Why Quantum?

John Merryman

Tom,

So anything multiplied by zero is zero, unless it is a point, line, plane, or temporal vector, in which case, it is the elemental basis of reality.

Sort of like Jesus is both born of a virgin and of the House of David, through Joseph.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Ps,

"Mathematics isn't science; it is (among other things) the language of science."

So does this mean that math is simply a mapping device, extrapolated from the study of reality, ie, science, much as all languages emerge from our relations and examinations, rather than some platonic basis for this reality?

Or is that question too philosophical to be answered by someone as resolutely objective as yourself?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

Sigh. If we are going to be silly, it's worth nothing that the propositions "Mary was a virgin," and "Jesus is descended from David" are not mutually exclusive.

Stop goading me, John.

John Merryman

Tom,

But through Joseph? It's helpful to both read what I wrote and know a little about religion.

I'm trying to resist, but there is a part of me that doesn't take prisoners. A life of caring for animals makes it clear there is a time for coming and a time for going, if you know what I mean..... Sorry.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"But through Joseph? It's helpful to both read what I wrote and know a little about religion."

What's to know? Maybe Mary is Joseph's cousin. Maybe the deity poofed Joseph's genes into the fetus -- a deity can do anything, right?

And this is the pattern of your arguing, John -- maybe this, maybe that. Any deus ex machina that's handy comes to your rescue to save your preconceived notions. Time to come out of your own head, dude, and us that fine mind for something rational.

John Merryman

Tom,

You don't seem to have much regard for doctrinal veracity outside your own beliefs.

So am I to assume math is simply a "language" arising out of the study of form and not the foundation of it? That dimensionless points and other mathematical projections have no reality outside conceptual convenience.

Or is it the "deus ex machina" of your beliefs?

As for goading you, it was you who chose to revive this thread after Steve signed off.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"You don't seem to have much regard for doctrinal veracity outside your own beliefs."

And you don't seem to know the difference between doctrineless science, and religious doctrine.

"So am I to assume math is simply a 'language' arising out of the study of form and not the foundation of it? That dimensionless points and other mathematical projections have no reality outside conceptual convenience."

I'm not discussing mathematics with you any more, John. It's futile.

"Or is it the 'deus ex machina' of your beliefs?"

See my quote from Godel.

"As for goading you, it was you who chose to revive this thread after Steve signed off."

Fair enough. The thread is important -- getting rid of the extraneous noise in it is the immediate and formidable challenge.

John Merryman

Tom,

Fair enough. Given our lack of communication, this is noise.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

John, yes. I'm no less at fault.

John Merryman

Tom,

We certainly do come from entirely different worlds and I will definitely agree that mines a bit cracked, but as the song goes, that's how the light gets in.

Regards,

John M

Teresa Mendes

Dear Joy Christian, Peter Jackson and Thomas Howard Ray

My post here was deleted by FQXi, because I made a mistake. I posted the same post in several forums, and that is against FQXi guidelines. Your answers were also deleted.

But I couldn't leave this forum without replying.

Joy ... thank you for answering. You are a FQXi member, we disagree in some points (Bell theorem vs generalisations of Bell theorem) but we agree that the way for Physics to move on, is with a local realistic way. Shouldn't we be on the same "side". After all, what I am defending is that teachers should stop telling students that local realism has been experimentally rejected, that that was an unfortunate mistake of physics community, and, to correct this 30 year mistake, some adequate quota should be established for local realistic research funds for inventing and testing local realistic proposals to attract new physicists to this field. Is this not want you want for Physics too?

[If so ... Can you be so kind to vote for me today (the community voting ends today?]

Peter: A special thanks to you for pointing me a really stupid mistake (the wrong link ... hehe. Nevertheless T.Hooft answered and I already answered him back, with the right link !

Many thanks.

No Local Realistic theory? Not yet.

I'm hoping that new (and old) blood, with a new strategy on funding can rapidly achieve this. If physicists continue to tell, without "any incertitude" that local realism has been rejected, we are not going anywhere.

Thomas: cool ... Simplex! Isn't it?

2 portuguese mathematicians looked at J.Especial' article, recognised that J.Especial used Simplex, a non familiar mathematical method to solve an optimisation problem in Physics, decided to redo the calculations and now they are publishing an article, in a Math magazine, to tell mathematicians that Simplex can also be applied in Physics, a non familiar context to Simplex.

Sincerely

Teresa

=========================================================

(Here is what I had saved of our conversation ...)

Teresa Mendes wrote on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 10:44 GMT

Why Quantum? Why not Local Realism?

I´m a FQXI Video contestant.

Here is my last post asking Prof. T.Hooft to vote.

Can anyone comment why shouldn't he? Or why should he ...

Thank you

Teresa

==================================================

Dear Prof. Gerard t'Hooft, .....................................................

Member Joy Christian replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 11:27 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 13:37 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 14:30 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 14:32 GMT

Forgot to log in. Last was mine.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian

Hi Teresa,

I have voted for your video entry, and support your plea wholeheartedly.

We are indeed on the same side (but, as you say, disagree in some details).

Please do visit my blog sometime to understand my point of view.

Good luck with the contest.

Best,

Joy

Joy Christian

PS:

My latest paper on the subject and related numerical simulations can be found

here,

and

here.

Darius M

Theory of Everything using Leibniz, Kant and German Idealism

[deleted]

Hello all,

I read with great interest the above artticle. I'd like to submit the reflexions below for your evaluation, comment, and possibly as "food for thought".

As was mentioned in the article, a smashed cup cannot be put together in its original shape after it's smashed. Entropy obliges, since it's always on the rise, in accordance with the second law thermodynamics. The force and energy that kept the cup together disappeared.

Nature has selected a few basic logical laws such as the laws of thermodynamics, to manage and control the universe and its evolution. But why would it select such a destructive law as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which doesn't look like a smart choice and seems to doom nature to eventual destruction under the effect of chaos rising?

Going back to the force that held the cup together and then disappeared after the cup was smashed, one needs to question where this force and energy went, and why it's impossible to make them come back to fix the cup into its original whole shape. The answer can be found by looking at the mirror image or the other side of the chaos coin. While things, beings and other objects in the universe are being destroyed through acts of wars, or natural catastrophes, other objects in order to meet the law of entropy rising, new beings, stars and galaxies are being created continuously. What forces are making these new creations appear? It's most logical to think that these are the forces and energies released by the broken cups and destroyed objects observed on the chaos side of the coin. If destructive chaos is rising at a seemingly overwhelming rate, so are creative order and organization. Hence, while chaos and disorder are rising in one pan of nature's balance, organization and order are emerging in the other pan. The enigma of nature's selecting the illogical law of entropy can be then be solved by a more logical law or of the balance between chaos and order in nature's dynamics. The net effect of order and disorder is conjectured here to be constant.

Mimicking the law of energy conservation, we propose the law of conservation of Structure or organization, S so that:

S = Chaos Order = Constant (1)

In the beginning there was nothing, no structure, no chaos, no order, only void. Knowing that everything is created from nothing, Structure is similarly created from a null value. Thus:

Order Chaos = 0 (2)

That is:

S = S S - = 0 (3)

Chaos compensates for Order and vice versa, with a zero net-structure. While entropy (negative structure: S- ) is always increasing, so is order (Positive structure: S), as observed in the universe.

The proposed law explains better the logical working of nature, and the enigma of the nature's choice for the law of Entropy, which it compensates by the equal amount of Order. So while nature has selected the law of entropy/disorder, we need not forget that the resulting disorder is compensated by an equal amount of order as specified by the proposed law of Structure conservation.

Theoretically, equation (3) allows to compute the amount of order that can be expected, given an amount of observed/projected chaos, and vice versa.

So no wonder that there is so much chaos/destruction in the world and the universe, give the amount of order in the objects and beings created. We and our current worlds have to be "sacrificed" for the sake of new beings, new objects and new worlds that will be created. Evolution must go on.

In conclusion, the proposed law of "Conservation of Structure" is a more comprehensive law than the second law of thermodynamics since it accounts better for the existing amounts of order and disorder, nature's logical choices actions while complementing the second law of thermodynamics. As such, this law should be included as a fundamental law of physics in lieu of the second law of thermodynamics.

hsaidane@hotmail.com

[deleted]

Hello Mr Saidane,

Relevant your post.

I see the chaos like a short moment, and the order is more universal if I can say. Let's take an example, simple, the nuclear bomb, chaos in a short moment,or the meteorit 65millions years ago destroying our planet.That said we can utilize this energy with a consciousness for electricity with the nuclear.

For the meteorit,of course dinosaurus had not the possibility to travel inside our universal sphere, but us the humans, it is possible, in all case the order is always the best solution at my humble opinion.

It is in fact a question of intelligence and evolutive consciousness after all.

The universal sphere and its sphères,quant and cosmol,evolve in a pure universal order,rising about entropy furthermore correlated with increasing mass.

I liked your post

Best Regards

Steve Dufourny

oups it was me the crazzy spherical man

Steve Dufourny

Dear Mr Saidane,

If I return about the analyze of dark matter and dark energy, with my équations and my sphères.I see a problem about thermodynamics.The dark energy is totally different than our electromagnetism.

The newtonian and einsteinian mecanic seems not sufficient. The gravitational waves, the gravitons, the black sphères and their volumes imply a kind of bridge and it is the same with our thermodynamics at my humble opinion.

The black body radiations and particules produced seems above these logics?

The formalisation of équations so needs new parameters.

Just a thought, if we take the absolute zero and let's imagine a kind of maximum without add or multiplication for the heat,we must consider an other kind of energy so ?

Just a thought about heat and thermodynamics.

rEGARDS

Steve Dufourny

Mr Saidane,

You are the husband of Malika Mounari? It is wonderfull to have you here,

You have chance? it is an incredible woman with an enormous heart. We have tried in the past to create an international humanistic sciences center for the forgotten in Africa with Kleber Biboum from Cameroon,Naima Amaloiman from Sweden and others from several countries.

I have had several serious personal problems, but I must create it,this center,it is important for me.

happy to know you Mr Saidane and say hello to Malika from Belgium.

Best Regards

Hassine Saidane

Thank you Steve for your reply. Here is my other comment on Entropy and the Laws of Nature:

Laws of Nature

What are the Laws of Nature

The rules of award and torture

The main principles of nurture

That govern the Laws of Life

And breed the Laws of Love

In life's mandatory game

The rules don't seem the same

In a game with hidden laws

Who gets to win the prize

Under Werner's uncertainty clause

Who will have to pay the price

Albert, what kind of math

Is deriving every path

And pulling the super string

For people to cry or sing

Is it all in the magic dice

How where and when we end

At random is where we land

Some think they can succeed

To fool the random seed

But for everyone indeed

It's hard we must concede

To conquer Old Entropy

Who feeds on rising chaos

In order to churn and spin

Myriad new worlds and order

And merciless disorder

Conserving Eternal Energy

For the sake of constancy

Defining the Laws of Nature

The Laws of Love and Life

Sustaining the Universe

In ever changing states

And maybe save it once more

From falling on a black shore

In a silent state of no change

Dark matter of the end

Steve Dufourny

You are welcome Mr Saidane,

You poem is very relevant Mr Saidane,it is rare to see a person who understands really what is entropy. A lot of people forget the essential, the universal faith.

I like to write also poems but in English, it is difficult for me :)

Malika has chance also to be with you, take care both of you.

Universally yours

« Previous Page Next Page »