Ed, There's a bit here that's not clear to me: "I am uninterested in devoting too much time trying to change your mind, which gives all appearance of already being made up."

Where do your believe that we differ, please? In other words: what part of my thinking would you like to see change?

That will enable me (if we differ) to summarise my case so that I too can get on with other things.

Thanks; Gordon

Gordon,

Your focus on whether Alice does the calculations, or someone else does the calculations, strikes me as foolishness. If you have a point, make your point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Excellent job Ed!

You definitely made your point here. I think it's absolutely true that Dirac's approach to helicity is both general and fundamental, while the expression used by Pauli is a special case. I like that you use the word provisional. The subtlety of the error you point out, and its self-concealing nature, mean that you probably have as many objections to deal with as Joy did. But you seem to be up to the challenge, and perhaps with enough of an even temper to refrain from pushing your detractors into defensive posturing.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

    Dear Jonathan,

    Thank you very much for your kind comment and your encouragement. You definitely understand the point, and you clearly also see the problem.

    And of course the problem is subtle, as your brilliant use of the term "self-concealing nature" shows. Only something as "self concealing" as this would keep it hidden from physicists for 50 years. So thank you again. Your clear, clean, wise comment is most appreciated.

    I read your essay today, and find that we are in even more agreement than usual. I will comment on your thread soon.

    With best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Good show!

    I am glad that my insights are valuable. But your paper is deserving of kind attention.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Hi Edwin,

    Through forty years of monthly doses of Scientific American, I've been led to believe that Bell, supported experimentally by Aspect, had a knock down riposte to EPR, so I am very interested to see you have taken him on. I like to think I might one day put the effort into mastering the mathematics required to understand your argument technically, but in the mean time I find the idea of Bell "using the wrong map" persuasive. As you know, I am passionate about reaching beyond instrumentalism in understanding this universe of ours, and I believe you are extending into that realm. I thoroughly enjoyed your essay Edwin,

    Cheers,

    Rowan

      Ed, is your model realistic?

      I agree your model is local -- as you state above -- finding my own local model hiding within yours: see equations (3)-(6) at my local model; version 1.** But there I made a planned second step: introducing realism (and matching QM) with equations (8)-(13).

      In other words: In that you and I (as local realists) require a model to be both local AND realistic: the above model was a deliberate pedagogic step to the fully local and realistic version at (8)-(13). See also my essay in this contest when it is available.

      So, not seeing how your model is realistic (nor how it moves beyond that first step above), I'd be pleased to learn:

      1. What is your definition of realism, please?*

      2. How does your model meet that definition?

      * Because until we define realism in local and testable terms, our opponents define realism in their own unrealistic terms.

      ** PS; to be clear: Per my earlier analysis here and comparison with equations (3)-(6) at http://viXra.org/pdf/1406.0184v1.pdf my local model; version 1.

      With best regards; Gordon Watson

      Hi Edwin,

      Thank you for your comments on my essay. I will respond to them on the page for that essay.

      Reading your essay, I find myself in general agreement with your views about how physicists use mathematics. I agree that we can look at mathematical description or analysis of physical phenomena as a map for the phenomena. For any given aspect of the world, there are many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?

      Of course, the point of interest in your essay is not this general truism, but the specific application you make of it. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient background to say anything useful about the application. I am well aware that the consensus view among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. Against this consensus, you state, "Bell simply applied the wrong map to the territory." Since I cannot render an independent judgment on the matter, I can only wait to see how the discussion turns out. I am glad to see that your essay has received many comments. With this exchange of views, scientists who are conversant with the issues should be able to gain a better understanding of your ideas.

      Best wishes for this contest and for your work.

      Laurence Hitterdale

        Edwin,

        Thanks for your kind comments on mine. You give a great presentation and analysis of the same truth from a slightly different viewpoint which is so logical I'd expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue. (they'll stay lost as they have the wrong map!)

        I do now understand your references to 'precession' as the result of the 'higher order' interaction effects referred in my own conception. I do also have a slight quibble as to Bells 'view', which I found a little more subtle than the (common) representation you use. Though showing the mathematical limits using the "freely adopted" assumptions of QM he firmly stated his opinion that those assumptions were, somewhere, wrong, so his theorem would be circumvented. In a way I agree with Tim Maudlin on not being a 'counterexample' to Bell's 'theorem', yet Tim is quite wrong suggesting Bell's used no assumptions! he clearly wrote otherwise.

        I don't think you've read my recent joint paper with full analysis agreeing that view and deriving the Gell Mann 'quasi' classical solution, paralleling your own. A full set of Bell's quotes is given plus all flawed assumptions identified. I hope you'll comment on it.

        https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglement_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2

        I also take the helicity question further than my last 2 essays using a physical dynamic model of 'fractal like' higher order spin states in this short video, showing it's resolving power is even more immensely broad than you expose here. http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs I hope you'll comment on that too.

        If you haven't read Alan Kadin's essay yet I think you should. I still also think it's about time to address and overcome the troglodites successful 'divide and conquer' method. But that's another matter.

        Well done for an excellent contribution, of far more value than will likely be seen.

        Peter

          Hi Rowan,

          Yes, the popular press reflects the establishment press and, based on acceptance of Bell's oversimplified model of Stern-Gerlach, no one was able to puncture Bell's logic. Thus, when Aspect derived experimental evidence that the EPR correlation actually agreed with quantum mechanical predictions, it was [falsely] interpreted to support non-locality. But there is nothing in Aspect's [or others'] experiments that "supports non-locality". All that the experiments do is prove that Bell's model does not match reality!

          I argue that Bell's model does not match reality because he ignores the actual physics that occurs in a non-constant field with his oversimplified treatment of Stern-Gerlach as a constant field, thus describable by Pauli's eigenvalue map, which is the wrong map, as it is based on a Hamiltonian that is missing the key term based on the field gradient.

          Thank you for reading my essay and extracting the key point.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Laurence,

          Thanks for reading and extracting the essence of my essay. You are correct when you say "for any given aspect of the world, there many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?"

          And of course you are correct that the consensus now among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. And, in general, he was. But in the specifics of Stern-Gerlach his "constant-field" model leads to an immediate contradiction, as a constant-field Stern-Gerlach apparatus yields zero, not ±1. This seems like the first hint. The second hint would be the actual data, shown on the iconic postcard. The third hint would be the extremely counter-intuitive concept of non-locality.

          As Aspect points out in his introduction to Bell's 'Speakable...', Bell went against the conventional wisdom among physicists that "the 'founding fathers' of quantum mechanics had settled all the conceptual questions." Aspect claims Bell "helped physicists to free themselves from the belief that the conceptual understanding that had been achieved [20 years earlier] was the end of the story." How ironic that now Bell is the 'founding father' and this belief in the 'end of the story' is now 50 years old!

          Thank you sincerely for your kind comments and best wishes.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Peter,

          Thanks for reading my essay, and thank you for finding it so logical that you would "expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue." You sure got the "simply look away" part right.

          You are also correct to observe that Bell's theorem is based on assumptions. And I agree that my approach does not counter his "Theorem", which is a valid mathematical treatment of his faulty assumptions. It only challenges his conclusion, that "no local model can produce quantum correlations."

          I look forward to reading the link you have provided with Bell's quotes plus all flawed assumptions identified. I will comment on it after I've read it.

          As I'm sure you are aware, "simply looking away" is merely a delaying action, not an effective argument. We can hope that the "drip, drip, drip" of truth and logic that year-by-year appears in FQXi essays is slowly acquiring critical mass, to the point that it will no longer be possible to "look away". But, as Thomas Erwin Phipps remarks in a comment on his thread (February 26, 2015@21:33)

          "Worldwide Professors United, though not a recognized organization, nevertheless exists and knows how to close ranks in defense of the status quo. This means that progress can occur only from inside, and at a snails pace."

          Thanks again for your thoughtful comment,

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Edwin,

          I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.

          Great essay and equally fascinating comment sequence. You evidently don't need any help defending your ideas (and theory).

          I realize how busy you are, but if you could somehow squeeze in an answer to at least some of the points that I will make here, it would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps it might clarify for everyone participating in these discussions some of the arguments in the exchanges between Tim Maudlin and yourself.

          Tim Maudlin wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 15:10 GMT (among other things) the following:

          "...But if each particle is not in a state which predetermines the outcome of the experiment, and is completely unaffected by whatever distant experiment is carried out, then enforcing the global conservation means that theory is not local in Bell's sense..."

          Question: Wouldn't the particle that lost its energy simply pass it on to whatever it interacted with while it was being detected? No need to postulate that the second particle should "know" anything about that, since global conservation would be realized by the local interaction.

          Tim Maudlin replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 06:00 GMT that (among other things): "...The entire discussion of the detailed model makes no contact with the theorem..."

          Valid or not, your model contradicts BT. The fact that Tim claims that your model makes no contact with BT is pretty convincing evidence that he thought you should have made contact via logical argument (rather than by actual worldly facts, albeit those are at present only via your model). Does this not support your claim that you deal "in physics" and Tim (although "speaking the same language") is pursuing the issue in terms of logic? (I am aware that he later claims that your model is non-local, and thereby unrelated to BT.)

          Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 4, 2015 @ 01:09 GMT, stating that: "...This "actual experimental record" is not binary but has 13 outcomes. As far as I'm concerned that is proof that your continued statement that "real experiments have binary outcomes" is simply wrong..."

          Question: If one reclassifies each of the 13 outcomes into binary form, and then derives correlations from that binary output, would it not result in correlations that differ from those based on the actual pairs of experimental (analog) results where the results aren't +/-1 (and rather are derived from relative positions of the actual pairs)?

          If it is the case that BT only applies to local-realistic models whose output is binary, then the "verbal" claims about BT should always state so, thereby admitting that BT does not apply to other local models where binary output does not occur.

          In my scorebook, it is Physicist : 10, Philosopher: 0.

          Congratulations Edwin!

          As an aside, consider this... If a particle has no attributes (or has all attributes) before being detected, how does that particle "know" how to present itself to the detector? I won't elaborate on this, and let others explore the ramifications.

          I believe there are many physicists whose instincts tell them that there is something wrong with at least some parts of QM, but for "political" reasons are not speaking out.

          Well, I have certainly overstayed my welcome by now.

          En

            En Passant,

            Thank you for your kind remarks. Before answering the questions in your comment, I would like to relate my reply to your essay, which only Michel Planat and Gary Simpson have so far appreciated. In your essay you note that it is not the 'number' that has significance in physics, it is the quantity of 'something' and

            "The correct selection of somethings and the appropriate selection of the numeric relations among such somethings is physics."

            Stern-Gerlach measures the scattering of particles, depending upon the initial spin, i.e., the spin upon entry to the device. But Bell believes that it is directly measuring only the final spin output from the device, which is (usually) in one of two states, aligned or anti-aligned. Thus, instead of using the 'actual' position measurement, which contains and reflects the physics that goes on in the device, he [mistakenly] assumes an 'idealized' measurement, and, lo and behold, he cannot make his physics model match the actual correlations. Quelle surprise, en passant!

            One must select the right 'somethings' before establishing the relationships.

            You further state:

            "Math without consideration of whether it mirrors the outside world is always tautologic... Once it starts to speak about the world, it becomes physics. At this stage, it can be validated (or not) by experiment, which is the final arbiter of whether your physics is right."

            Bell's physics, of course, is not validated by experiment, but, instead of simply stating "my model fails to produce the correct result", he decided to overthrow local realism. And the physics community went along with him and has continued to go along with him for 50 years. It is downright embarrassing at this point to be forced to go back and look at the actual physics.

            I will answer your questions in the following comment.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            En Passant,

            Your first question relates to Tim Maudlin's initial critique, stating that "enforcing the global conservation [of energy] means that the theory is not local in Bell's sense..."

            That merely reflected the fact that Tim does not take any challenge to Bell [about which he has written books and papers] as worthy of serious attention, because my Energy-Exchange Theorem [proved in the essay, but with one obvious typo] is not about global energy conservation, but about local energy conservation.

            The precessing particle contains local energy of configuration that does not exist once the particle is aligned with the field. Where does this energy go? The particle initially enters on a horizontal axis [say] and exits deflected up or down, with an upward or downward component of velocity [proportional to the initial spin angle] and hence with energy associated with this deflection. Where did this energy come from? I show that, by use of the standard Hamiltonian, it is easy to prove that the energy of one mode is exchanged with (or 'into') the energy of the other mode, in this case from precessional energy into deflectional energy. While this analysis is new to Bell's theorem and to Stern-Gerlach, it is well-known that molecules exchange energy between modes, for example rotational- to vibrational-modes, so I am not making up completely new physics, simply applying it where it has never been applied before.

            After I explained this local conservation, Tim essentially accepted this by never mentioning global conservation again, and never claiming again that this leads to my theory being "nonlocal" in Bell's sense.

            I hope the above answer clarifies your first question, but if not I'll be happy to try further.

            I think I'll address your next point in the following comment.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            En Passant,

            You next interpret Tim Maudlin's statement that my model "makes no contact with Bell's theorem" [BT] as implying that Tim thinks I should have made contact via logical argument "(rather than by actual worldly facts, albeit those are at present only via [my] model.)" This reflects the fact that, after acceptance of Bell's oversimplified "physics" as "realistic", all focus changed to the "logic", and a small industry of such "quantum logicians" has arisen, with the 1979 analysis by d'Espagnat in Scientific American having essentially established the 'rules of the game'.

            You are correct, I deal "in physics" and Tim, a respected professor of philosophy and math, would seem to prefer logic dissociated from physics. This is what would appear to be behind his repeated efforts to deny that Bell actually had any classical or other physics in mind when he set out looking for an alternative and more complete picture of physics that could also yield quantum correlation predictions. There are too many examples of this to review here, but they can be found in Tim's comments above.

            Stern and Gerlach measured silver atoms, but when Tim claimed that neutrons are also "binary" I searched and the only neutron data I found is not binary (in Tim's sense) but pseudo-Gaussian or triangular [it's hard to tell with only 13 data points].

            If I understand your question about reclassifying each of the 13 outcomes in the binary form, you are thinking about pairs from Alice and Bob, and asking if the desired correlations would express significant physics. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the complexity of the issue, as the only neutron data is derived from a single Stern-Gerlach device, while the EPR experiment requires a 'pair' of coupled neutrons and two Stern-Gerlach devices, one for Bob, one for Alice. So EPR has never been done for neutrons, and it's not at all clear to me it's ever been done for other particles. For particles, it is much more an exercise in logic, based on Bell's Stern-Gerlach assumptions, than it is actual physics. And the physics of photons, and of photon detecting counters of the Aspect type, change so many aspects of the problem that there is no one-to-one correspondence in any meaningful way (except "logically", ignoring physics).

            I do agree with you that, if Bell's theorem were accurately stated, it would state that "no local model that is constrained to binary results can reproduce quantum correlations", as stated in my last sentence on page 11 in my essay.

            I would not dispute your final point, as everything about academia is political these days.

            Thank you for your effort to understand and clarify these issues. It's been a pleasure.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            Many thanks for your detailed answers. Alas, it appears that some vindictive soul felt the need to make your community rating 5.8 (29 voters), down from earlier today of 6.0 (28 voters). My vote on Sunday might make up for it.

            En

            Dear Edwin:

            I want to thank you very much: first, for a generous characterization of my essay, and second, for a critical reading of my observation concerning the phenomenon of duals. With respect to the latter, let me clarify what may have been obscure in my original submission.

            We know for a fact that duals are everywhere, but some of us are curious to know why is it so: Why two? And why everywhere?

            In my essay, I have used a thought experiment most intuitively familiar to us as human beings, viz. vision system and the concept of figure-ground within it (and of course its inevitable shadow, the concept of nothingness). Next I have tried to go one step further: I assumed the aforementioned separation of figure and ground must have energy expenditure, which cannot be too large or too small (for the reasons given in the essay).

            I am sorry if I gave the impression that the "bundle of energy" required for separation obtained in the manner described is precisely the physicists' Planck constant, which you correctly points out needs to be in the units of (energy) x (time).

            My speculative conclusion - not very original I'm afraid since I already know how Planck himself obtained his constant - is that my "bundle of energy" looks very much like the Planck constant!

            Despite the analogical nature of analysis, this new perspective on Planck constant as a Mother of All Dualities can help us view:

            (1) Quantum theory and its manifestations less mystically, and

            (2) Mathematics and Physics as a Dual similar to many others. (Freedom-Determinism if you like: mathematics as a free creation of mind whereas physics is not complete without grounding in the results of experiments.)

            Best Regards,

            Than Tin

              Dear Than Tin,

              I believe yours is the only essay to focus on duality as an unmistakably significant aspect of logical, and analogical thought. I very much appreciated your essay, and, in another context, which I hope to write up later this year, agree with you that, in some sense the Planck constant may be considered the "Mother of All Dualities". I would encourage you to continue pursuing the approach you have taken.

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman