Physics Needs A Paradigm Shift by Teresa Mendes

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

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"

Thank you. Thank you.

[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

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

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