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 Teresa,

I've watched your manifesto for questioning the foundations of quantum mechanics, and for searching a local realistic solution. I can't imagine a principle in physics which we should stop questioning. Principles are universal propositions, and they can be tested only in a finite number of situations, so we should never consider them proven forever, and stop testing them. Especially when they come with trouble.

You commented on my video The puzzle of quantum reality, which contains 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. Please watch it, and if you wish, please read my essays Flowing with a Frozen River and The Tao of It and Bit, in which I explain in more details.

Briefly, my view is that any measurement setup in QM has local real solutions. But: #1. The solution can be local, being a solution to Schrodinger's equation, but when we ask it to also be global, in the sense that it has to be extendible to the entire spacetime, the correlations follow. #2. The solution is real at any time, but depends also by the future measurements (contextuality, "delayed initial conditions"). This is better understood in the block world picture given by relativity, and in this case is just a particular case of #1. I tried to explain how this works in my video, and in the above mentioned essays. And in this video.

Best regards,

Cristi

    Dear Teresa,

    I have already rated your video. I do not know why each person is not allowed just to vote one star. That would be more fair than the graduated voting that is allowed. In the essay contest, my essay got perfect 10 ratings from a Physics Professor and two Doctorate Degree certificate holders. Yet my essay did not even qualify for the $1,000 consolation prize awarded to non-members for submitting a splendid effort.

    Joe Fisher

      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

      Hi Theresa,

      I can feel you try with all your effort to make a change in physics happen - a science you seem to have a lot passion and dedication for. This is admirable and at times when I struggle with animation, illustration, drawing - things I love - I shall be reminded of the way you pursue your goal. I wish I could plug myself into the actual debate you're involved in and contribute more to the discourse you wish to have - but my knowledge is to limited too join the debate on a satisfactory level.

      I hope you find the chance to check out our video and tell us what you think. If you could vote for us it would be really appreciated, since as you mentioned earlier, votes count for all of us and we would like to share support and appreciation.

      Madeleine

      Piezoelectricity: A Love Story

      Hi Theresa, you have got my vote and l look forward to receiving yours for my video http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2136 "convection? heat transfer? Who cares?". Good luck in the competition!!!

      I agree with your premise Theresa..

      Physics does need a shift, if it is to remain scientific, and maybe it is time for a local realistic revolution. A lot of the luminary figures you have talked about/to in the comments above are seeking for a way to create local realistic theories from which quantum mechanics is emergent. But nobody wants to even try to slay the giant, unless they have a theory in hand, and those who try (like Dr. Christian) get slapped down mighty hard by the QM establishment.

      I guess I'm saying there will have to be quite compelling reasons to adopt a new view, before the world-view that embraces non-locality and entanglement can be laid to rest. Good luck in your crusade! You are likely to need it.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Hi Teresa,

      "don't you think that the two phrases are in contradiction?"

      No. To see that they are not in contradiction, you can check the links I gave you.

      "A new paradigm means, not only a new mindset, but also a new formalism"

      Say you have a smartphone, and you can only turn the screen on and off. Hence, you can only see the time displayed on the screen, so you think that it is just a clock. But you would like to have a cell phone. You are prepared to toss this clock and buy a cell phone. Say that accidentally you discover how to unlock the screen, and use it as a phone. You realize that what you thought is a clock, it is in fact a smartphone. Would you still find justified to toss it and buy a cell phone?

      "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?"

      If there will be experimental data which would go beyond the boundaries of quantum mechanics, then of course we will have to go beyond those boundaries with the formalism too. But since up to this point the boundaries of the experiments are precisely those of the theory, then I don't think I am restricting myself.

      "Can't you begin from scratch and invent a new solution?" "Much more easy to say it than do it, right?"

      This is in fact the easiest thing to do. There are a lot of great physicists who work in the foundations of quantum mechanics and try to reconstruct it from different principles and using different formalisms. Up to this point, their reconstructions either don't fit the data (give different inequalities), or are complicated by adding new axioms to make them reproduce the same data as QM. But if you follow them, you can see that they have brilliant, radically new ideas, based on new paradigms and so on. Whatever you ask for. And there are so many physicists working at local or realistic versions of QM. Your manifesto comes a bit late, because there are already so many trying to do this. Perhaps you are not satisfied with their work, but did you read it? I think even the smartest guys barely have enough time to read and understand all that is written every day on this subject. Up to this point, there were proposed hundreds of alternative formulations and formalisms of QM, but the simplest and most fit is the Hilbert space formalism. It is not that people don't try to solve these puzzles, they do. The one you should convince seems to be not them, but Nature. Nature doesn't seem to care about our taste.

      You say that all experiments testing Bell's theorem have loopholes. This is an overstatement. To exploit those loopholes, Nature would have to be very sneaky, and to do this at purpose, and change the way to use the loopholes in different ways, depending on the experiment. So either nature violates Bell's inequalities, or obeys them using various complicated improvisations a la Rube Goldberg. But anyway, say that testing Bell's theorem is not perfect so it must be wrong. How about the Kochen-Specker theorem? This doesn't even need an experiment to test it. It proves that QM is contextual. Also, are you aware that there are versions of Bell's theorem without inequalities? I doubt you can find loopholes based on imperfect measurements here.

      So this is why I don't think I should toss the good old formalism. But please read my papers and watch my videos, where I try to explain why the old formalism still allows things considered forbidden by most scientists: measurement without collapse (in the real sense, not a la MWI or the misunderstood version of decoherence, where the collapse is swept under the carpet), and local and realistic solutions to Schrodinger's equation.

      In a similar vein, people don't like singularities in GR and come with radically new theories. But when singularities are understood, we see that not only they are not bad, but they are even helpful (my other video is about this).

      So I don't think physics lacks revolutionary ideas and new paradigms. Every day you will find on arxiv a new revolution, a new paradigm. The problem is that there are some that always win, when the math is checked, or when the experiments are performed. And that's why it seems that physicist are so short sighted and can't replace them with better ones: because they already found long time ago the best theories up to date. It doesn't mean that in the future we will not realize that something radically new is better, but this day is not today.

      Cristi

      Hi Teresa,

      Top marks, and Especial's proof isn't the only one. I showed in my essay this year how a real local classical mechanism can produce the effects considered as 'non-local', summarised here; Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

      It's achieved just by changing one fundamental assumption inherited by Bell.I hope you'll read it and comment. I'm quite convinced it will contribute to the long overdue paradigm shift, if entrenched academic inertia will now allow any such shifts at all!

      Best of luck

      Peter

        Hi Peter,

        I followed your link and found lots of interesting articles to read.

        This one https://www.academia.edu/1917950/SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE stroke my curiosity: man, you write much better than me ... hehe

        I will comment on your Classical Reproduction ...soon, but meanwhile let me try to put my ideas in one sentence.

        What I think the fastest way to promote a paradigm shift in Physics is when scientists (and deciders of research funds ) accept that for the quantum phenomena there is a limit - like in Special Relativity there is a limit, the speed of light - and that limit is local realism.

        That is the importance of recognizing, and not teaching the opposite, in what regards the experimental results of Bell tests.

        Because local realism has not been rejected, Physicists should FIRST find a solution within that limitation, and not search for that solution all over the place.

        Don't you think? (Ok. It was 3 sentences.)

        Thank you, I think I will need a little bit of luck.

        Teresa

        Hi Christi

        Thank you for answering.

        You say: "And there are so many physicists working at local or realistic versions of QM. Your manifesto comes a bit late, because there are already so many trying to do this."

        See my point?

        So let me rephrase:

        What I think the fastest way to promote a paradigm shift in Physics is when scientists (and deciders of research funds ) accept that for the quantum phenomena there is a limit - like in Special Relativity there is a limit, nothing goes faster than the speed of light - and that limit is Local Realism. (and not local or realism)

        That is the importance of recognizing, and not teaching the opposite, in what regards the experimental results of Bell tests.

        Because local realism has not been rejected, Physicists should FIRST find a solution within that limitation, and not search for that solution all over the place.

        Can I ask you something? It makes any sense for you, the claim J.Especial made, that in Bell tests under non-ideal detection, the respective inequalities, all, confused Fair Sampling with Perfect Correlation between Contrafactual Detections?

        Looking forward for your answer

        Teresa

        Teresa,

        I watched your video and I want to thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that experiments (like Aspect's) that attempt to disprove the possibility of local realism are subject to loopholes such as Fair Sampling and Measurement Crosstalk. I found J. Especial's paper "Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions" too technical for me, but I have been "enlightened" on the subject by reading Wikipedia's articles "Loopholes in Bell test experiments", "Local hidden variable theory" and "Superdeterminism".

        Of course, the fact that there are loopholes in these experiments do not prove that local realism holds, so entanglement and "spooky action at a distance" are very much still in the running... All we can say with certainty is that the jury is still out... but isn't it always the case in science?! As Cristinel Stoica pointed in his post on your forum, there will always be physicists who try to imagine new theories, and it is a good thing. We know that, at some point, there will have to be some major shift, since General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. As we say in french, "Qui vivra verra!"

        I rated your video... and when you come around to rating videos, if you could take a look at my video "Physics Into Darkness", who is one vote short of getting 10 votes, it would be quite appreciated. Here's the direct link:

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2197

        Good luck in the contest, and keep thinking outside of the box!

        Marc

        Hi Teresa,

        I see you emphasize the "or" in my phrase about the other approaches to QM, but you ignore the "and" in the phrase in which I discuss my own approach. It is difficult to judge someone's work only by a one sentence summary. But I understand that nobody can actually read carefully everything that is written. I wish you good luck with the paradigm shift which you promote, which is to replace the current paradigm in QM with a new one, which is actually the old one of local realism. On the other hand, you can probably see that there are many physicists still trying to find some local realistic approach to QM, but so far this didn't lead to significant progress. On the other hand, the others are the ones that advanced QM, both in theory and in applications. This doesn't mean that I consider them right, but only practical. I see that you consider that, because I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism. But I think this would be unfair, and I gave you some links that may help you understand my position, if you will be interested and decide to spend some time on this.

        On the other hand, why wouldn't you find that new local realistic approach to QM which really is what you want?

        I wish you good luck in your mission.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Hello Teresa,

        thanks for commenting on our video. Your video is interesting, but I am puzzled about the claim that the experimental verification that local realism is just lore. Are there other experiments that confirm it?

        Also, great soundtrack!

        In case you didn't yet, feel free to look up our video, in which we discuss what is quantum gravity, present an existing solution and give examples of applications and future directions:

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2221

        Don't forget to rate it!

        Best,

        --Pedro

          Nice video! You're right - quantum physics is counter-intuitive. Great point! Please rate my 2 videos, if you don't mind so that we can also move on to the next level.

          Have a great day!

          Schatzie Dudee

          Hi Cristi

          Glad you answered (but didn't answered my question ... chuiff).

          When I commented on just one of your sentences, you should not think I didn't read all your post.

          I appreciated it, and also the amount of time you have put on it.

          The "or" phrase. That was the phrase that mostly "interested" me. Why? Exactly because the "or" part. The "or" is the part that shows that today' physicists think that Local Realism, was experimentally rejected. After all, that is what they have been told in school. So, if someone wants to research for an alternative to QM non-loca l+ non-realistic approach, the only hypotesis left are a non-local+realistic "or" non-realistc+local approach . And those are the "aceptable" alternatives.

          You see why the "or" was so important?

          As I see it, that is a big problem... if a student want's to research on a local realistic solution she (meaning he or she) can't find a supervisor for her PHD. Am I wrong?

          "How about the Kochen-Specker theorem? This doesn't even need an experiment to test it."

          It doesn't?? Math is Math, a cool science - the only exact science we have. But you do need experiments to test what makes sense in the real world. Physics is not an exact science, you always need to test your hypotesis with an experiment. Math is a tool. Math is not "the truth", and everything that math "says" doesn't necessarily have to be real.

          [By the way, that is a major problem of QM. Because it is so counter-intuitive one have to rely of math to find the "truth". And it leads to completely exaggerated new hypothesis...]

          Bell Test vs other things. Is there another test to disprove Local Realism? Teleportation and Quantum computer experimentalists: how they "know" that their particles are 'entangled'? They have to do something to test it - they do a Bell test.

          Bell theorem, is ok. Every physicist (except Dr. J.Christian and al.) acceptes it. It is math. It uses inequalities to find the limits of Local Realism. Cool. The problem with the Bell tests is with the "transformed" Bell inequalities that have to be used to a particular experiment. That is the reason why I made you my important question. I really don't care about "loopholes" (but mainstream physicists do, and they teach the opposite).

          "why wouldn't you find that new local realistic approach to QM which really is what you want?

          True.

          I want the world to have a local realist theory to explain quantum phenomena, that could make predictions in a broader scope than QM, for instance Gravity.

          I want a theory that is consistent with all other sciences, from Chemistry (my area) to Cosmology.

          I want a theory that can be used by engineers to develop new technologies, create value, and help the world to overcome this awful economic crisis.

          I also want a theory that is as accurate as QM in its prediction .. but not a posteriori.

          And also I want a theory whose formalist that doesn't need to be renormalized to give predictions.

          Can I find it? Not alone, I can't.

          But, what I believe, is that J.Especial found and put the finger where the problem of today's Physics is. And no one, or very few, are looking where the solution might be.

          I want more. More physicists looking for that solution.

          "I see that you consider that, because I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism."

          (the publcized results of Bell tests, you mean ...)

          I can't convince you .. can I ? hehe. No problem ... let's be friennemies!

          I just want to change the way Physics is taught, and immensely improve the % of funding allocated for local realistic research. Easy.

          For me, that is the necessary step to begin a scientific revolution.

          One more time, thank you for your time, I do enjoy the time I spend 'talking' to you.

          And ... if you have the time ... my question??

          Best regards

          Teresa

          "I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism"

          Dear maam

          fantastic video very revolutionary.tell them the first man to measure the size of the earth- eratosthenes used a simple stick and shadow it cast on the ground.given a five i too have a simple video of how the universe can be presented on a notebook here- http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2223,hoope you too take your time to vote for me thanks.