Dear Sir,

We appear to have agreement at the fundamental level. You may recall, after the black hole firewall paradox appeared during July 2012, it is no longer easy to say that both relativity and quantum mechanics (especially entanglement) are correct. One of them must be wrong. We question relativity as conceptually flawed and a wrong description of reality, but question only some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. But why is the scientific community shying away from accepting facts boldly? If the points raised and examples given in our essay are wrong, it should be openly told and not bye passed. If they are correct, they should be accepted.

Regards,

basudeba

The main thing that I get from your essay is that you have essentially a classical model of the electron. The factoring out of cosθ is due to the fact the quantum measurement of spin does not measure a part of the angular momentum projected along an axis of measurement. That can happen classically, but experimentally this has never been found. So this factoring out is motivated by experiment that is in agreement with quantum physics.

LC

    Lawrence,

    With great respect for your acumen in math, could you elaborate enough to make it clear where the physical distinction lies in factoring out (cosTheta/cosTheta) as pertains to Quantum measurement not including a coeffeciency of measure along the spin axis. Doesn't this impose an assumption of a true circular orbit of precession?

    Arguably any precession would be physically ellipsoid, or at some point on the axis of rotation, change of direction would become instantaneous. If any precession would naturally follow a 'wobble' of that point avoiding instantaneous angular change, then the statement that it 'has not been experimentally found' is a fallicy of substitution. Classically, it is consistently found that deflection occurs as a three vector, which QM simply does not try to predict. Again, we encounter the arbitrary +or-1, which in this case limits vectors along the axis projection to extend only in parallel to the extention of the eigenvector of results, and excludes any local values between that and perpendicular. Genuinely asked, jrc

    The theory of angular momentum is that the value of the angular momentum measured is a projection from L to -L in increments of 1. A spin 1/2 system can then only have -1/2 and 1/2 along a basis. A boson can have -1, 0, 1 if the boson is massive, and the 0 case is gone for a massless particle. Quantum mechanics does not permit one to measure a spin = 1/2cosθ for some angle other than 0 or π. That is the point of the whole division by |cosθ|. A classical angular momentum, where there is not much meaning to a classical intrinsic spin, can have the angular momentum vector pointed differently than the direction the observer chooses to measure it.

    LC

    Dear basudeba,

    I only addressed specific issues in your above comment, but I found your comment extremely well written, and very insightful. I would like to address your remark that

    "Contrary to general belief, entanglement does not extend infinitely, but breaks down after some distance like a rubber band..."

    Susskind at Stanford regularly states that entanglement is weird because it tells us about the whole while we know nothing of the parts. Before Bell that was simply conservation of energy/momentum, and there was nothing weird about it.

    As I point out in several places, the current version of entanglement is associated with non-locality, as Bell thought he had proved that no local model could produce QM correlations, in which case there is a need for something that does account for the correlation.

    But, as no one understands the physical mechanism of entanglement (or anything at all physical about it) is also confused with local interaction. For example a recent article "entanglement on a chip" seems to imply the reality of entanglement. In my theory, which holds that momentum and intrinsic spin are separable (a tensor product), momentum produces a real, physical deBroglie-like wave aspect for a particle. If two (or more) such particles interact in close proximity then they do affect each other, potentially changing their states, and becoming effectively "entangled". This interaction-based interdependence is not Bell's non-local entanglement, but I believe that is pointed out nowhere.

    You ask why the scientific establishment shies away from recognizing the shaky ground of current science. It is because, as in all human enterprises, 'establishment' dominates 'science'. This is as old as mankind, and no one should expect it to change. Planck said that science progresses 'funeral by funeral', but today the establishment is too big for this to hold. But this will not prevent new challenges, like the 'slow photons', from arising.

    Thank you again for your excellent comments.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Lawrence,

    Thank-you for your time and attention in response. I'll give it some read. Much obliged, jrc

    Lawrence,

    Despite what some Bell defenders say, Bell really was asking whether a classical model could produce quantum predictions. He did not insist on "classical" because he would have been interested in any non-classical theory, if only someone could imagine one that works.

    The main point I am addressing is the constant refrain in the literature that:

    "No local model can reproduce the quantum correlations."

    I show a local model that can and does unless subject to Bell's irrational constraints, and I explain why (in my opinion) Bell imposed these constraints. This should have implications for 'entanglement' and for the credo that "information is not lost". The initial spin information is lost in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and Bell erases it in his theory. Yet the quantum mechanical predictions are reproduced by my theory.

    That you are not happy with a 'classical' model does not change the fact that it does produce the supposedly impossible quantum correlations, which is what I set out to prove.

    The Quantum Credo, mentioned by Zurek in his Physics Today article on Quantum Darwinism is truly a religious belief in that it is not subject to rational argument. Those who believe (but think they 'know') that the classical ('real') world statistically arises from the mystical quantum world are not open to argument. They have their credo and to hell with anyone who questions it.

    I briefly discuss a broader picture on pages 104 - 113 in Quantum Spin and Local Reality, but a 9 page essay precludes such discussion. Matt Leifer's quote on page 10 in my endnotes accurately summarizes the current confused state of quantum mechanics (after 90 years!)

    I currently have about 200 pages on spin that cover far more than the 9 page essay. I point out that spin is connected (in QM) to a deBroglie-Bohm-like particle only as a tensor product (see top of page 9):

    |ps> = |p> x |s>

    where |p> is the momentum wave function and |s> is spin. It is a mistake to fail to differentiate the intrinsic angular momentum from the other momentum, linear or angular. My current essay focuses only on the intrinsic spin. That does not mean my model does not address non-spin quantum mechanics.

    But it is difficult to think new thoughts, much easier to dismiss a model as "classical", despite that my spin model is quantized, and my momentum model does induce deBroglie-like 'waves'. My model also seems to explain the recently reported photons that go slower than light in vacuum. I believe that QM as it stands and relativity as it stands are not up to explaining current and expected (by me) experimental results.

    Many physicists have simply rejected mystical religion to create a new mystical science, where they can be the high priests. They become more conservative, even regressive, as their hold on power erodes, and their mysticism becomes even more esoteric. There is no way not to offend such believers, and I reject political correctness. Like jrc, I do not question your mathematical acumen, but you already know that I question your physics. It's no surprise that you question mine. FQXi offers us both the platform. But, like Phil, I don't want you telling me how you voted for me. Much better to simply discuss ideas found in essays.

    In your second comment, you state that quantum mechanics "does not permit one to measure a spin for some angle other than 0 or n." My energy-exchange theory should be subject to experimental test that would measure just such an angle, and I plan to push for such a test. FQXi is offering grants for (The Physics of What Happens). Such a grant could start the ball rolling. If theta is measured, then that will simply prove QM is incomplete. That will come as a shock to believers in the Quantum Credo.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    For some reason the above post does not show a reply box.

    You have a classical model of the electron that does what you say. If you are doing this business of not taking Fcosθ --- > Fcosθ/|cosθ| then you really do not have quantum mechanics. Later text appears to show similar ideas with ellipses and the like.

    LC

      Lawrence,

      Despite our history of five years of disagreements, you say that I have a classical model of the electron that does what I say. Thank you. What I say is that it yields the quantum mechanical correlation that Bell claims to be impossible for any local theory.

      Then you say I really do not have quantum mechanics. As I've stated, my intention was to design a local theory that yields quantum mechanical correlations, which I have done. It implies that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

      You said above "Quantum mechanics does not permit one to measure a spin = 1/2cosθ for some angle other than 0 or π." My response is that my energy-exchange theory should be subject to experimental test that could measure just such an angle, and I plan to push for such a test. FQXi is offering grants for The Physics of What Happens. My model explains what happens when the particle is scattered by a heterogeneous field. If θ is measured, then that will simply prove QM is incomplete.

      Thank you for observing that the model does what I say.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      You don't have QM in the standard way. The Stern-Gerlach experiment in your setting would not have the discrete sets of spins. You have a local realism where the spin has projections along an axis that can be less than 1/2.

      You have a "war" against QM and nonlocality, and of course this is a physics case of Don Quixote on his quest. FQXI has a large number of people who hang on the blogs and contribute to the essays who have similar ideas. There are further people with anti-relativity biases as well. As a result your essays always attract loads of attention and votes. The problem is that science is not really a democracy, and these contests tend to operate that way. I don't have time right at the moment to look this up, but there are a couple of famous videos of Richard Feynman talking about this. In one of them he talks directly about the sort of ideas you advance and in one of them he talks about "if you don't like it go somewhere else."

      Actually, if you really think about it, QM is not what is so strange. What is really strange is that on a large scale there is this classical world, which is coarse grained physics built up from QM. QM can't be understood in a classical sense. The strangeness of QM is due to our insistence on shoving it into a classical setting. Trying to converse to build the classical world from QM is difficult as well, and we might find this not entirely tractable either.

      LC

      In all fairness, both classicists and quants see the other side as arising from their own. In application, technocrats don't care which works, just that it does. jrc

      Lawrence,

      for no known reason, a couple of your posts are now missing. All disagreements are in some manner instructive as to what questions need be discovered. Relativity and Quantum diverged so rapidly from the outset that maybe something was missed. Hope FQXi can restore your comments. jrc

      jrc,

      I requested the administrator remove the last post, which made false accusations and included several gratuitous insults. I do not go on LC's thread and insult him. Most longtime FQXi'ers know that he and I have very different ideas of reality, and this is extremely unlikely to change.

      I find quantum mechanics almost a miraculous machine for statistically predicting outcomes of situations which can be in one of N states. The cost of this is ignoring the physics of the process and merely calling it a 'jump' or a 'collapse of the wave function'. My suggestion that QM is incomplete may offend some, despite that it was Einstein's key question in EPR. Yet Zurek's "decoherence" program which attempts to derive classical physics from quantum mechanics, is, in my opinion, unconvincing. My classical model that yields quantum predictions may have struck a nerve. As I note, the question can be decided experimentally, which is the way physics works.

      Technical arguments are welcome on my thread, but not gratuitous insults.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

      If I may. Me thinks they doth protest too much. But in response to which I found in reading what looks like it might be a quantum corollary to your model in the 'quantum rotor model'. It has experimental confirmation in low energy electron dipole coupled systems such as quantum Hall effect devices. :-)jrc

      jrc,

      Thanks for your continued interest. You are correct that the "quantum rotor" is an apt analog. I have spent some time on the 'kicked rotor', which receives a cyclical kick and leads to chaos. If you look at my right hand figure on page 8 of my essay, you may be able to see how such a kick arises. I've done some work on this but it's not ready for prime time. Initial results seem to imply that chaos can account for the apparent quantum randomness in an otherwise deterministic model.

      There is a ton of literature on kicked rotors, quantum and classical, with one of the latest being the 21 Nov 2014 Phys Rev Letters 113, 216802 treating the chaos of the kicked spin-1/2 rotor. Another PRL paper, 49,509 (23 Aug 1982) reports that

      "The motion of nonlinear classical systems can display random characteristics... The solutions of the equations, although they may statistically be definite, are stochastic and behave as if they contain a random number generator... even though the equations themselves are deterministic and even simple."

      They refer to

      "The simplest example known, that of the kicked quantum rotator."

      My basic model has proved to be exceedingly rich, and I see much low hanging fruit that I hope to harvest. One of the papers I just looked at online concludes that their kicked rotor model exhibits a quantum to classical transition. The kicked rotor treatment of my model may provide a classical to quantum transition.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Maybe I will just leave this to Richard Feynman

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4

      LC

      Dear Edwin,

      I'm afraid that this misses the point, both of Bell's proof and of the physics. The outcome of Alice's experiment just is reported as a +1 or -1, or "up" or "down", or however one wishes to code the response. The outcome reported out of the labs, and from which the correlations are calculated, simply are not anything else. That is the actual experimental situation in reality, and the sort of experimental situation Bell discusses (at least in the sort of experiment done by, e.g. Aspect). It also happens to be the sort of prediction made by quantum theory, but that is a side point. What a local theory cannot do is predict statistics of binary outcomes that violate Bel's inequality: that what the theorem shows. And such violations of the statistics of reported binary outcomes is what actually happens in the world.

      You have misunderstood Bell's formula. It is a formula for experiments whose outcomes are reported as binary: one result or the other. That is what is actually done in the lab. So this formula applies to the actual lab results, produced in the real world. Bell nowhere asserts that the outcomes of all experiments must be binary, but the formula's a completely correct for experiments whose outcomes are, in fact, binary. So there is nothing wrong at all with how the problem has been set up.

      I'm afraid that it is very hard to follow what you write above. Is there a single function F(a, lambda) whose range is (+1, -1) which encodes the local physics, i.e. which specifies, given the setting a and the additional parameters lambda (set at the source) which of the two outcomes gets recorded? If so, please state precisely what this function is. You mention of two functions, which you call +A and -A (or +B and -B) just confuses the situation since it should be impossible to get both the + and the - outcomes on any run. But, again, the plain physical fact in reality is that on every run the outcome on each side is either up or down, which may be called +1 and -1 by convention. If you claim that this is the problematic assumption of Bell, then you do not understand that this is actually what the experiments yield.

      Perhaps you could explain this sentence: "Now you ask where in his theorem do Bell's constraints appear. They appear in his first equation (1) where he states that +A(a, lambda) must equal +1, and -A(a, lambda) must be constrained to -1. There is no valid reason for these constraints.." I have Bell's paper before me, and cannot imagine why you have written this, as it is inaccurate. Bell nowhere mentions two functions, which you call +A(a,lambda) and -A(a lambda). He mentions one single function, A(a lambda), whose range is given as +1 and -1. All that means is that the outcome of the experiment is reported as one of two types. in the case of a Stern-Gerlach situation, the two types would be called "spin-up" and "spin-down". In the case of photons, the two types will depend on which of two output channels the photon is detected in. Bell is simply describing a certain sort of experiment, which is one where the outcomes are reported in this way.

      If you look at the actual outcome of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, it is clear that for electrons that go down the center of the device there are indeed sorted into two distinct classes of results, which can be called "up" and "down" or "+1" and -1", or whatever one likes.

      You seem to grant that Bell's theorem is indeed a theorem for experiments of this character. Since the actual experiments are of this character, Bell has made no error. What exactly you claim to have calculated for your model I cannot say, since you seem to be denying that in your model the outcomes are binary.

      Regards,

      Tim

      John Cox,

      Just like Edwin, you have missed what Bell is doing. He uses no "spin operator" of any sort, and the issue is not "excluded middle" in the logical sense of that term. He is simply proving a theorem about certain sorts of experiments, whose outcomes are reported as being of either one or another sort. It turns out that spin experiments, and certain polarization experiments are just, factually, like that. In a spin experiment using a Stern-Gerlach device (this is not, of course, what Aspect used in any case) one says: if the particle is detected on or above the midline, the result is "spin up" and if it is below the midline it is "spin down". (Since none ever hit at the midline that case is actually irrelevant.) For polarization using a birefringent crystal, there are two output channels with photomultiplier tubes. If one tube fires it is one result, if the other fires it is the other result. That is a correct description of the experimental situation. So there is no contentious assumption or error there. Your talk of "Bell's choice of operator" suggests that you have not read his theorem, which mentions no operators at all, and provides no attempt to physically model anything. He is talking about the possibility of any local theory at all, constructed in any way, being able to produce predictions for certain correlations among outcomes of experiments with binary outcomes (as described above). Exactly zero quantum mechanics or quantum-mechanical formalism is employed in the proof.

      If an experiment is reported as having one of two outcomes--"spin up" vs. "spin down", or "photomultiplier 1 fired" vs. "photomultiplier 2 fired" or "the red light went on" vs. "the green light went on"--those can obviously be coded as "+1" vs. "-1". That is all Bell does in framing the theorem. I suppose that is what Edwin is trying to call "Bell's hidden constraint", but it is not at all hidden and is a perfectly accurate characterization of the experiments Aspect did and also how the result of "spin measurements" would come out. So in the relevant sense it is no constraint at all.

      Insofar as Edwin is treating experiments that do not have outcomes described in this binary way he is making no contact with Bell's theorem, and therefore cannot possibly have shown that there is any error in it. I still can't tell what he thinks he has calculated or how.

      As to your comments about Bell being naive, I can't make sense of them. As for whether one can generalize Bell's result to cover other sorts of experiments, whose outcomes are not reported with a binary outcome space...why should that even be of any concern? We have actual, concrete, performed experiments with a binary outcome space, covered by the theorem, that prove non-locality. There is nothing more to do.

      Regards,

      Tim Maudlin