Michel,

I will keep this brief so as not to co-opt Alan's page for a slightly off-topic discussion.

Your comment betrays the sentiment (shared by a self-appointed cadre of "Illuminati" within FQXi) that people who question QM (or at least aspects of Quantum Theory) are somehow deluded. You should note that hardly anyone within FQXi questions Relativity (so it's not as if the skeptics were opposed to mainstream physics). And it's not that QM is counterintuitive (although that is another favorite distraction employed by the apologists).

Michel, I think you should accept that you are dealing with a sophisticated audience not composed of demagogues (they are willing to accept evidence, but are skeptical about at least some parts of QT). Telling a scientist that s/he will soon be "alone" in whatever pursuit they are engaged in is not the right way to go about things.

Look, you may well be right, and everything is just fine with QT (QM). But I, for one, think that this discussion is far from settled. Only the future will tell (god, I hate clichés).

But I know you are pretty open minded, and when I email you later to ask you some questions about math (to which you agreed on another essay page), I will explore your belief that information is physical.

Anyway, I was pleased (to see, as I read various essays and the comments that followed) that the FQXi community appreciates your ability to see the connections between various branches of math (with perhaps corresponding connections in Physics).

En.

P.S. I was actually replying to your first comment, but it applies here too. So I will just add a few lines to answer your current comment.

I think pointing at Motl's comments will not win you any favors here. He talks about Mr. Smolin's, Mr. Woit's and Mr. Sean Carroll's brains as cesspools (two of them are participants in this essay contest). I think you are misinformed about things in your 3rd paragraph, including the NSA. But I will take even that up via email if you wish.

In any case, none of these things matter. Only the right theory, backed by the right experiments.

To En Passant and Michel Planat:

Dear En,

Thank you for coming to my defense. I can see clearly that I am not alone.

Dear Michel,

First, what I have proposed is not Bohmian mechanics, as I state directly on the top of page 3 (but maybe you didn't get that far). So I don't think that Motl's ad hominem attacks on David Bohm (who is not around to defend himself) are relevant. My picture has NO POINT PARTICLES, only spin-quantized soliton-like waves which act in certain respects as particles.

Second, Bohm proposed his mechanics to show that a hidden-variables theory was possible, completely consistent with the results of standard QM, notwithstanding Von Neumann's proof that this was impossible. In contrast, I specifically state that my picture makes predictions that are different from those of standard QM, and I propose experiments that can distinguish them.

Third, you brought up the NSA, i.e., the US National Security Agency funding of research into quantum computing. In fact, the NSA in the past decade has been funneling enormous sums of money (probably totaling 10 figures) into QC on both the theoretical and experimental levels, and is responsible for most of the research funding in many laboratories. I am less familiar with the funding situation in the EU, but I would expect that it is similar with respect to the corresponding EU or national agency. In my essay, I question the entire basis for quantum computing. I have never received NSA-related research funding.

A general remark is that one can never prove a physical theory to be correct by any number of measurements, but one can prove it to be incorrect by a single verifiable measurement. So we should never stop doing experiments on QM, just because we have all been taught it is correct. And we should not believe in QM just because it is expressed in an abstract mathematical formalism - that too can be incorrect.

Alan

Jacek,

Thank you for your interest and your comments, and I will read your essay carefully.

Alan

Peter,

Thanks for your encouraging comments.

Your video and paper bring up interesting but unfamiliar material, so that I will have to study them more carefully before I can comment.

Alan

Dear Dr. Poirier:

I just came across your comment, which I missed because it was buried in someone else's comment.

You have a rather long comment (almost a rant), which basically asserts that I am a "crackpot".

You must find it quite confounding then, that my essay seems to have risen near the top of the Community Ratings.

If you had taken the time to read my essay more carefully without prejudice, you might have a different understanding.

I present a consistent realistic picture, which makes predictions that differ from standard QM in testable ways. For example, the two-stage Stern-Gerlach experiment is presented in standard quantum textbooks as if the experiment was done many years ago, but it has never been done. Feynman in his Lectures on Physics (1963) admitted as much:

"Incidentally, no one has ever done all of the experiments we will describe in just this way, but we know what would happen from the laws of quantum mechanics, which are, of course, based on other similar experiments. "

It is not that these experiments are particularly difficult or expensive; rather, it is viewed as disreputable to question accepted wisdom, so no one even wants to try.

Alan Kadin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #69

Alan,

Your essay is at or near the top, in my opinion. (I have a few more to consider.)

I do have questions and a suggestion. I question why and how firmly you picture "some kind of big bang"? There may have been a big bang but I do not find any compelling evidence of such. And feel that efforts to support a big bang story are part of the distraction that yields the present patch work which is the standard theory of today. Also a suggestion as to the universal locked-in, self-organized, h-bar scale fields that are the essence of the vacuum; I will post a "picture" after your comment on my present essay entry here or you can see similar at my entry to the first FQXI Essay Contest on The Nature of Time.

Sherman Jenkins

4 days later

Dear Alan,

There is indeed no indeterminacy in the motion of wave packet. As you mentioned The motion of a wave packet is completely deterministic, with both position and momentum being arbitrarily defined (no uncertainty principle!).A wave packet must be spread over at least about a wavelength, but the center of energy follows a definite trajectory. The standard textbook proof of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical identity about waves, and provides for uncertainty only if one assumes the orthodox statistical interpretation.

As you metioned : In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, the wave represents a statistical distribution of the locations of a point particle that is associated with the mass. In an alternative "pilot-wave" interpretation (suggested by de Broglie and refined by David Bohm), both particle and wave are real, and the wave guides the trajectory of the particle.

I have mentioned that even in Copenhagen's interpretation,statistical probability is nothing but the measure of observer's ignorance. The Indeterminacy,Uncertainty also stem from the same. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle inequality was derived directly from the mathematical framework itself.Schrodingers differential euqation describing the trajectory of so-called probabilistic wave functions is itself fundamentally deterministic! mathematics is indeed responsible for this quantum mechanics. The fact is the incompatible blind application of mathematical structures in the physical scenarios. There are certain laws of invariance behind mathematical and physical structures both. There should be match between their intrinsic characetristic otherwise it leads to wrong applications and result.Thats the case of orthodox Quantum mechanics.

Thats what my Mathematical Structure Hypothesis sates that mathematical structures and physical world both are creations of Vibrations.

Probability, Randomness, Complexity are the measure of human/observer's ignorance.

As you have written : If quantum mechanics provides the microscopic foundation for matter, where does classical mechanics come from? In the orthodox theory, the microscopic world is comprised of indeterminate, entangled superpositions, associated with quantum coherent states. The macroscopic classical world consists of realistic, deterministic trajectories without superposition or entanglement. The interface between these two domains is rather fuzzy. Classical physics is believed to come about via interaction of a given quantum system with a classical measurement apparatus, causing decoherence, i.e., loss of microscopic coherent degrees of freedom. Exactly how this occurs has never been made clear, and the logic seems rather circular; if everything is ultimately quantum, how is this classical apparatus initiated?

In contrast, in the realistic theory described here, there is no quantum-classical separation.

The big question before dealing with our above classical trajectoties on microscopic level is -what is Matter & how it is linked with observer's(human) Mind. What are micro and macro? They all are fundamentally linked with Russells' paradox geometry where A larger set can exist within smaller set B and vice versa. This is possible in a peculiar geometry where internal and external,micro ¯o are merely the geometrical effects. Mind and Matter are simple question of Vibrations. Mind at very low rate is Matter and Matter at high rate of Vibration is Mind.Please see my essay or the links attached here.

Anyway, what's take on what governs the structure of mathematical equations itself which are used in Quantum mechanics/physics,which causes these fundamental paradoxes issues.Richard Feynman once said that -The next great era of human awakening would come ,today we don't see the content of euqations.

Whats your take on the geometry of consciousness(paradox of self-consciousness) as David Bohm said that without peeping into this we can't understand quantum aspects e.g.bell's locality-at-distance?

Anyway you have written great essay.

Regards,

Pankaj ManiAttachment #1: MindBrain_MatterConsciousness.pdfAttachment #2: Swami_Vivekananda_on_universe_space_time.pdf

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,

    Albert Einstein once said, indicating his dissatisfaction with orthodox quantum theory, "God does not play dice with the universe."

    I tend to agree. Of course, many physical phenomena appear random, but that does not prove that they are intrinsically random; it just means that we do not have control (or knowledge) of all of the underlying parameters. In classical physics, random motion of atoms in a gas is consistent with a deterministic theory. But the quantum decay of a radioactive nucleus is believed to be intrinsically random, characterized only by a statistical half-life. That very assertion acts to discourage physicists from looking further to identify an underlying mechanism.

    Alan

    Dear Alan,

    I am glad you posted the following:

    "But the quantum decay of a radioactive nucleus is believed to be intrinsically random, characterized only by a statistical half-life. That very assertion acts to discourage physicists from looking further to identify an underlying mechanism."

    Doesn't it occur to those same physicists that if things were "intrinsically random," then there would not be a precise half-life? The half-life (if random) would vary (sometimes this, and sometimes that).

    The very fact that there is a specific half-life indicates a very precise mathematical relationship between the state of a given population of atoms and their resultant new state measured by time.

    I feel regret (even contrite) that I cannot help you guys any further. It is your job to figure out the exact mathematically expressible dynamic between a bunch of atoms in one state, and their eventual state given a time-frame later. Of course the same ideas occur to me as they do to others. There must be something in the constituents of said atoms to react in such a way.

    Also, is there a short enough time during which no atoms decay? This might be another line of thought to examine.

    I will keep thinking about this, but only you (the "greater you" out there) will solve it.

    En

      Dear En,

      Your comment about random events reminds me of the book "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb, in which he argues against the prevailing belief (in economic and other fields) that all random processes are defined mathematically by Gaussian distributions. Even when evidence shows that the model is not correct, this evidence and its important implications are ignored by the community of experts.

      The problem is not in the mathematics per se, but rather in the social nature of human belief structures. We want to believe that we have a rationally-based shared understanding of the world, even when it may not be valid.

      Alan

      Dear Alan,

      I can see that you are not going to (publicly) commit to a firm stance on this thing.

      But I liked the writing. It reminded me of Franz Kafka, whom I greatly admire.

      En

      Alan,

      Your title kept me from reading until now. To my delight, I found a well reasoned and mathematically sound description of a continuous measurement function independent of the assumptions of conventional quantum theory. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

      I will surely read your 2006 preprint now.

      Though we have different approaches, our conclusions about what is wrong with conventional quantum theory are the same.

      Highest marks from me, and best wishes in the essay contest.

      Tom

      I totally support your views expressed in the title of your essay and I also feel strongly that there is a need for an agreed physical interpretation of quantum theory.

      My own thinking in this area has some similarity to yours (see my essay Solving the Mystery) but I have made the further conjecture that the waves that comprise the photon, electron, proton etc are wave disturbances of spacetime itself (The Spacetime Wave theory).

      This has resulted in the ability to provide a complete explanation of the properties of mass and charge and also a means of unification of the fundamental forces.

      I hope you have the time to take a look and give me your comments on that thread.

      Richard Lewis

      Alan,

      I can't pretend to have a high level of understanding of your thesis of quantized wave packets and the efficacy of art in understanding physics, but my essay's reference to studies that connect the quantum with the classical in the new field of quantum biology render a connection with your intriguing concepts.

      I do wonder about a new understanding of coherent domains, considering that a theoretical physicist looking at navigation of European robins, cited quantum coherence and entanglement in considering interactions of the Earth's magnetic field and chemical changes in the bird's body.

      I wonder if studies drawn from observation at the classical level (the bird's navigational capabilities) can uncover quantum secrets w/o reliance on orthodox quantum (abstract) math models. The British scientist's focus was solving a mystery w/o starting with abstract math models.

      Thanks for the opportunity to share your concepts.

      Jim

        11 days later

        Alan,

        Time grows short, so I am revisited those I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/31. Hope you have time to check mine out.

        Good luck.

        Jim

        Hello Alan,

        I enjoyed skimming through your essay and hope to go back and give it a thorough reading as soon as possible. In the meantime, I have great empathy with your stance that mathematics far too quickly overtook the experimental development of quantum mechanics and the subject seems littered with clues to this process. I am always particularly aggrieved by the mathematical arbitrariness of the renormalisation process and unflinching acceptance of Dirac's negative energy interpretation. Your wave free interpretation seems to have strong link with non-locality and the non-field theory approach I have taken to understanding the body of physics experiments.

        Perhaps you would be interested in looking at my essay, but in the meantime thank you for bringing a bit of common sense into the interpretation of quantum effects.

        Regards

        Neal

        7 days later

        Dear Alan,

        As a fellow conscientious local realist I very much enjoyed reading your essay. In many ways I thought it might serve as a nice prelude to my own.

        However we differ seriously on at least one important point, which unfortunately suggests that we differ on crucial details: For I am certain that the view expressed in your Figure 4 is false.

        Certainly the related text has two related typos: in the second paragraph, p.6 of your essay, cos2θ should read cos2(θ/2); sin2θ should read sin2(θ/2); for we need to take into account the spin s= 1/2 of the subject spin-half particles. Otherwise you are discussing the isomorphic photon experiment (spin s = 1); see next para.

        Let us agree that the proposed experiment has not yet been conducted. Nevertheless the proposed experiment is isomorphic with one that E-L Malus conducted with beams of photons circa 1812; whence Malus' Law for light. Further, the proposed experiment is equivalent to one-half of the experiment C1/2 in my own essay.

        In my essay you will see that the proposed experiment can be expressed and addressed in wholly classical terms, devoid of any reference to excited or ground states: ie, in your proposed experiment, the spin-half particles leaving SG1, en route to SG2, are all polarised spin-up. It is therefore certain that the outcomes will be distributed as follows: Detector 1 will record cos2(θ/2) and Detector 2 will record sin2(θ/2) of the outcomes; spin-up and spin-down respectively.

        Note that my "certainty" is not based on dogma; rather it is based on (i) the unified boson/fermion experiment Ω considered in my essay, (ii) classical considerations alone (since the SG1 outputs are accepted as given), (iii) local-realism alone!

        Hoping these remarks might lead you to reconsider your position in the "local realistic" spectrum, I really would welcome your critical comments on my own essay; especially as many find it difficult to understand -- (eg, see recent valid comments by Richard Gill and Peter Jackson; following an earlier one by Akinbo Ojo) -- and I'm working on improvements.

        With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

        Dear Alan,

        As you may know, I am rather skeptical of your theory. However, I do laud your effort to formulate a testable prediction and sincerely hope that someone will take up the opportunity to try to test it.

        In case you have not already thought of it yourself, may I suggest the possibility of crowdfunding an experiment that would be carried out by a disinterested third party, preferably an experienced and well-respected experimental physicist in this area. This is one of the most certain areas to help attract attention if you do turn out to be right.

        Best wishes,

        Armin

          Dear Armin,

          I expect skepticism to my theory, but you focus quite correctly on the issue of experimental tests. Indeed, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued, only a theory that can be disproven experimentally (falsifiable) is truly scientific. Your idea of trying to crowdfund an experimental test is interesting.

          On another subject, I noticed that there seemed to be a large number of strategic downratings on the last day of Community voting. For my own essay, there were a series of 3 '1's given on the last day, one of these in the last hour. I wonder whether these voters really read the essay at all.

          But I hope that despite these last-minute changes, both of us will make it into the finals.

          Alan