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

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

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 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

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your very positive comments. I'm glad you enjoyed my essay as much as I did yours.

As I understand your question, you are interpreting energy-exchange as a global phenomena between remote particles. Instead, it is a local exchange between two modes of the particle: the precession-mode (rotational) energy and the deflection-mode (linear) kinetic energy. [Think of molecules that exchange energy between their own vibrational and rotational energy modes.] As the dipole moment aligns with the field, the precession energy vanishes, while the particle is accelerated up (or down) and this component of kinetic energy increases. This exchange of energy correlates with the output of the Stern-Gerlach experiment; the particle is scattered in an inhomogeneous field. So there is no energy exchange between remote particles, only between modes of each local particle. The amount of energy exchange depends upon the initial spin direction, i.e., upon the angle θ between local spin and local field, hence the output position is θ-dependent. Bell suppresses and does not consider this θ-dependent physics.

As a result of the θ-dependent physics, the position of the scattered particles varies, and is not +1 or -1 as Bell insists. Thus the correlation between Alice's and Bob's outputs does not yield Bell's straight line, but instead yields the cosine curve -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics and found by experiment.

Entanglement was invented to explain the difference between Bell's local model and reality (the end-to-end correlation). But my local model does not differ from the real correlation, hence there is no need to either invent or invoke entanglement. Therefore, local energy-exchange between local particle modes and the lack of entanglement for my local model means that there is no 'instantaneous' global (end-to-end) exchange of anything, hence no need for entanglement, hence no special relativity issues.

The remainder of my essay examines why Bell ignored this θ-physics, and I concluded that, by assuming a precessing particle in a constant field instead of a particle scattered by a non-constant field, he applied the wrong (Pauli's provisional) eigenvalue 'map' to the physics problem. It's complex, and as Jonathan Dickau remarks, a "self-concealing" problem. So most of the analysis of Bell's theorem for 50 years has focused on probability, math, logic, and counterfactualism, and simply accepted that Bell's 'constant field approximation' was correct. But it is not appropriate, and thus one should not draw such hugely non-intuitive conclusions as 'non-locality' from an inappropriate approximation.

Thanks for putting the effort into understanding a complex essay. [It's not as if your own essay was simple!]

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman