Edwin,

Thank you for your very detailed comments with a number of excellent points. I will read your essay carefully.

With regard to the history of Bell's Theorem and quantum entanglement, I would recommend reading the 2008 book by Louisa Gilder, entitled "The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn" . As she describes, Bell was actually a quantum skeptic who wanted to believe in Hidden Variables, an unpopular viewpoint among theoretical physicists of his time.

But I pointed out in my essay something that was not evident either to Bell, or to Einstein in his EPR paradox. Namely, that quantum entanglement was an artifact of formal mathematical constructions used by Pauli to build the exclusion principle into the fabric of quantum theory. On the contrary, if the exclusion principle is instead a reflection of a real-space physical interaction, then this construction (and all of its non-realistic implications throughout quantum theory) are unnecessary and non-physical. Further, I show directly how the correlations in the EPR paradox may be understood in a simple realistic picture for electron spin, and how the interpretation of the single-photon experiments may be in error. This may yet be tested in new experiments.

You might also be interested in viewing the video by Teresa Mendes in last year's FQXi contest, entitled "Physics Needs a Paradigm Shift".

Alan

Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. I will read your FQXi essay and will think further about your suggestions.

Regarding quantum interference and diffraction experiments, these have been done not only with electrons, but also with neutrons, atoms, and even large molecules. These results are normally taken to prove that all objects are both small particles and extended de Broglie waves. However, as I point out in Note B at the end of my essay (and described in my earlier FQXi essay, "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" ), an alternative explanation (due to Van Vliet) is available whereby the same results are obtained via quantized momentum transfer to a small particle, without any wave nature assumed. Thus, there is no reason to give up local realism.

Alan

Dear Joe,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

I am not sure if I understand correctly what you are saying, but it seems that you reject the entire concept of modern science. While every snowflake is strictly unique, science seeks the regularity and reproducibility in nature, and to describe this regularity (in form and behavior) in quantitative terms. Quantitative modeling of reproducible behavior is the realm of mathematics. The fact that mathematics accurately describes physical reality, at least in many cases, merely reflects this regularity.

My essay focuses on the difficulties associated with inappropriate mathematical models, applied specifically to quantum theory. Models may have embedded assumptions, which can lead to non-physical predictions. But if the math is sufficiently abstract and divorced from realistic pictures, it is difficult to clearly identify these assumptions. Furthermore, math can only be a partial guide to the development of future physical theory, which must ultimately come from experiments and physical intuition.

Alan

Dear Alan,

I agree with your statement:

"it is argued here that pictures of real objects moving in real space provide the proper basis for physics, and that mathematics merely provides quantitative models for calculating the dynamics of these objects. Such models may distort or even hinder the development of new physics, particularly if a consistent physical picture is lacking".

My physical theory called Model Mechanics gives alternate physical explanations for all the abstract mathematical objects such as fields/virtual particle and curvature of space-time. In addition Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG and a new theory of relativity called IRT. Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). Therefore Model mechanics is a good candidate for a Theory of Everything. I invite you to read my essay in the following link and give me your informed comments. Thank you.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2319

Regards,

Ken Seto

    Ken,

    Thank you for reading the abstract of my essay, the source of the quotation above. I hope you will read the remainder of the essay as well.

    A central result of my picture is that there is no fundamental difference between the microworld and the macroworld, no separation between quantum and classical dynamics. This is contrary to the orthodox viewpoint that the microworld is dominated by quantum uncertainty, superposition, and entanglement. In fact, in Note A at the end, I derive classical trajectories directly from the wave equations for real localized relativistic quantum fields.

    After I read your essay, I may have additional comments on your web page.

    Alan

    Alan,

    I'm glad you will read my essay carefully, as I believe that it supports your essay very strongly. You and I have significant overlap in our interpretation of physical reality, including Pauli's exclusion principle. I did enjoy Louisa Gilder's work and I'm sure you are familiar with Baccigalluppi's "Quantum Theory at the Crossroads", where so much of the early confusion arose.

    I do suggest an experiment to confirm my model, which, if positive, would seem to prove quantum mechanics incomplete, which is necessary if, as you say to Ken below, there is "no separation between quantum and classical dynamics". I'm happy that you too suggest new experiments. I will review the Theresa Mendes video.

    I wish you the very best in this contest, and I'm happy to see José Koshy's comment above. It's very possible the dam is about to burst. Or we may represent just the first drops of rain.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Alan,

    I read your essay and I will read it again more carefully.

    You provided alternate physical interpretations to replace the mainstream abstract quantum processes. I agree with this approach completely. In fact that is the exact approach I used to formulate Model Mechanics.

    Regards,

    Ken Seto

    Dear Alan,

    I am devastated to learn that you would openly admit that you do not know what reality is. I reject the abstract concepts of abstract science. Real scientists have proven that all real physical construction is unique, once. For you to stupidly continue to believe that your insane quantum computers could quantify unique defies sense.

    Depressed about your ignorance,

    Joe Fisher

    Dear Alan Kadin,

    Does math hinder or help physics? The title of your essay says math hindered the development of QM, and is followed by an articulate express argument. (Some other essays seem to argue implicitly that math is a sub-optimal intermediary medium for physics.) I hope you will not mind some comments despite my knowing little about QM.

    Math is helpful (and sometimes indispensable) when it describes, explains, summarizes, condenses, provides insight, predicts, etc. Math is unhelpful when it obscures, is irrelevant, inapplicable, makes the conceptual thread hard to follow etc. An example would be 20 pages of equations of no discernible meaning, that no one will have the strength or interest to check. Another example would be A L = P, meaning actors with lines create a play; plus and minus signs do not of themselves invest ordinary words with insight.

    Let's take your title now. Your diagnosis and cure may be right. I propose another possibility (which does not exclude your approach). The complexities and seeming incongruities of the mathematics of QM (such as the many worlds hypothesis, entanglement and the two slits experiment) might not be a failure of mathematics. Rather, apparent shortcomings might be a clue that a crucial postulate, assumption, theory, picture (as you say), conceptual reference frame or unknown unknown is missing. This suggests looking not outside mathematics but for better mathematics.

    A paradigm example is Ptolemy's Almagest, a stupendous mathematical and astronomical achievement. Ptolemy wrote summarily that obviously the earth does not rotate on its axis, as some other astronomers had suggested, because clouds would appear to move at high speeds in the sky in a direction opposite that of the spinning earth, and birds, unable to keep up, would fall out of the sky. If he had the concept of inertia he might have come to a different conclusion.

    Perhaps a question raised by your interesting essay is: are we missing something?

    Regards,

    Bob Shour

      Dear Sir,

      We will critically go through your suggested paper. Incidentally, the null result of the M&M experiment, which is quoted to point absence of any background structure, is misleading, as the experiment was conducted with light, which is a transverse wave and by definition, all transverse waves are background invariant. The observation of galactic blue-shift and merger has conclusively proved that the universe is not expanding, but rotating on its axis. We hold the view that the so-called dark energy is a universal background structure. By definition, a background does not interact with the objects it projects. Viewed from this angle and the fact that there is no true vacuum, the result of diffraction experiments etc., can be easily explained. We often give the example of boats passing under multichannel bridges, which we had watched in our home town.

      We are not against local realism, but pointing to the interconnectedness and interdependence of everything in the universe. Locally, there can be islands of relative stability.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Your paper has supplemented a good combinations and dimensions of classical quantum and macro world. But the underlying fact remains subsistent that there's a Mother of these kin quantised world governing and guiding somewhere!!!!

      Dr. Kadin,

      Bohr used to say that QM would have fewer public relations problems if only complex numbers weren't indispensable to it, or at least if complex models could be made genuinely pictorial and thereby subject to intuitive apprehension. He also noted that the issue arises in GR as well, maybe most vividly with the Friedmann universe models. A sphere with no interior, only a surface, seems as bizarre to the earthly mind as any phenomenon on the micro level. His point being: just possibly it's all in whose ox is gored.

      You seem to suggest that complex numbers are inherently illogical and I for one don't disagree if by "logical" you mean devolving from fundamental classical logic, the logic of our daily lives (and incidentally of Bell's Theorem). John Venn has a neat riff on the general subject ("Symbolic Logic" First Edition, page 201) where he doubts that there could be any move in logic analogous to the square root of a negative number in mathematics. Boole wasn't so sure and of course his wife became a noted sqrt(-1) mystic. Anyway, be imaginary numbers logical or no, can we really do without the little buggers (if that's what you're edging toward)?

        Bob,

        Thank you for your comments.

        I think we are in agreement about the significance and value of mathematics. My key point is that the premature adoption of an abstract mathematical formalism (without a clear physical representation) prevented discovery of a more correct mathematical model. Indeed, the way that QM is taught encourages the belief that the abstract formalism IS quantum theory, and there is no underlying physical reality.

        The physical picture that I have proposed could have been proposed early in the historical development of QM, but there is no evidence in the literature. The early physicists could not conceive of a way for a distributed field to act like a single conserved particle. Once you can accept that, everything else falls into place. Ironically, in light of the focus in the conventional theory on the mathematics of LINEAR Superposition, only a NONLINEAR mathematical model can maintain the integrity of a distributed field. I am not sure of the precise form of such a model (I mention synchronization of nonlinear oscillators), but exploration of this question will bring physics back on a productive track.

        Alan

        Nick,

        I've never said that complex numbers were illogical. In fact, complex numbers are widely used in classical physics and in engineering to simplify the mathematics. However, in these fields, the complex oscillation is a mathematical representation of a real sinusoidal oscillation.

        In contrast, the general belief is that in quantum mechanics, the complex wavefunction ~ exp(i*phi ) IS the physical object. What I've shown is that a real coherent physical rotation that is phase-modulated can be modeled as a complex wave if you suppress the "carrier wave". This is exactly what is done in classical radio receivers.

        Alan

        Alan,

        Thanks. Although I'm equally accustomed to the wavefunction being considered a physical object in approximately the same sense that the International Date Line is thought of as a physical demarcation. And I wish I'd originated that piece of cleverness.

        Modulation and suppression of carrier frequencies is an artifice designed to transmit human information and hasn't been observed in nature as far as I'm aware. Doesn't that consideration make it less plausibly valid as an analogue, physical or mathematical, of an autonomous natural process whether in part or whole?

        Alan and Nick,

        Well, "the general belief is that in quantum mechanics, the complex wavefunction ~ exp(i*phi ) IS the physical object". I am perhaps so far the first one who questions this mystification by Bohr, Pauli, and all the others, cf. topic 2346 . Of course, the usual notion of block-time implies Hermitean symmetry and all that.

        My alternative is restriction to (non-negative) already elapsed time, real-valued cosine transformation in IR instead of complex Fourier transformation in IR, and a matrix that only covers the upper triangle of the usual square matrix.

        Eckard

        Thank you for reviewing Modeling Reality with Mathematics by Al Schneider. Your comment to me is very rewarding. I am just a little guy that sees an error in physics that has existed for a long time. While reviewing the essays of others, the error is becoming known. My guess is that a shakeup is coming. Based on the size of the error, its effect will run wide and deep.

        I reviewed your essay but will take time to digest it.

        Thanks

        Al Schneider

          Hello,

          "On the contrary, it is argued here that pictures of real objects moving in real space provide the proper basis for physics, and that mathematics merely provides quantitative models for calculating the dynamics of these objects."

          I agree with the second part. I have no idea about the first, i.e., about "real objects moving in real space". For I have no idea what "real" means. Furthermore, I have no idea how objects can move in space because I have no idea what "space" means: Newton's space, Leibniz's space, Einstein's space, which space?. I understand the quantification based on the abstract ontology but I will not take the ontology for real. Even, consider that for things to move, there must be an innate impetus force that is absolute and not relative. Where is the impetus force? No one ever found one. Is motion real then? This is no nihilism but an argument that none of this notions should be taken for granted. One may resort to instrumentaism and forget about them but any claim of a specific ontology must be backed by solid evidence and unfortunately such evidence does not exit. Realism is framing hypotheses. Nothing bad about that but the hypotheses cannot be used as part of the conclusions. Thanks.