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

    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!

    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

    a month later

    Re: invitation from Foundations of Physics

    Since 't Hooft is the head editor, it's probably no coincidence. Better make your case both compelling and air-tight though.

    And I see you have come out on top of the public ratings.

    Good luck,

    Jonathan

    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

    8 years later
    Write a Reply...