The Nature of Bell\'s Hidden Constraints by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Nick,

In re-reading your first comment above, you bring up Wigner's "Unreasonable effectiveness..." paper, answering which was a key motivation for my dissertation, [link:www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Klingman+Automatic+]The Automatic Theory of Physics[/link]. The figure on the first page of my essay encapsulates the way in which physical counters, producing natural numbers, can make counter-based measurements (recall that the heart of quantum field theory is the number operator.) The measurement map is the plane at the far left, and the measurements are generated automatically, one way or another. The question is what to do with all these numbers. To answer that, I invoke a robot. This allows algorithmic computations but removes intuition. (Whatever one thinks of the eventual possibilities of robots gaining intuition, it was beyond doubt that when I wrote this, robots did not have intuition. But even in those dark ages we had neural net algorithms and other self-modifying-map architectures for learning.)

My design of the robot anticipates Max Tegmark's concern with 'baggage' - I left the baggage out. The robot has access to resources, including random number generators, arithmetic-logic-language circuitry and systems, and sensors and activators to interface to the physical world, but no consciousness or intuition or beliefs - no baggage - just designed-in algorithms, including learning and self-modifying-map algorithms. This response to Wigner is a vehicle for testing "A theory of theories of physics", and some similar work by others in 2009 extended this idea.

The relevance of this to your being laid back about the incompleteness of QM is that the measurement space on the left of the figure consists of nothing but numbers, all of which can be accessed by the robot who performs cluster mapping on involving intercept and interest set distances, grouping the data into n-dimensional cluster space. This is not necessarily the optimal dimensional representation of physical reality (i.e., the object/source of measurements) so I employ a Karhunen-Loeve transformation from n-space to lower dimensional m-space, from which the feature vectors are formed. The eigenvalues are the vector elements and the eigenvalue equations are the transforms that preserve them - quantum mechanics!

In this view the quantum mechanical formulation arises from statistical clustering of measurement numbers, but what is being measured? What is at the left of the number space that is the real source of measurements? What is its nature? There is no obvious answer.

If one believes all of physical reality is somehow quantized, and it is impossible to measure any other value, then one assumes

A eigenstates exist, and

B ideal measurements yield eigenvalues

But the robot doesn't carry this baggage, the ingrained belief of almost a century of QM. There is no way for him to tell whether the numbers represent eigenstates or random digitized data derived from measurements on a continuum. Not being a robot, I do carry baggage, and my personal view is that reality is a continuum, with only action quantized, not time or length or even energy, except when boundaries are imposed on a subsystem. The magnitude of intrinsic spin is quantized, but its direction is 3-dimensional unless and until it is caused to align with the local field, as in Stern-Gerlach.

This view has led to a local model that produces the same correlation as quantum mechanics, with implications for entanglement and it seems to imply that QM is incomplete. I repeat, not wrong, but incomplete. As you mention, there is EPR baggage that causes some resistance to this notion. Not sure how to handle it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Doc,

I'll be pleased to. Though the abundance of literature seems to be more about eliminating loopholes than demonstrating the dependence of both quantum and relativistic theory on firm classical grounds. Forgotten in the application of textbook inventory formulae, is the stated rationale at inception of many concepts. In particular to 'spin', the 1/2 value is prescribed quite simply by Maxwell's authoritative qualification of Faraday's 'right hand rule', even Heisenberg recognized that. 1/2pi, is (gee) 90 degrees. Which goes to Minkowski, which goes to spin being an intrinsic property of real measurement function. That no doubt might sound cranky to one without a dissertation on file, so if I run across a choicy item I'll email. Kind regards, jrc

Dear Edwin,

Thanks for throwing more light on this topic. This is as it should be. Honest and sincere attempts to throw more light where one can rather than generating heat that does not illuminate the problem.

I will FULLY agree to this summary, which you have yourself stated: Bell SHOULD have simply stated that "my model fails to produce either the quantum mechanical or the experimental measurements".

My black and white ball analogy may be too simplistic. It may also not provide for the scenario where Alice and Bob freely choose how they each want to go about doing their measurement. But in my opinion it would seem wise to start with a simple experiment, such as black and white, obtain the result. Then repeat with more and more complex arrangements and compare the results. If no correlation is then found in the latter more complex cases, then the conclusion that would appear correct to me is that the starting complex arrangement is what is responsible for non-correlation and not any entanglement or quantum magic. The experiments can also be done for the case where Alice and Bob freely choose which color they want to record for the case of balls with for example up to three colors on them.

All the same I wish you well in this competition. It is high time we do away with this Bell non-issue and devote our energies to something more rewarding. Your approach almost confirms this and it should be given a dispassionate hearing by the 'big boys". Others have equally faulted the math used (I cant recall the name but someone submitted an essay to the 2013 competition faulting the basis for the first equation in Bell's paper). And as John Cox pointed out, in the midst of the euphoria about Bell's theorem the stated rationale at inception is forgotten.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I think the real issue facing quantum mechanics is the same it has battled over all along. Schodinger himself, among other originators, objected so strongly to the purely probabilistic interpretation launched by Max Born, that he publicly stated that he wished he had never had anything to do with the development of QM. You can find some good excerpted reading at www.spaceandmotion.com, a webpage developed by Dr. Milo Wolff. He also started another site dedicated to further examination of a model he developed from discovering a physical rationale for deBroglie's Wave Equation which, though never having been explained by anyone, is the underpinning of all wavefunction in QM. That site is at www.quantummatter.com. Wishing you good hunting, jrc

Dr. Klingman,

I am being formal out of respect that my own lack of credentials can be a liability to those such as yourself whom have successfully defended a doctoral dissertation. This thread seems to be missing a recent post of yours to Akinbo that provides a link to your 1979 dissertation, now published as Automatic Theory of Physics. Just a heads-up. ;-) jrc

Thanks Edwin,

I've got a recent problem with my email send not interfacing with my IP, but when I get that sorted out I'll contact you on topics beyond the scope of this current contest subject. I very much appreciate being included, and the directive guidance in your remarks. Thank-you again, jrc

A curious distribution indeed. Not binary but also not a normal Bell-curve type distribution. Here Bell does not refer to John Bell.

I am hopeful that Hamilton might allow those spin calculation to be done in an alternate manner.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

I wonder if what you mean, is that there might be a topological fix to make the asymmetric position plots conform to a symmetrical bell curve? I think not.

The asymmetry looks very much akin to an analemma that one would expect of an orbiting body annually by its declination and time equation. If the precession axis intersects the midpoint of the rotation axis, the resultant analemma will be a symmetrical 'figure eight'. An asymmetrical analemma is prescribed by an intersect offset from the midpoint.

And that is what I find distinguishing in the arguments about quantum mechanical spin. Firstly, spin was an adjustment for the magnetic field intensity of an electron, envisioned as a hard sphere with the total charge uniformly distributed on the surface, being much too strong to be explained by Maxwell's electrodynamics as generated by rotation of the sphere unless the translational velocity on the equatorial plane was in excess of light velocity. So spin was hypothesized to be an intrinsic, static, rotation. In other words, it behaves as if there is rotation but there isn't.

Secondly, though General Relativity has yet to be reformulated to describe micro-scale field quasi-particles, the relativistic concept of time dilation need not be discounted. A photon would experience the same elapsed time, transiting the same amount of time in a smaller bottle as in a larger bottle. So the magnitude of light velocity difference between electrical and magnetic field intensity between identical point charges as per Maxwell, (treated as angular light velocity on the electron equator) could be attributed to relativistic time differential in a spherical non rotating energy field volume. The polarity of the magnetic field would then be explained as a typical projection of physical rotation exhibiting a dipole moment, but with out exceeding light velocity. Spin is not really necessary but would be subsumed as a measurement function extending from a point center which QM treats as the point particle. Yet that spin axis initially should be treated in relation to the inertial trajectory of the real particle.

AND, thirdly, spin evolves from the electron ("I would just like to know what an electron is." A. Einstein) so we have to acknowledge that. BUT you can NOT use electrons in a Stern-Gerlach experiment because the magnetic moment becomes overwhelmed by interaction with the external field. Neutral atoms, or neutrons are used which experience gradient deflection in relation to the axial declination of rotation at point of time in precession. Hence the asymmetrical plot spread indicates a real particle rotating with a slight wobble.

Also, in an S-G experiment, neutrons come one at a time, as many as you like. There is no splitting of equal numbers of opposite polarities.

Hornets! you say? :-) jrc

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your careful reading of our essay and your comments on it. We will definitely read your essay in the next few days and respond to it.

Best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu

John,

Actually, my statement was not nearly so complicated. I merely observed that the data is not a binary distribution as Dr. Maudlin insists that it must be. I also noted that it does not look like the usual Bell curve from statistics, and hence statistical analysis might not be useful.

I plotted the data and it looks like a triangle. If position is the x-axis and counts are the y-axis, the data looks like a triangle with the base being at (-70,0) to (+70,0) and the apex being at (0, 436).

Of course, there are no zero count measurements presented, but both sides of the triangle seem to extrapolate to a symmetrical value. Two of the data points are not a good fit but all the rest are.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

In an effort to keep the most relevant ideas in one place, I reproduce most of the comment I made to Roberto Mangabeira Unger:

In your essay you state that "causal explanations make no sense outside time; causal connections can exist only in time." This I agree with. But then you say "...the moves in a mathematical or logical chain of argument do occur outside time." I'm less sure of that. A mathematical argument goes from step to step in sequential fashion which seems to incorporate the nature of time. As it does not matter when one steps through the sequence, it is time-independent. Much of physics (the physics covered by energy conservation) is time independent: dH / dt = 0. I do not see this as equivalent to the Platonic vision which does truly seem to proclaim a realm outside time and space.

In similar fashion I view logic as a property of reality that allows the physical structure of AND-gates and NOT-gates. The physical implementation of logic gates, combined combinatorially in space and typically sequenced in time, provide counters that generate the natural numbers and address Kronecker's maxim: "God made the integers, all the rest (of math) is the work of man."

Thus I see logic not as an 'outside' rule or 'law' but as the primary property of physical existence, supporting a single, self-consistent, unitary reality. Physical evolution in time yields math 'circuitry' at almost all levels, but perfected at the level of man. The logical operation of such circuits (in a computer, a cell, or in our brains) is independent of time in the sense that it does not typically matter when the logic sequence is triggered nor how long the steps take, but still, the physical existence and operation is embedded in time. Of course structural changes that 'endure' in time record information, and this too is typically time-independent, but is in no way 'outside of time'. Thus all the basis of math is derived from and 'evoked by' physical reality. This operation of the universe is not "subject to laws" outside time, but we can abstract relations (as I briefly show in my essay) that capture the operations reliably and thus appear to have the character of law, or "timeless truth" -- probably more accurately stated "time-independent truth."

Finally, I fully agree that "mathematics cannot replace physical insight." As an example I show in my essay how mathematics, based on faulty physical insight, led Bell to introduce a mystical 'non-locality' that almost banishes physical insight. And this is not the only 20th century mathematics that muddles physical thinking. I see the correction and clarification of these induced mystical concepts as the greatest need in today's physics. Then we might move forward. Most movement today impresses me as lateral or even backward.

You certainly could have been thinking of John Bell when you stated:

"The less we grasp the non-mathematical reasons for the application of mathematics ... the more enigmatic and disconcerting the application of mathematics will appear to be."

Bell did not grasp the underlying physics, and thus based his mathematical treatment on false assumptions. The correct application of mathematics to incorrect physics has certainly led us to enigmatic and disconcerting conclusions. In this sense mathematics is as you say, "a good servant but a bad master."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Having read your essay, we will need to revisit it again to form an opinion on your stand on Bell's theorem. In the context of the first two pages of your essay, you remarked in your post on our page:

"I have employed a robot as a vehicle to eliminate bias and "baggage", while providing pattern recognition, learning algorithms (neural nets, self organizing maps, etc.) and have shown how counting, derived from logical physical structures, is essentially (along with simple arithmetic logic circuitry, silicon or biological) all that is required to go from raw measurement data to feature vectors of the quantum persuasion. "

While you do mention that this is elaborated in the early part of essay, and certainly there must be much more detail in your book, it will be very helpful to us if you could explain again how, after deriving counting from physical structures, you build the number system, as well as geometry and algebra. Is there a parallel with the cognitive processes we discuss? And what did you mean above by `feature vectors of quantum persuasion'? Thanks.

With best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu