Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your patience with which you answered my questions.

You wrote "I know I have a long way to go to convince the physics community, but it begins with being taken seriously and with discussion of the theory and potential experiments."

I think you should be the one to make the effort to explain and prove your theory, and I think I know what you should do. Without doing at least some of these steps, I think you will not convince me or others.

1. I think that your calculation of the angles and the correlations can be done in a small number of pages, and you will have even room to give concrete examples. Unfortunately, you use most of the space in your papers, including the one of 134 pages, to argue against Bell and others, rather than showing clearly what you did.

2. So make very clear the formula for the angle calculated from the initial values for spin and the orientation of the SG.

3. Make very clear how you calculate the correlations. You say there is no formula, and you did not show an algorithm, but you claim you obtain the same correlations as Bell. Nobody will believe you without this, and not because they are biased.

4. Be prepared to be asked to explain how you get the correlations for other tests of the EPR, which are not using the Stern-Gerlach device, for example those with photons.

5. Be prepared to be asked to explain quantum teleportation, quantum time travel, various results in quantum computing, and other applications of the Bell states, which are entangled.

6. Be prepared to be asked to explain why the atom is so well described by quantum mechanics, given that electrons can be in entangled states in the atom. So be prepared to provide an alternative explanation of the atoms.

7. Bell's theorem is correct, stop saying the opposite, because everybody who read it knows. What you may want to say is that although it is correct, it is incorrect to apply it to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, because (you claim that) the spin values are not restricted to +1 and -1. You know that it was not Bell who invented the idea that outcomes of measurements are eigenvalues of some Hermitian operators, this goes back to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, to Dirac and von Newmann. You should address the conflict between your theory and the measurement theory in QM.

8. You propose an experiment, which should distinguish between a world with entanglement, and a world in which your theory is true. You claim that if the particles sent through the SG have the same initial state, they will end up in the same spot on the screen, and not a distribution like that on the postcard. You say that this is never observed because the initial states are different in spin and velocity. I think it is easy to solve this issue. Just make a hole in a certain place in the screen, and all particles that pass through that hole, will have the same spin and velocity. So you then let them go through another Stern-Gerlach device, and see if they arrive in just one spot. So I solved your technical problem with the preparation of identical particles, and your experiment is easier to be done.

9. I proposed another experiment to distinguish your theory from the standard one. Alice and Bob start with two particles of opposite spins, one in Vienna, and one at MIT, and measure their spins. Your theory predicts the same correlations as Bell's for entangled states, while QM predicts that, since the particles are separated, the correlations will be the straight line which Bell attributes to local models. So it is easy to distinguish again between the two.

10. You may think that I ask these steps because I am biased towards Bell and I want to make the task impossible for you. But why don't you contact researchers that work at hidden variables theories? They may be less biased. If you convince some of them, they will convince others, and it will be a real progress for your theory.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

    • [deleted]

    • Post #271

    Cristi,

    You've been more than fair in critiquing the work that generally goes against your beliefs, which is admirable. I will respond to your points below.

    1. If by "calculation of the angles" you mean "derivation of the formula", I agree. As for the hundred and 34 page reference, I wrote this after understanding the physics of energy exchange, but before I built a model and realized that it is Bell's unrealistic constraints that are the real problem.

    2. Yes. I had assumed these details were to be part of a peer review paper and my FQXi results would be accepted as shown in the figures, while most of the essay should explain Bell's reasoning.

    3. No. I didn't say there is no formula. The expectation value is the correlation formula, i.e., the sum of all terms weighted by their probability distribution. I have not seen how to derive a "local" formula in closed form for the probability distribution but it is easily determined from simple "frequentist" approach to probabilities. If one of the AB values shows up 10% of the time it's probability is 0.1, and this is done for all of the values calculated for a fixed (a,b). That is how p(AB) is obtained. I have been very surprised that this seems not to be understood.

    4. I do not agree that to show Bell's Stern-Gerlach model is oversimplified and unjustified, I must also be able to explain the physics of photons. Very desirable, yes; necessary, no. Simply exhibiting a local model that produces quantum correlations should be enough to gain real interest.

    Two points:

    1.) The θ-dependence is not as obviously available in the test results, which are photon counts, not deflections. I have not analyzed photons as thoroughly as I have analyzed Stern-Gerlach.

    2.) Zeilinger says photons (like particles) align with the last filter they go through. This is a key similarity to SG, but I don't yet see the 'hidden θ' for photons.

    5. Teleportation is a misnomer. I do not believe in "quantum time travel", and I distinguish between "entanglement" in the Bell sense of non-locality versus the simple fact that interacting particles become correlated in the classical sense due to conservation of energy/momentum. I'm not convinced that if I present a theory and back it with experimental proof, that I'm required to explain all the rest of the (mostly photon-based) universe. Again, nice, but not necessary. My immediate goal is to present the Stern-Gerlach local model. Hopefully that would inspire some photon experts to re-analyze their situation.

    6. The key to atoms is the fact that |ps> = |p> x |s> where x represents tensor product. I am treating |s> = spin states here, and most of the atomic properties derive from the wave aspects of linear momentum |p>. I can explain this, but I think it best to focus on spin, as this is the basis of Bell's theorem and is responsible for much of the 'weirdness' of QM.

    7. I'm not sure why it is important to insist that Bell's theorem, if it is based on a faulty physical model of Stern-Gerlach, is "correct", but I do accept your advice that it is problematical for me to say otherwise. I've already begun to address the issue that Pauli's approach to QM spin is based on constant fields and that is why the precession-based quantized projection on the z-axis works. For inhomogeneous fields, the qubit approach is oversimplified. Dirac is different, and deals with helicity (see reference [4]). Quantum mechanics is a wonderful statistical theory, which I do not deny or in any way oppose. I love QM. But it is incomplete.

    8. The experiment you propose is essentially the same as that I propose (see Mar 17 @ 20:32 above). This experiment should be eminently doable. You appear to be saying you would find such an experiment (performed competently) convincing, which is good. I actually met with someone today who may be interested in doing this experiment.

    9. I agree with you.

    10. No. I think you have been more than fair. We are all biased, but that does not prevent a fair and rational discussion of issues. I've been discussing my model with local physicists (Bell-believers, all) for six months, and was waiting to see what kind of feedback I got from FQXi. Yours is definitely some of the most valuable feedback I have received, for which I thank you again. Yesterday I had also written my first email to the authors of a recent Phys Rev Letters paper dealing with hidden variables. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have for whom I should contact.

    Cristi, as I have noted, two generations of physicists have been so ingrained with Bell's theorem that, despite that his model does not produce the correct correlations, it is considered a fact that his model is valid. If my essay and other work will only get people to question his physical model (in favor of an energy exchange model) then that is progress.

    My best to you,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello Ed,

    I had to think for a while, before I could answer the deep questions you asked on my essay page, but I finally replied briefly and I copy my reply below, as it is a self-contained unit.

    JJD

    Jonathan said:

    You give me quite a lot to think about. I think the biggest determiner of what (Math) fundaments find expression in Physics is that structures must be consistent both internally and externally, both globally and locally. That is; a form must agree with itself, and also with the space or universe it inhabits, including any fields the space or its forms might contain.

    I see self-agreement of this type and the self-similarity in fractals to be harmonious concepts. There is an internal symmetry to the star-like sunburst shapes, for example, but they conform at the periphery to the surrounding space. This reflects a similar sensibility to your comments, as what is observed from the macro scale is always an inexact symmetry, but asymptotic to an exact and ideal symmetry at the core.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Dear Edwin,

    Following further thoughts and the light thrown on the subject, I will be posting a follow up where I left off above.

    I may also be posting on a more public forum for others to comment, but not sure about that yet.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

      Following further thoughts...

      If we now proceed to carry out a Quantum version of my Classical Black and White ball experiment thus:

      A hydrogen atom consists of a single negatively charged electron and a positively charged proton. Given, a quantity of hydrogen atoms, if we split an atom one at a time and send the resulting particles one to Alice on Venus and the other to Bob on Mars. On receipt, armed with positive and negative charge detectors, Alice is to write parcel 1 = Positive or Negative as the case may be; parcel 2 = Positive or Negative as the case may be, etc up to parcel 12. Bob on Mars armed also with positive and negative charge detectors is to do the same. After the expedition they report back to you on Earth with their findings what will be the expected correlation in the results?

      Following, what you said earlier I expect a 100% correlation in their results. Am I correct? That is when Alice detects an electron, Bob detects a proton and vice-versa.

      *Detection of charge can be made by approaching the particle with a known charge, if repelled then it is of Same charge, if attracted then it is Oppositely charged. Now take note that these particles are foisted with a quantum mechanical property called "spin".

      Inferences:

      1. When electric charge is used, there can be 100% correlation and a locally realistic outcome in Quantum physics.

      2. If using spin therefore results in a lack of correlation, it makes sense that either

      (a). We don't know as much as we claim about the property called spin.

      (b). We don't know enough about how spin is measured by an equipment.

      3. Entanglement, wave function collapse is a result of our inadequate understanding of the invented property called spin and not a result of any mystery on the quantum scale that is absent on the classical scale.

      4. Use of SPIN, SOCKS, DIRECTION OF AXIS OF ROTATION depend on the position of the observer. For example, what is to Alice's left depends on whether Bob is facing or backing Alice. Orientation is key and can cause misunderstanding. This is not the case for a negative or a positive charge. Thus, any non-correlation is a result of orientation inconsistencies.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Hi Ed,

      I am re-posting this entry from the general contest forum here, because my reply to Sylvain Poirier relates directly to your essay, and I speak in defense of your ideas. More broadly speaking; this also offers support to Michael Goodband's contest essay and some of the ideas expressed by J. Christian, but I felt the comment I'm replying to was overly dismissive. Briefly; he claimed that both you and Kadin are in denial because "local deterministic realism has been refuted."

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Jonathan J. Dickau said:

      There is a sensitive dependence..

      Precise definitions of 'local' and 'realistic' are required, and must be applied consistently throughout, because points that are close initially or appear identical, diverge later as any line of reasoning is followed. This could allow two different conclusions, with no logical missteps, because the bounding surface is a chaotic attractor.

      Did you grasp that Ed Klingman is using Dirac's criterion Sylvain, instead of Pauli's? If you accept Dirac's formula, it naturally follows that Pauli's criterion in QM has a restricted codomain - which is only reasonable if the Physics of the experimental setup demand it. This is what Edwin Klingman calls into question, and changes the outcome if all other logical steps are the same.

      So while, in some limited sense, local deterministic realism has been refuted, this does not speak to all of the subtle questions raised by EPR, and only applies if we use precisely the same definition used by Bell. I do not question that you may be correct; but I am universally skeptical of claims that various principles are decisively proved or refuted, and I look for further evidence that affirms or calls these claims into question.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

        Hi Edwin,

        I'm a little jealous that you haven't made it around to my Digital Physics movie essay yet. Don't you have the time to thoughtfully comment on every essay? :)

        Also, all this talk of Bell's Inequality without mentioning Leggett's? Are you familiar with that experiment? Any thoughts on that?

        Jon

          Mr Klingman:

          You have a very impressive resume - your understanding of physics is quantum levels above mine (pun intended). But let me take the role of Simplico to your Galileo and make a few notes and ask a few questions about your essay.

          We're on the same path when you say that "math is the map and the physical world is the territory." And there are many maps, some of which describe the territory very well and some (to jump to your conclusion) apply the wrong map to the territory.

          I did notice your thought that "Multiverse maps point to no observed territory. Nor do string maps." I have thought this to myself as well, but these theories seem like sacred cows and that to suggest they might be incorrect seems akin to blasphemy. I glad that someone who knows a lot more about this than I do seems to believe the same thing.

          Now onto your main thesis, the discussion of Bell's theorem. What I know of this theorem comes from the book "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav (1979). He summarized the theory as two particles A & B head off in different directions. If the spin of particle B, which is now far from A, is changed, then particle A also changes its' spin accordingly. And it seems to do this instantaneously (faster than light). This created quite a stir in the "New Age" community as providing evidence that everything in the Universe is connected.

          So, based on this, does your theory accept or reject this ? Is there truly a communication faster than light ? And, perhaps most importantly, can we test it ?

          That's my Simplico view.

          Jim Baldwin

            Dear Akinbo Ojo,

            I'm glad you've returned. I will respond in-line above. -- Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Jonathan,

            I appreciate your comments here and on other threads. And you do it so well, with the same insight that showed when you labeled the problem 'self-concealing'.

            If there has been specific argument about facts, I have missed this. Instead, I'm accused of being a "denier", which is the current approach one takes when one wishes to dismiss another's arguments. More specifically, I'm accused of denying "established truths". Of course the only relevant truths that have been established by experiment is the fact that Bell's model, on which he bases his conclusions, fails to agree with either the quantum mechanical predictions or with experimental results. Bell concludes from this that no local model can produce quantum mechanical correlations but my essay presents a local model that does just this.

            No one is arguing with me about the fact that Bell assumes the precessing particle, leading to an inherent contradiction with experiment, is precessing in a constant field and produces no deflection, while the experiment is based on deflection.

            Akinbo Ojo said it best when he asked for a short list of "established truths" that must not be opposed according to the particular critics "professional way of doing physics."

            Have fun,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Akinbo,

            Welcome back!

            Yes, as I understand your argument, splitting the atom into positively and negatively charged particles, the correlation will be 100%.

            You infer from this that when electric charge is used there can be 100% correlation and a locally realistic outcome in physics. You are quite correct, and that is an excellent point to make!

            If Alice and Bob choose to test spin by using the same orientation, then they too find 100% (anti-)correlation. It is when they choose different orientations that the correlation decreases, and both quantum mechanics and experiment find the correlation to be -a.b, which is the product of a times b times the cosine of the angle between them. Bell's model cannot match this result. While not discussing the crucial aspect of 'orientation', you infer that

            (a) we don't know as much as we claim about spin.

            (b) we don't know enough about how this spin is measured.

            I of course agree that both of these statements are true, and have proposed what I consider to be better models of spin and of the apparatus with the surprising result that my local model does produce the correct correlation.

            Those (and there are many) who believe that we do know all about spin and about Stern-Gerlach reject this, although I don't find their oft-repeated arguments ("it's binary") convincing.

            I agree that entanglement is a result of a misconception about spin, which is the Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck idea that "the projection of spin on any axis is +1 or -1."

            This 'qubit' or two-state solution is only appropriate for a constant field, but that is what Bell and his followers assume, so they are consistent, even if consistently wrong.

            You conclude that "any non-correlation is a result of orientation inconsistencies." My own conclusion is that when 'real' magnetic moments are scattered from a non-constant field, the actual scattering or deflection results do agree with the quantum mechanics and experimentally determined correlation, and so there is no need for entanglement as a concept. This disturbs some people for whom 'entanglement' has apparently become a central Mystery in their faith. I say faith, because no one claims to understand entanglement in any physical sense.

            As is far too evident today, some do not react well when this faith (they believe it's "knowledge") is challenged. That does not change the fact that my local model does what Bell claimed to be impossible.

            Also, I very much appreciated your request for a short list of "established truths" that must not be opposed in order not to offend the particular critics "professional way of doing physics."

            My very best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Hi Jon,

            Thank you for your lighthearted comment. When I first reviewed your essay, I did not find that much physics to remark on. But after seeing a number of your comments on other threads I decided to go back for a second look, but had not done so yet. Having quickly glanced at your essay again, let me say that I find your set of questions at the back very worthwhile. I believe it is hard for most people to ask good questions and yet a properly phrased question can lead to new insights.

            I made similar movies in the 70s, so I understand your urge, but mine had only minor local success [i.e., local colleges, etc.] I wish you the best of luck with yours. It's a hard field to break into.

            I have not extensively studied Leggett's inequality. I reject his two-state version for the same reasons I describe in my essay, it is physically unrealistic - at least for Stern-Gerlach experiments. And I have not analyzed photon-based experiments to the same level that I have SG experiments. I have not studied Leggett's N-state version. I believe it gets into "quantum decoherence" arguments and I am not impressed with this program. Most such arguments also depend on counterfactualism, about which I also have severe reservations. Finally, I tend to agree with Bell when he noted that the only thing impossibility proofs prove is a lack of imagination.

            Did you have any reaction to my arguments in my essay?

            Best wishes,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Jim,

            I very much enjoyed your essay and recommend it to others. As you note there is considerable overlap in our views. You are also correct that not everyone recognizes that multiverse maps point to no observed territory, but, on the other hand, quite a number of us do. And yes, for many they are sacred cows.

            I'm familiar with Zukov's book (or was in 1979) and, in short, do not require entanglement to realize that everything in the universe is connected. The gravitational field, for example, connects everything in the universe. But as far "instantaneous" connection, as implied by entanglement, my theory rejects this. If you view the figure at the bottom of page 6 in my essay, the difference between Bell's local model [the straight line] and quantum mechanics and experimental results [the cosine curve] is shaded. It is the shaded area that represents 'entanglement'. Bell concluded [based on the failure of his own oversimplified local model] that no local model could produce the cosine curve [mine does, see page 7]. Thus there had to be "something" to explain reality [i.e., the cosine correlation] so entanglement was invented. If my local model produces the cosine curve [it does] then the shaded area vanishes and there is no need for entanglement. I have not yet analyzed photon-based experiments sufficiently to draw the same conclusion, but I expect that will be the case.

            The issue of "communication faster than light" in terms of entanglement, is a little more complex, and people argue over the exact meaning of 'communication', but my theory rejects entanglement in the Bell sense, at least where it relates to Stern-Gerlach experiments.

            Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for entering your excellent essay in the contest.

            Best wishes,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin,

            I find this a most enlightening response. I am not enthusiastic about the Bell topic, except that I perceive it as an attempt to foist falsehood on the scientific community under the guise of Authority.

            I am considering posting my Classical and Quantum poser on a more accessible FQXi forum (still wondering under what forum topic). If I do so, kindly oblige me exactly this same response, then others can pick up the thread from there. Thanks.

            Akinbo

            Edwin, your essay is excellent and very stimulating to read - it offers a fascinating approach to Bell's theorem and to reclaiming the intuition of locality. I really liked how you gave a fresh analysis while covering all the technical background very informatively. It reminds me in many ways of the style in your other essays and comments. My essay also addresses intuition and "changing the map" via different representations. Also, I discuss how non-locality can instead be understood as the physical manifestation of superposition expressed through alternate universes and invoked from a self-referential operation, and I back this up technically. Your focus was a little different, and I like your take on expanding what otherwise was considered to be restraints in measurement theory - your ideas are very inspiring.

            Thoroughly a great contribution to the forum and I rated this very highly, the top. Please take a moment to check out my essay and to rate it as well.

            Thanks, Steve

              Hi Steve,

              Thanks for your very kind remarks on my essay.

              I very much enjoyed your essay. While ordinarily I tend to think of coordinates as simply a labeling convention, your discussion of inertia and the fact that "Any mathematical representation still depends on physical assumptions, and changing the mathematical representation changes the physical explanation we use." And, per gravity, changing the physical assumptions changes the mathematical representation of space-time.

              This perspective certainly applies to Bell's theorem. When one changes the physical assumption from "precession in a constant field" to "scattering in a non-constant field" the representation changes from Pauli's provisional binary map to a continuum-based scattering spectrum, with consequent changes in correlation.

              Your treatment of computation is excellent, beginning with "every finitely realizable physical system can be perfectly simulated by a ... computing machine..." My Automatic Theory of Physics explores this point and [page 10 in my essay] I show how the automaton's 'next-state-address' corresponds to the physics 'potential' by linking the canonical automaton to Feynman's QFT kernel.

              Your explanation that undecidability of self-referential statements can be traced to endless loops that destroy causality is excellent. Your further discussion of half pulses, not gates, and your insights for future research are fascinating. Thank you for your essay.

              My best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Alan/Edwin,

              I am sorry to "borrow" your respective essay pages to make the following points (and I sincerely hope it does not affect your ratings adversely).

              Mathematics is our investigation into our own brains (codified in the language of mathematics). It requires great creativity for it to be fruitful. Physics, then, would be the attempt to express (explain) in a "language" (usually mathematics) how things behave in the universe.

              Let's not forget that the referents of "mathematics" and "physics" did not exist prior to human existence. We get to define what those terms mean.

              Much is being made of the success of mathematics (being taken to its logical conclusions) in "predicting" certain results that are later confirmed by experiments (or aligned with physics theory). This should not be a surprise. It is not mathematics alone that derived the said conclusions. The terms (i.e. qualities) at first established to have mathematically valid relationships are just "rehashed" (using mathematics) into new physical relationships. Those physical relationships existed prior to that, and the mathematical "machinations" simply converted the already known relationships into ones that existed in physics, but had not yet been expressed in their new form.

              I am only writing this for those who can understand it. Please don't ask me to explain it.

              You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without "end") will work in the long run.

              Soon, our garden will melt, and I will be busy interacting with the universe "first hand."

              En

                Dear En Passant,

                You make a very interesting observation:

                "You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without "end") will work in the long run."

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear Akinbo,

                I will be happy to respond with the [above] response to any FQXi forum posting you desire. But please alert me to the thread where and when I can so olige you.

                My best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman