Physics Needs A Paradigm Shift by Teresa Mendes

In 2012, Scott Aaronson announced "For better or worse, I'm now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world. This award has no time limit other than my death, and is entirely at my discretion (though if you want to convince me, a good approach would be to convince most of the physics community first). "

In his blog we had an discussion on this subject:

The Blog of Scott Aaronson

Teresa Mendes Says:

Comment #154 May 1st, 2012 at 8:47 am

Scott: In the introduction you say: "It's perfectly conceivable that future developments in physics would conflict with scalable quantum computing, in the same way that relativity conflicts with faster-than-light communication, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics conflicts with perpetuum mobiles. It's for such a development in physics that I'm offering this prize."

Does your meaning for "quantum computing", as used above, require computation beyond the limits of classical computation and, hence, require entanglement, or just computation within the classical limits but using quantum phenomena other than the semiconductor based phenomena already widely used presently and, thus, not require entanglement?

Scott Says:

Comment #155 May 1st, 2012 at 9:17 am

Teresa: It requires computation "beyond the limits of classical computation," which in turn would indeed almost certainly require entanglement.

So here I am, with this video, trying to convince most of the physics community that, to this moment, no experimental evidence exists to the phenomena called Entanglement, because there is always a local-realistic interpretation for the same phenomena, and no one can in truth reclaim that Local Realism has been rejected.

No Entanglement, no Quantum Computer !

Let's start a Scientific Revolution .

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your very nice comment on my video ... simples and elegant, are the most flattering words you could use, to make me feel proud of myself.

I will look at your essays, of course, as you could also have a look at Especial, Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions

As you say in your article "Rise and Fall ..." : "There is no quantum entanglement between distant quantum states, and no instantaneous action-at-a-distance", there is always a local-realistic explanation to the phenomena like your NQP theory.

Mainstream physicist won't agree with you because they are told that all Local-Realistic theories have been rejected experimentally with the Bell experiments.

The point J.Especial makes is: no, they have not !

This is the first step for the change in Physics.

The second, could be yours: if you do have a LR theory, based on a formalism, can you propose an experiment where your predictions differ from the ortodox quantum theory?

That would be the test to reject, not Local Realism (as Bell Experiments aim to do] , but Quantum Mechanics.

Could this be your "Superconducting Quantum Computing Without Entanglement?". experiment?

When are you planning to do it?

Let's keep talking, ok?

Sincerely

Teresa

THE THREE THINGS PHYSICISTS SHOULD NOT SAY, COULD PERHAPS SAY, OR CLEARLY EMPHASIZE, TO THEIR STUDENTS

PLEASE DON'T TELL THIS to students and to the whole world, because it is just not proved:

Michio Kaku (2.13)

[transcript from the video] "Albert Einstein hated Quantum entanglement. He called it Spooky Action at a Distance. He couldn't get his head around it ...

Hei, Einstein was wrong. We do this every day, in the laboratory.

Here is how it works: let's take two electrons very close together and they will vibrate in unison (everything vibrates) (...) Now separate them. As you separate these coherent particles an umbilical cord, an invisible umbilical cord, starts to develop between these two particles, such as, if you wiggle one particle, then the other particle is aware of the fact that its partner is being wiggled. (...) But now separate these particles by the distance of a galaxy itself. So here, at one end of the galaxy we wiggle an electron and on the other side of the galaxy, 100.000 light years distance, instantly, faster than the speed of light, the other particle is aware of the fact that his twin is wiggling. Now, Einstein said : "This is ridiculous ! Because nothing can go faster than the speed of light". But this effect has been measured !"

YOU MIGHT SAY THIS even thou the first Bell Test was made in the seventies, and more than 40 years has passed trying and trying to violate Bell experiments with no success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CIg6r_Y3_o] The Qubit Lab - Quantum Correlations (5:19)

(Transcript from the video] "If there is a Bell violation, then every layer bellow will also be in place, and thus the particles are wedded in the blissed matrimony of quantum of correlations (...) ... So far there has not been a definitive test but [some labs] are getting close. If a loophole free test shows a true Bell violation this will tell us something very profound about the Universe. Entanglement would mean that particles could be connected across time and space and events could be correlated without anything causing them. [...] Closely connected with the power of quantum computers and the security of quantum communications. So, even if experiments move closer to show real quantum correlations, we don't really understand what they mean. Do you understand what they mean?"

INSTEAD, YOU SHOULD TELL STUDENTS

You might investigate the foundations, and check the math and the concepts that were mistakenly used (fair sampling) or underestimated (measurement crosstalk) and conclude by yourself that Local Realism has not been experimentally rejected.

That is what he did:

Especial, J. Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions

Give our kids a break !

MESSAGE TO (SOME) FQXi MEMBERS:

To Scot Aaronson:

Scott, we already "talked" on the possibility or not of having a scalable quantum computer in the future. To convince you, you defied me to convince the majority of the Physics Community. Here I am, doing my best.

To Gerard T'Hoft

Professor, we had lunch some years ago in Vienna, 2012, during an Emergent Quantum Mechanics, Conference. I have tried to reach you since then ... with no luck. Will now be a good opportunity?

To Roger Penrose

Professor, your contribution to Math and Physics is huge. Don't you want to, as a last grand effort, join this revolution? Your presence would be highly appreciated. Your voice is much louder than mine...

To Lee Smolin

You once wrote

"I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me"

I also read your "O romper das Cordas" book, in portuguese. Twice. I could completely put myself in our shoes. We both could point to an error in the foundations of a theory (yours being the String Theory, mine, Quantum Mechanics) and not many people are willing to listen.

Should we join forces?

To Joy Christian

Joy Cristian, you are a local realist. But we differ on our arguments: you defend Bell's Theorem is wrong, I defend Bell Theorem is right, but all the other Bell inequalities for experiments under non-ideal conditions, are not. And that is why local realism has not been experimentally rejected. Can you take the time, and are you humble enough, to have a serious look at this argument and, perhaps, overcome some of the "anti-bodys" other physicists have towards your ideas? You are a local realist! Your heart is already on the right place.

To Max Tegmark

Max, you are a founder of FQXi, an Institute that "catalyzes, supports, and disseminates research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality, but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources"

Thank you. As a non-physicist this was the first time I "dare" to appear in front of a scientific community defending new frontiers.

As a portuguese person, I believe in the success of pacific revolutions. Have you heard how Portugal did a political revolution, "with flowers", from a dictatorial regime to democracy (in 1974)? I was a teenager then. I have lived through one revolution. I'm willing to pursue another.

To Anton Zeilinger

Dear professor, I have seen your poll, "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Would you be so kind, to do another (easy) experiment? Can you ask your pollers to read J.Especial article, already published in a peer reviewed magazine in 2012,

arXiv:1205.4010

give them 3 months to, without pre-conceptual ideas, analyze it well, and then redo the poll? If there is no significant change ... I will pay you a lunch in the best portuguese restaurant in Lisbon. Agreed?

To Adam Cabello

Adam Cabello, you are (were) a dissident, following Emilio Santos line of thoughts. Today, as Dean of Physics Department in Sevilla University, you did a 642 pages comprehensive essay "Bibliographic guide to the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information".

I'm sure, any post-graduate student interested in the foundations of Physics, Teleportation or Quantum computation welcomed your article.

Can you please be so kind to include J.Especial article in your session I: F Bell Inequalities?

I'm sure, once you read it and acknowledge its scientific implications , you will find a place to put in your guide an article that concludes that there is no experimental evidence of the rejection of the the whole category of local realistic theories.

Sincerely,

Teresa

Hi Ronald,

Thank you for your comments.

I think we are saying the same thing. A theory, to prevail, needs to be falsifiable. There has to be a test, an experimental test, that allow us to refute it and if refuted, discard it.

That is the case.

Bell experiments are the only experiments that aim the refutation of (all possible) local realistic theory(ies). [They are not experiments fo prove entanglement, as you know. Accordingly to Popper, we can not prove ... just disprove).

They were fist proposed, in mid '30, by Einstein - the famous EPR paper; in '64 J.Bell proposed a theorem, and, when laser technology allowed, in late '70, experiments began being made.

For more than 40 years, they have been performed, with different experimental apparatus, and accordingly to J. Especial none has been able to reject local realism.

(Those who are not familiar (yet) with J.Especial's work, know that the all experiments have been performed with 'loopholes' and that there is not, at this time, any experiment that has closed all 'loopholes' in one experiment).

So... what can one conclude, when a paradigm - reality+locality, has been successively tested and the results of the test were, for all experiments, inconclusive?

Don't you agree that it means that local realism, was not experimentally rejected?

So why do teachers, renown physicists and all media say the opposite?

Don't you thing that this could be the reason there is so little funding and credibility for any local realist research for a new local realistic theory for quantum phenomena?

This theory does not, yet, exists, to be tested. I think because no one is looking for it. But once proposed, I agree with you, it has to be falsifiable too, and a test has to be proposed and performed.

The purpose of my plea is not for others to agree with me ... but to come with me, and shout:

"Physics needs a new local realistic theory, compatible with all the other sciences. Local realism has NOT been rejected."

Let it be funding, good will, creativity, community suport ... and don't lie to future researchers.

Don't you agree?

Thank you ... I am doing my best! With all my heart!

Hi Cristi,

Thank you for your comment (and probably for your vote).

I have a question for you:

You said you have "an interpretation of quantum mechanics that gives, in my opinion, the closest thing to local realism we can get, and in the same time relies entirely on the standard formalism of quantum mechanics." , don't you think that the two phrases are in contradiction?

A new paradigm means, not only a new mindset, but also a new formalism, that of course should be compatible with all previous experimental evidence, and be falsifiable, but also bring something new.

Kuhn pointed out accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness as the rational aspects two competing theories would be compared upon.

My question, now: If you agree that "any measurement setup has local real solutions" why do you think you have to restrict yourself to the quantum mechanics formalism?

Can't you begin from scratch and invent a new solution?

(Much more easy to say it than do it, right? hehe. But Go for It, Physicists!! Change the paradigm!)

Best regards

Teresa

Hi Joe

As I said to Christi, in the last post: Go for it, Physicists! Change the paradigm!

And you are trying, don't give up!

You have made your point, in this (small) community. We have heard you: "The biggest myth physicists have about their abstract universe is that abstract light has an abstract linear constant speed when it is shot through a vacuum. Real light is the only real stationary substance in the real Universe."

The rating is not over, yet. And, if anybody has listen to me (hehe) soon there will be funding for all local realistic research.

Best regards

Teresa