Dear Akinbo,

You mention above that I have "carefully prepared the parcels in the so-called 'singlet state' or binary as Tim prefers." As the singlet states are 2-D representations, but include the imaginary i, and Pauli matrices are 2 x 2 matrices, also including i, the operations of the 2 x 2 matrix on the 2-D states can be mapped into a 3 x 3 real rotation matrix operating on a real 3-D vector. Just another way in which quantum mechanics obscures or hides the 3-D nature of spin. (Nothing nefarious implied, just the way things are.)

As you note Tim (@ 03:49 0n 4 Feb above) states

"Send a neutron through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus and report the outcome as either "spin up" meaning "neutron recorded above the midline" or "spin down" meaning "outcome recorded below the midline". The outcome space is now binary and Bell's result applies. This is what is meant everywhere by "doing a spin measurement on a neutron" and it is what is understood by saying "a spin measurement on a spin ½ particle is always either spin-up or spin-down"."

He then goes on to state: "The actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below, and for the purposes of reporting the result the former count as "spin up" and the latter as "spin down". This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..."

This appears not to be the case, based on "an actual experimental record of neutron impact positions on the screen." As we non-members are not allowed to post graphics (probably a good rule) I will post the neutron data in such manner than anyone can plot it:

Position, counts

60, 48

50, 130

40, 182

30, 298

20, 364

10, 350

0, 436

-10, 381

-20, 338

-30, 311

-40, 154

-50, 102

-60, 39

Tim Maudlin, in a series of comments above, flatly states that Stern-Gerlach, with neutrons, is a binary measurement, with "actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below..." and further states, "This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..." Does this appear to be the case to anyone else? Plot it and see.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #146

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #147

    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

      Dear Tejinder, Anshu,

      Thank you for reading and thinking about my essay. As the issue of Bell's theorem and physics is quite complex and exceedingly important, it's wise to revisit it until it is understood and can be accepted or rejected. References [2] and [4] contain much supporting physics. I do hope you find time and are motivated to understand my treatment of Bell. I believe the key fact is that my local model has produced the correct correlation, -a.b, which Bell claims to be impossible.

      It is very important for everyone to understand that experiments do not "prove" non-locality. They prove only that Bell's models do not work correctly. The question is why? I contend, and offer evidence, that it is Bell's constraints that force any such local model to fail. This is an artifact due to incorrect choice of mathematical 'map', not a feature of physical reality.

      You also ask, given that I establish the fundamental physical nature of counters and counting -- based on fundamentally physical logical operations NOT and AND that provide all arithmetic operators -- how I "build the number system, as well as geometry and algebra." Although many here trace the history of math, I rely upon Kronecker, who said "God made the integers, all else is the work of man." As you note in your essay, after analytical geometry every geometric object and operation can be mapped to numbers.

      You also state in your essay "pattern recognition, with inputs from arithmetic, is the basis of algebra." The robot is designed with robust pattern recognition capability, and rich algorithmic resources. You mentioned "hardwired" human primordial perceptions such as object, size, shape, pattern and change..." The robot is hardwired to extract such features from numeric data and to build a "best" (using entropy extremization) feature vector, which is a 'primordial' Hilbert space representation. I used a US colloquialism which is probably inappropriate. I interpret 'persuasion' here as 'type'. The equations that conserve the eigenvalues [features] are eigenvalue equations.

      Finally you ask whether there is a parallel with the cognitive processes you discuss. There is not in terms of the robot, which is assumed to lack conscious awareness. Of course the robot was designed by intelligence, but my purpose was to show that, based simply on the physical reality of logic gates/operators, one can go all the way to classical and quantum mechanics without conscious awareness, given sufficient measurements and appropriate pattern recognition and arithmetic processing capabilities. I have treated consciousness in an earlier FQXi essay, but the robot is not assumed to be conscious nor to evolve toward consciousness, only to be capable of very sophisticated mapping of numbers into features.

      As you observe, there is much more information in The Automatic Theory of Physics. Thank you again for your comment and your questions.

      I hope you reach some conclusion on Bell.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      You've not emphasized the conceptualisation of intuitional notions which results for "Truthful" actions which erases the name "Trick" from the subject.

      It's important to explore the True picture!

      Good luck!!

      Sincerely,

      Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

        First of all, I must admit that I am not a fan of Bell's analysis. There are so many deep flaws in Bell's approach that I do not consider it even useful discourse.

        Fortunately, your essay really had very little to do with Bell's arguments and I was pleasantly surprised by the flaws you note in Bell's approach.

        And I especially liked your comment to me about Hestenes geometrical algebra. The spin or phase of quantum matter is not something that we normally sense and that makes quantum action a little mysterious. The phase or spin of matter is what is missing from gravity action and that is a real shame.

        Your approach is largely based on the reality of empty space just as Bell's was and the typical statement of nonlocality is one that presupposes empty space as an object.

        I believe that quantum action does not need space at all and it is much more useful for the concept of space to emerge from action and not be a place for action to occur in the first place.

        1.0, entertaining

        2.0, well written

        1.5, understandable

        2.0, relevance to theme

        6.5

          Dear Steve,

          Thanks for reading and commenting. I would agree with you about 'useful discourse', but Bell has had such a profound effect on our physics, it is necessary to discuss him, useful or not. And I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised by the flaws in Bell's approach. Some responses to these flaws are not so pleasant.

          I have found Hestenes' approach very worthwhile, as every entity in his math has both a geometric definition and an algebraic definition, which is a far greater coupling than exists in other maths.

          I'm not sure how empty space emerges from action, but I tend to view space as containing at least the gravitational field and hence not being truly 'empty'. But obviously, this aspect of reality is one of the less agreed-upon features of modern physics.

          Thanks again. I'm glad you found my essay understandable. That was my main worry.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Miss Sujatha Jagannathan,

          While I have stated that intuition should guide our choice of the many mathematical maps applied to physical reality, you are correct that I did not emphasize the conceptualization of intuitive notions. Yet the classical model that yields QM correlation is very intuitive, and it contradicts Bell's extremely non-intuitive concept of non-locality.

          Thanks for reading and commenting. I look forward to reading your essay.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin,

          I read your highly professional essay executed in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt with a great interest. I have only one question. How you consider when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty? When they lost a reliable existential "map"?

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir,

            Thanks for your comment. That is a very interesting question! Einstein of course contributed when he confused 'synchronicity' with 'simultaneity', and again when he replaced the gravitational field with "curved space-time". But I believe the biggest disconnect between the math of physics and the intuitive trust in physical reality probably occurred when physicists began believing in "superposition" as if it were a physically real condition rather than a mathematical artifact. I think that's where the train left the tracks. After that physicists felt comfortable simply introducing another 'quantum field' or equivalent whenever a new problem needed to be solved. Today no physicist knows exactly how many 'fields' there are in physics, nor has any idea which fields are 'real'. As so many essays and comments here state, finding physics to fit the math is the wrong way to go. Much better to use math to describe real physics.

            My best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Vladimir,

            I have looked at the interview with Alexander Zenkin. He begins by noting the super-abstractionism of the Bourbaki, leading to two mathematicians working in neighboring rooms but unable to understand each other. Almost all of my math education took place at the peak of the Bourbaki school, and I have been trying to overcome this handicap ever since. The rigor and rigidity is the antithesis of what a physicist should use math for.

            As I've noted in a number of places, I do not believe infinity 'exists' in physical reality, so (except for my early math education) I have paid no attention to mathematical treatments of infinity. In the paper Zenkin mentions that Cantor designates 'a series without end' by the symbol omega and then, skipping through the potential infinity of the series, continues to count further: omega +1, omega +2, ... Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics.

            In short, I am very much in sympathy with the views expressed in the paper.

            I would also point out to you that Eckard Blumshein's essay has just posted, dealing with similar aspects of mathematics and its relevance to physics. I highly recommend his essay and think you will enjoy it.

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin,

            Thank you very much for your answer! I think that the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" - the main problem today. And above all - this is a problem "foundations of Mathematics". This is "problem of the millennium number 1". "The Queen and Servant" should have a strong and reliable throne...

            "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." (A.Einstein)

            "... Truth should be drawn and presented to" unlimited group" viewers. " (A.Zenkin)

            "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" (J. Wheeler)

            Thank you very much, I'm sure to read the essay Eckard Blumshein!

            Good luck in the Contest,

            Kind regards,

            Vladimir

            Dear Edwin and dear Vladimir,

            Nobody and nothing seems to be perfect, not even the fqxi topic number of my essay. I just got its approval and the correct number 2342, not 2346 which I had seen before.

            What about my name, Edwin wrote this time correctly Eckard but he Americanized Blumschein to Blumshein. In Russia I was advised to change it into Blumschain, and I signed accordingly ;-). Germans pronounce ei like ai.

            I don't think that "the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" is the main problem today". Aren't semi-irrational ideologies more problematic? I don't just refer to malign patriotism and malign islamism but also to the suppression of criticism.

            Why not sober looking at Weierstrass, Kronecker, Cantor, Dedekind, Hilbert, Einstein, Fraenkel and Bourbaki with the due critical distance?

            Yes: "omega +1, omega +2, ... Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics", and it has actually been proven entirely useless.

            I vote for as many rigor as rationally justified, and I arrived at strong arguments against what I consider unwarranted ideologies like Set Theory, Special Relativity, and Spacetime which I capitalized in order to put them into the same drawer as God.

            Eckard

            Dear Edwin

            I read your highly technical and beautifully illustrated paper with great interest impressed by what appears to be your definitive highlighting of the fatal flaw in Bell's Theorem. I say 'appears' because while your analysis is technically beyond me, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory I followed physical and intuitive reasoning to reach a similar conclusion: local causality embodied in the anti-parrallel angle between the two particles (your green arrows) is maintained from start to finish even though the spin direction theta is random. In other words this anti-parrallelism is still there when when Alice and Bob measure them so of course they are entangled. By the way you say "theta-dependent scattering should be testable experimentally". It will be great if you can explain that. This cracked Bell has tolled hollow for far too long. I wish you and like-minded researchers more power to silence it for good.

            I am still writing my essay hope you can glance at it when it is published. Best wishes.

            Vladimir

              Dear Eckard,

              I caught the misspelling immediately but didn't want to put another comment merely to draw attention to it. I use voice recognition software which is surprisingly good on well-known names but can make the type of error that you saw on some names. Of course it is my duty to edit my own comments so I can't really blame software. Usually I simply try to cut and paste names in to guarantee correct spellings, but sometimes I screw up.

              Thanks for your feedback on the omega +1, omega +2, etc. I always like to receive your blessings on this type of issue.

              I am curious as to any feedback you could give me on the technical content of my essay. Did you feel that you understood it? Did you find any minor mistakes? Do you have any comments?

              I believe I saw a few weeks ago a comment that you have personal issues taking up a lot of your time, and I realize that my essay is time-consuming. So if that's the case ignore my above request for such comments.

              Best,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman