is moving away, then over time it will also take that signal longer to travel to the observer. Thus the theory also holds that these distant galaxies will eventually disappear.

Do you understand fractions? The speed of light is the denominator. The units in which this expansion is being denominated. As the light requires more of these units to cross this space, then the expansion is the numerator. The number of denominating units required to fill this distance.

So based on the redshifted spectrum of the light, it is argued the universe expands, but that requires the speed of that very same light to provide a stable measure against which to judge this expansion.

Does your model take into account that there seem to be two time coordinates, each based on different properties of the same light?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

John, I guess you're going to have to teach me some more math. I promise to be just as attentive to the lesson as you have been.

John Merryman

Tom,

Certainly you know far more math than I, but it is a religion to you.

For example, is a dimensionless point real, or a conceptual convenience?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

As Godel said, if mathematics is a religion, it is the only one which can actually prove it is a religion.

"For example, is a dimensionless point real, or a conceptual convenience?"

Now there's another demonstration of your astounding innocence of anything mathematical or scientific. Not that the answer will make any difference to you -- the fact is, it doesn't matter. Mathematics isn't science; it is (among other things) the language of science. Is c-a-t real, or a conceptual convenience?

And no, I am not going to be drawn into another idiotic discussion of philosophies of mathematics, whose arguments are not only irrelevant but that the participants don't know, and can't even follow.

« Previous Page Next Page »