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.

    Hi Teresa,

    > The "or" phrase....

    You extended the "or" phrase, but still avoided the "and" phrase from my very first post here :) Because of this you still don't understand me and consider me "friennemy". I gave you links to a view which I consider as local AND as realistic as it can, and still compatible with Bell and KS, and with unitary evolution, and with relativity. It may be not what you want, but you still ignore it. You try to make all of us look like clones of Niels Bohr for some reason :)

    Well, while the links I gave you at the beginning are "as local and realistic as possible", I actually have something that I consider even more local AND realistic. I mentioned in a comment on FQXi's website a local realistic solution, which I actually don't consider true, but you may want to try it. (If you will read my comments on that page and on the related posts chronologically, you will see that I gave full consideration to the one you consider the only local realist alive, but his ideas were so wrong.)

    I see that you consider theorems of Bell and Kochen-Specker as not being real, because they are "math". The point is, any theorem has three parts, a hypothesis, a proof, and a conclusion. To reject the conclusion, you have to find errors in the proof, or to show that the conditions in the hypothesis don't apply. In the case of QM, the conditions in the hypothesis are fulfilled. And they were not made "a posteriori" as you said. So you should show that the proof is wrong. In general, the proof is pure logic (although the propositions are mathematical), so if you don't find an error, you should to reject logic.

    > 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?

    Well, in a few hours I will fly to a conference where I will meet a lot of non-standard quantum theorists who have PhD students.

    But assuming you are right, this isn't a problem. For my PhD I studied another tabu subject: singularities in general relativity. You see, people want to sell their own theories to replace GR, so they claim that GR is wrong because of singularities, so they don't want them to be fixed. I wanted to show that singularities are not bad, and are actually useful. Even after I succeeded, I had great difficulties because of this, and for two years I tried to find a new supervisor. I eventually found one, after I managed to publish several articles on the subject. Actually, eventually people even liked my results, although they are not very well known yet. So you see, there may be difficulties, so what?

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    P.S. I think I will be unavailable the next days, as I mentioned.

    Dear Dr. Mendes:

    Thank you for trying to shake up a science that is still in the late 19th century!!!

    Einstein and most other physicists have been looking at the world in macro terms. The question of the existence of time is becoming more mainstream and as we delve into the quantum world we are finding the "spooky action at a distance" to be the norm. When one delves into the quantum world and leaves behind classical physics it is like leaving the English measuring system and accepting the metric system. There are still some holdouts there as well.

    We should tell our students that it is up to them to decide whether the information provided is correct, and if they feel it is not, to pursue the path they feel is correct.

    Great work!!

      [What conference?] Are you coming back? I will come back, too.

      See you soon.

      Hi Pedro (are you portuguese?)

      Just saw your video and rated it.

      "I am puzzled about the claim that the experimental verification that local realism is just lore. Are there other experiments that confirm it? "

      To my knowledge Bell tests are the only experiments that specifically aim to reject Local Realism. There are other theoretical attempts, theorems, but not experimental evidences came out of those theorems.

      And do you know what happens when, over and over again, an attempt to reject (a whole category) of theories have been performed and none has successfully achieved it? That means that Local Realism is still a viable alternative to Quantum Mechanics.

      And you, students have a choice to pursue the path you feel is correct.

      And talking about quantum gravity ... wouldn't it be better to begin with a theory consistent with GR, that is also a local realistic theory?

      Will you debate this between you?

      I will be here, if you need more information.

      Best of luck in the contest.

      Teresa

      the problem is clearly presented

      I would have liked to see some proposed solutions

      thanks

      ron

        Hi, Ron

        I 'm glad you asked.

        If you want to know if I have a new quantum theory local and realistic for quantum phenomena in my hand? I must say I don't.

        If you want to know, in my opinion, what is the easier and fastest way to achieve one? That, I can answer.

        We are here, today, because of a simple video contest, within one of the most influential physics community in the world - the FQXi community.

        Between its members (and followers) we can find people that, because of their achievements (and media attention) have this capacity to act as catalysts of one big idea, if there is a consensus to correct an error made in the past.

        And this consensus is (relatively) easy to achieve: they just have to agree that there was a way Physics could have gone, in parallel with Quantum Mechanics, that was systematically suppressed to generations and generations of physicists.

        (if we begin counting on A.Aspect 1981/82 experiments) For more than 30 years, students have been told, and I quote:

        "Actually Bell's theorem is a really great time saver. If you are a theoretical physicist , from time to time, [...] you will get a topic in the mail, from a crackpot. And the crackpot will have a theory about how the world really works. And you feel quite like obliged to maybe read it, because you are funded by a government grant ... but ... if you find out that his theory is a local hidden variable theory ... you don't have to read any further. You know it is wrong!

        You can exclude a whole class of theories! "

        [PIRSA:10090018 "Quantum Theory (PHYS 605) - Lecture 7", by Ben Schumacher ]

        So what is my proposed solution?

        1. FWXi could promote a serious discussion over J.Especial findings, and take a position over whether or not these new generalizations of Bell inequalities are now correctly formulated.

        2. The conclusion should be transmitted to the whole physics community, both theoretical and experimental.The result of this action could have a huge impact in the future of Physics. Also, the experimentalists could focus on experiments on the "triangle" where one could find conclusive results, and not waste time with Bell experiments with efficiency detection less than 76%.

        2. Funding. FQXi could promote the idea, that, to correct a 30' year error, a quota for local realistic research funds could be drawn, to encourage new brilliant physicists (that are also exquisite mathematicians) to use their imagination and skills and present the world new solutions.

        Don't you think this could be the beginning of a scientific revolution?

        Sincerely

        Teresa

        Hi Jonathan

        (I didn't confuse you ... hehe]

        Even if Prof. T'Hooft says in his abstract Quantum mechanics is looked upon as a tool, not as a theory." link here ,

        I do agree with your conclusion.

        Thank you for your comment.[and thank you also for copying it here]

        But the fact that Local Realism was not experimentally rejected doesn't make T'Hooft statements much more interesting?

        Do teachers say this to their students?

        That is the first step for the scientific revolution to begin:

        - another narrative in the history of Physics

        - enough funding for the theory that will shape the XXI century.

        Am I wrong? Can you put yourself in my shoes? Would you do it any other way? Can you make suggestions?

        I would very much appreciate it.

        Thank you for your time.

        Sincerely

        Teresa

        Thank you, thank you, thank you Cristi

        I followed your conference link and I found what I needed.

        How was the conference?

        Tell me ...

        Teresa

        Dear all FQXi Video contestants

        I did something wrong, it seams. I posted my letter to Prof. 'T.Hooft, in (almost) all your forum areas, and that is against FQXi guidelines. Sorry about that. It is the revolutionary fuss ... hehe. I won't do it again. I wish we had a forum for all of us to post and be notified by mail. I also posted in the Discussion Forum "Why Quantum", with the title "Why quantum? Why not Local Realism?" and I got some answers.

        Because it was reported as incorrect, all posts were deleted, including the comments. Even the one I wrote here.

        The news is: I got an answer from Prof. 'T.Hooft.

        Are you interested in following this discussion? I can't publish his comments, without his authorization, of course, but I can post my answers.

        Should I post them here? Will anybody see them?

        I'm still here, fighting for a scientific revolution, I'm not going anywhere.

        Sincerely

        Teresa

          Yes I'm interested..

          In general Teresa, it is OK to reprint comments made by scientists in correspondence, if they are topical (concerning local realism in this case) or general rather than personal in nature - so long as it is cited as coming from personal correspondence and not treated as though it was published work. So stating something like; "in his reply Gerard said..." is usually OK without further permissions - which can be annoying to provide.

          For the record; the initial 't' is not capitalized, and when pronounced his name has a leading vowel - so it sounds like ut Hooft, rather than tuh Hooft.

          If it seems OK given the above criteria, bring it on, or share a few excerpts you think are worthwhile to repeat.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan