Dear Edwin,

Considering your response to my comment, I will "improve" upon my comment.

If the universe was not what we ordinarily call deterministic, it would have disappeared by now.

I am sure this will invite many contrary opinions.

En

En,

That sounds true to me but I don't think you can prove it. Wait, where have I heard that before?

Best Regards,

Gary Suimpson

Hi Dr. Klingman--

A truly excellent essay! Congratulations. I have always loved Korzybski's dictum, "The map is not the territory". I think that you applied it perfectly to the question of the relation between physics and math. Maps are merely tools to aid in our navigation of the terrain. Just so, math is a tool to aid in the navigation of our physical world. In terms of the Big Picture, I align with you.

As to the issue of Bell's Theorem, I confess that your grasp of quantum mechanics (QM) far exceeds mine. So, permit me to ask the proverbial stupid questions: How does your energy exchange model handle space-like entanglement situations? Do space-like correlations entail more-or-less instantaneous exchanges of energy? If so, how does that work, especially with respect to Special Relativity?

I suspect that you have already answered these types of question someplace in your ~300 posts and threads (which has to be some sort of record and leaves me overwhelmed!). If so, just point me to the right thread and I'll take it from there.

Once again, a great essay. I really liked you diagrams, too.

Best regards,

Bill.

    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

    Dear Dr. Klingman,

    I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

    I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

    All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

    Joe Fisher

      Hi Dr. Klingman--

      Yes, you correctly interpreted my question. Thank you for taking the time to provide an answer. It was very clear. I wish you all the best.

      Bill.

      5 days later

      Ed, referring to my two questions (unanswered) above:

      Please: In what sense is your model realistic?

      Thanks; Gordon

      EEK,

      Well researched worthy of scientific publication. Addresses a thorn in everyone's side i.e. non-locality.

      - You integrated well a few FQXI questions in the body of your discourse.

      - My take on bell's experiment; Once one addresses a single photon polarization, this polarization becomes a quantum number which, under the constraint of the analyzer (measurement) must assume only discrete values: 0 or 90 degrees... Other values are to be rounded off to these two values... My understanding of QM.

      very good job,

      Marcel,

        Dear Joe Fisher,

        Thank you for your kind remarks. I have responded as you asked on your essay page.

        Best Regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Marcel,

        Thanks for reading my essay and commenting so graciously. As you imply, most Bell-type experiments are performed with photons, which I've not yet analyzed in equivalent detail. But Bell's basic model was based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment on particles in a magnetic field, and all references that I've seen in the literature state that "no local model" can yield the quantum correlation. Thus, while I've not yet analyzed photon experiments, I have shown that the general statement about local realism in the physics literature is incorrect. One might hope this would cause physicists to ask why they have been wrong for 50 years about particles, and perhaps not be so absolutely certain about photon-based experiments. That doesn't seem to be happening.

        I still consider your essay on the logic of the substantial universe to be one of the best ever.

        My best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Doc,

        I'm taking a bit of a break, I have a low saturation point, but look in on a few things. Analysis of Aspect type 'photon' experiments opens the classical vs. Quantum can of worms, and either way is structured on the premise that the Planck quanta is indivisibly a fundamental energy action quantity, and a lot of times theoretically taken only as the energy term instead of erg sec.

        Constantinos Ragazas presents strong arguments to support the case that the 'quanta' itself is in reality an empirical experimentally derived; least observable average. I haven't digested it enough to comment ontologically, but at present think it must go to co-incidence of the hyberbolic function Minkowski identified with Lorentz and the parabolic function of the natural exponential function, which is observed when the EM wave is 'stopped' in an absorption event with a relative rest entity in the atomic structure on a detection device. His conclusions are quite disruptive of both Classical and Quantum, because he shows that it is the rapidity trigometrically in any wave that distinguishes the frequency in a continuous flow of energy and that a range of energy content can be carried in any given frequency, which averaged over is what theoretically we ascribe to a 'photon' experimentally.

        So without a rational waveform that we can differentiate as a single wave of specific energy/frequency, and without reliance on the 'quanta' as a matter of expedience lacking source rationale, as we now do with the post hoc/proctor hoc assumption of the quantum leap, Aspect experiments have to be treated with a skepticism you'd find in any towny bar. It's a trick bulb. Now, cutting a deck to pull an Ace, IS simple physics!

        If you have time, you (and others) might like to take a look at a Master's Thesis on Rubidium experiments, cited by Steven Sax, by Amir Waxman which can be found at: http://www.bgu.ac.il/atomchip/Theses/Amir_Waxman_MSc_2007.pdf

        What is found is that staged half-pulses of laser light produce a discretized photon result in the target Rubidium atom. But what may be of interest in your arguments and to distinguish measure systems between Q & C, is that in their protocols the Waxman group specifies 'free precession' but which in the co-ordinate system called 'spin', the axis of precession intersects with the intersection origin of the orthogonal. That does not allow +1,-1 antipodes on the sphere surface to float as is observable in free precession of the wobble of the N&S magnetic poles of the earth, which tracks an ideal axis that does not intersect 'dead sphere center'. Natural precession in a particle can not be constrained to a hypothetical symmetry of an abstract measurement scheme.

        The sun just came out, I'm going to do some messy yard work so I can focus on something that doesn't need much, and so I won't get in the way of what's floating around in my head. I need the well-being of being physical, too. best-jrc

        Edwin Klingman,

        Your essay does a good job addressing the subject and of suggesting experiments that could contradict Bell's theorem. There is ample reason to question the long standing reign of Bell's conclusion. I do have a question which I will post in responce to your comments on my essay.

        Sherman Jenkins

          Dear Sherman Jenkins,

          Thank you for reading my essay and responding as you have. I have responded further on your essay page.

          My best wishes for you,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear jrc,

          I agree that Aspect opens a can of worms, and the θ-dependence that is visible in the SG deflection measurement is subsumed in the "binary" photon count. Which means it will be even harder to convince Bell's followers that the model is oversimplified.

          As for Constantinos Ragazas' treatment of Planck's constant, I too am very impressed, but I too am unsure of its ontological implications. In my view of physics, the basic quantum is that of action (energy x time) and this is a very basic ontology, not a mathematical theorem. I haven't sorted these issues out to my own satisfaction.

          I have tried to interpret the "staged half pulses" and have not found the descriptions sufficient for this. Perhaps the 87 page thesis you linked to will explain it better. I'll also try understand your comments on 'precession'. I'm actually working on precession now with regard to Stern-Gerlach models and energy exchange, in order to better define the experiment to test my theory.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          7 days later

          Dear Edwin,

          Thanks for your kind comment in my blog.

          I always enjoy reading your erudite essays that combine humanity and science. Yes, we do have similar worldview that I think is simply logical, rational and shockingly simple. I agree with you that reality is a brute force one cannot ignore: you put it bluntly: "The physical world does exist, as anyone can prove by jumping from a high place." Another I also believe in: "Specifically, what should we do when map logic conflicts with our physical intuition? I believe that the physical world can be trusted."

          I know community find my essay is too abstracts with many Chinese, Shakespearian and Greek philosophy that difficult to understand but actually it is so simple based on reality as it is like yours. I believe in nature is infinite, thus, everything is paradoxically true like both local and non-local communications and events of nature. I describes this phenomena in KQID. Therefore, your conclusion that Bell's non-local entanglement could be explained also in local causality make sense to me. I believe this is correct. You have done great work and path a new insight of nature as it is.

          Let us work together to make our world a better place for all, including aliens, cyborgs and self-conscious robots and androids. I would like to visit your Caligornia sunny hut and together every morning we declare: we are in paradise! I voted your piece the highest score possible and good luck my friend.

          Best wishes,

          Leo KoGuan

            It is nice that Edwin Klingman confirms Bell's theorem: when, in his local hidden variables model, he forces a reduction of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) to binary (+/-1) he sees correlations which satisfy Bell's theorem bounds.

            I think he should take a look at the state-of-the-art experiments done with photons. Where the outcomes certainly are binary: a detector either clicks in some time interval, or it doesn't.

            Two recent highlights are Christensen et al (2013, PRL) and Giustina et al (2013, Nature).

            http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.130406

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12012.html

            I will discuss the Christensen experiment because it has in my opinion some superior features.

            Christensen et al used a pulsed laser source and a fixed grid of time intervals at the measurement stations. Per time interval: Alice and Bob fix a measurement setting a, b. The settings are chosen at random. Alice and Bob each pick one of two settings (Alice: a1 or a2; Bob: b1 or b2). The choice is done by fair coin tosses. In each time interval there may or may not be detection events in each wing of the experiment. Binary outcomes are defined as follows: +/-1 depending on whether or not there is any event.

            So: "+1" stands for "one or more detector clicks", "-1" stands for "no detector clicks.

            They observed a rather small (physically speaking) but statistically extremely significant violation from Bell's inequality.

            The main problem with Bell and all that, is that for the last 50 years, experimenters were not able to do the experiment. They did surrogate experiments which are superficially similar but actually have major loopholes. They do not follow the necessary strict experimental protocol and hence there is a myriad of alternative (and innocent) explanations for observed violation of Bell's inequality. For the last 50 years, they *couldn't* do the experiment under the strictly necessary protocol *and* get a result worth publishing.

            There are two loopholes in the Christensen et al experiment: (1) the two measurement stations are not spatially separated enough, relative to the length of the time intervals; and (2) the measurement settings were not re-randomised for every single time interval, but only once per so many. So there is a locality and a memory loophole. However other experiments on photons have closed both of those loopholes. Christensen et al's was the first which closed the detection efficiency loophole. It was the first experiment which actually implemented the "+/-1" requirement. In the past, with photons, outcomes were "+1 / -1 / no detection" and the no shows were discarded. Post-selection. Opens up a loophole.

            So a new experimental era in Bell experiments is just opening and I'm afraid it will make a lot of the discussion of the last 50 years superfluous.

              Dear Leo,

              Thank you for reading my essay and for your gracious comments. I agree that we share what is essentially a simple view of physical reality, as both real and trustworthy. Your essays always celebrate the infinite goodness of this marvelous world with classic wisdom and with modern concepts, which sometimes makes it hard to grasp the specifics of your ideas in a short essay, but the overall idea is quite easy to grasp. We live in Paradise.

              My warmest regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Richard Gill,

              Thanks for your comments. It's good to hear from you. You are quite knowledgeable about Bell's theorem, and you have grasped a major point of my approach, which is that my theory does confirm Bell's theorem that quantum correlations cannot be matched when Bell constrains the outputs A(a,λ) and B(b,-λ) to ±1 .

              My further point is that this mathematical restriction is non-physical, based on Bell's oversimplified model, at least in the case of Stern-Gerlach-based experiments.

              Of course you are correct to observe that I should also analyze photon-based experiments, which I hope to do in the future. I am currently attempting to model my proposed SG-experiment and I'm working with others to perform the experiment.

              Thank you for including the links to the Christiansen and Giustina experiments, with a brief overview of these. I'll check them out.

              I also appreciate your comments on the last 50 years of Bell's experiments and I agree with you that it is likely that a new experimental era of Bell's experiments will make a lot of the discussion of the last 50 years superfluous.

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Thanks Edwin for the appreciation.

              Bell's theorem (the inequality part) is mathematically speaking a complete triviality. Hence (of course, IMHO) your model confirms that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. Yes. The theorem is about binary outputs.

              Some people identify "Bell's theorem" with a metaphysical statement about non-locality of QM. For sure, I believe that the metaphysical consequences are the astounding thing. But, depending on your inclinations, there are a lot of rather different conclusions which can be drawn. The theorem does not, in my opinion, show that QM is non-local. Non-classical, yes; but non-local, no.

              A present day conventional statement of Bell's theorem (the metaphysical one) would be that quantum mechanics is incompatible with locality realism no-conspiracy. So if you want to keep QM you still have a choice of three items, (at least) one of which must be rejected. Personally I prefer to reject "realism" which is actually a misnomer - it's a rather idealist standpoint.

              Bell points out in his wonderful Bertlmann's socks paper that there are four possible metaphysical stances or positions to take on those consequences. One of them, which he matches to Bohr, is "so what?". Or even "I told you so". That's the one which corresponds to rejecting realism. Bell himself tended to reject locality. He had no sympathy at all with conspiracy (super-determinism). Then it could also be the case that QM is wrong! (That makes four.)

              Later Bell admitted that there was a fifth position possible: that the definitive experiment can never be done, because quantum mechanics itself prevents one from creating the required initial conditions. How to create a quantum state of two subsystems far apart, well localised in time and space, which one can moreover measure rapidly and close to ideally.

              They've been trying for 50 years, getting close now, but there's still quite a way to go ...

              Dear Edwin,

              I don't doubt your conclusion that "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem". But I partly disagree with your map/territory analogy, and I disagree with what you say about numbers. (However, I'm glad we both seem to agree that consciousness is fundamental and physically real, and that there is no platonic realm!).

              You say that math maps cannot necessarily be trusted, that math maps are "imposed on the physical territory", and that "the physical world can be trusted" to verify or disprove the math maps. Seemingly, your implication is that the nature of the underlying physical world black-box can't ultimately be known. This is what I would dispute - because we ARE reality, we are not separate from reality.

              So I contend that every math map is actually somewhat like the territory. I'm not referring to particular mathematical equations, but to the general form of mathematical equations. They are always about 2 basic things: variables/parameters/categories, and relationships between variables/parameters/categories. It's no accident: we ARE reality, and we subjectively experience reality as having this type of fundamental structure. I contend that we can trust that fundamental physical reality has this general TYPE of structure: (what might be described as) categories and relationships.

              The other comment I would make is about numbers and counting. I see counting (of things) as being an inherently complex many-step procedure which involves sophisticated comparisons and distinctions of things that are being counted and included versus things that are not being counted or included. Using our sophisticated comparison and distinction abilities, and using our sophisticated knowledge of the properties of materials, we are able to set up machines (e.g. computers) to represent numbers, and to represent counting.

              I consider that the apprehension of reality always occurs at a granular, subjective level, rather than at an overall, universe-wide level. So I assume that both counting and computer-like representations are far too sophisticated to be occurring at the foundations of reality (i.e. at the particle level). I consider that there must be maximal simplicity at the foundations of reality, and that the subjective apprehension of categories and relationships is about as basic as you can get. Another issue is that categories of reality like mass cannot be represented by the "counting numbers".

              Best wishes,

              Lorraine