Physics Needs A Paradigm Shift by Teresa Mendes

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

Done!

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

Hi Jonathan

I love when people take the time to explain newcomers the "rules". Thank you.

I wish we had a place to "talk", not in "my" forum or "your" forum so that we both could be notified by mail.

So here is my answer to Gerard (hehe) when he said, in a mail to me 23Sept14, "Dear Teresa,

Thank you for your mail. I understand your point but I don't quite agree with it. I realise that photons cannot be detected with absolute accuracy and reliability, but the question is whether this is a sufficiently essential element of quantum mechanics to explain the apparent violations of the Bell inequality. I don't think so [,,,] Cordially, Gerard 't Hooft"

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

"Dear Prof. Gerard 't Hooft,

Thank you so much for your reply. Please let me restate my point regarding photon detection efficiency to make it as clear as I possibly can.

Quantum theory predicts that photons, being fundamental particles, are potentially detectable with 100% efficiency.

No physical photon detector to this date has even come close to that (latest detectors, after decades of technological development, have at most quantum efficiencies in the low 70s%).

Is this not evidence of a prediction of QT that is not confirmed by experimental evidence?

All this talk about quantum detection efficiencies may seem, at first sight, too much attention over a minor detail.

But in fact it is not. Through Bell's theorem, local-realism places a upper bound of 76% on photon detection efficiency in Bell experiments.

The fact that real photon detectors have not broken through this bound means that no Bell experiment ever displayed behavior inconsistent with local-realism and this is strong evidence that local-realism is a property of the universe.

QT, unfortunately, is incompatible with local-realism and thus may not be a correct description of the universe.

The fact that many predictions made by QT have been experimentally corroborated, as Quine often pointed out, does not imply that it is the only theory that can be consistent with that evidence.

Other theories may exist which are also consistent with that evidence and possibly one (or more) of these may well be consistent with local-realism as well.

In fact, your CA approach is exactly one such alternative.

Shouldn´t significant resources be allocated to the search for these alternatives right now?

Can you help me in this cause?

(I noticed that the link for my FQXi Video Contest was not correct.

Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2246 )

I'm always here.

Sincerely

Teresa

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

And now? Do you think he will answer me back?

May be this is only a coincidence, but today I receive a (standard) invitation from Foundations of Physics to publish. Something that had never happen before. Nice coincidence, no?

Still here

Teresa

PS: fractal images and music?? Jonathan, you are an artist!

I will. Thank you.

Teresa

Hi all

Waiting for the results of this FQXI video context, I'm still working on the quest towards a revolutionary phase in the Physics arena based on two fundamental strategies:

- changing the way the physics community think and teach undergraduate students towards the "consensus" that Local Realism has not been experimentally rejected, so both, local realism and quantum mechanics are equally viable basis for the interpretation of quantum phenomena;

- and because local realism has been, for more than 5 decades, deprived of funds, actively promote in institutes and universities for a reasonable quota of funds for that line of research.

I have been looking into two recent prestigious conferences on the Foundations of Physics:

- 2013, Emergent Quantum Mechanics, in Vienna (1)

- 2014, Quantum Theory from Problems to Advances - QTPA, at Linnaeus University, Sweden (2)

Like the FQXI community, both conferences actively search for a more deep understanding of reality, all researchers struggle on the "Bell's problem", and already a lot of researchers, like Prof. t'Hooft , defend that the solution could be in on causal, deterministic foundation, meaning based on a local realistic paradigm, against the majority of the Physics Community.

How hard, FQXI Community, can it be to promote a serious discussion over J.Especial's article "Bell Inequalities under non ideal conditions" (3), without prejudices over the "credibility" of an outsider, and if agreeing with the conclusion, join your efforts to make the world of Physics much more exciting thus contributing for economic sustainable progress for the whole planet, in the next few decades?

I have a dream? Yes I do. And I invite all of you to share it.

I can't finish this post without thanking all my portuguese friends that help me get the necessary attention of this community.

Thank you, Portugal.

And thank you FQXI.

Sincerely

Teresa Mendes

(1) 2013 Emergent Quantum Mechanics

(2) 2014 QTPA, at Linnaeus University, Sweden

(3) Especial,J. Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions

Thank you Jonathan,

I'm counting on FQXI to make it compelling and air-tight.

All the best

Teresa