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

      Dear Alan,

      On your last point, yes, the incentives are set up so that voting reflects game theoretic patterns instead of merits of content. The same happened to me as well, but what I find much more disturbing is that the pattern of telling people how one has rated their essays has become much more prevalent among the participants than in previous contests and now also infected comments by serious scientists. And then there is all the stuff going on behind the scenes, in which participants send each other emails and agree to collude. I did not believe this was happening until I received some unwelcome solicitations myself.

      It is really too bad that a wonderful idea like having a series of essay contests on the foundations of physics is marred by such idiotic execution.

      Armin

      3 months later

      "Not A Pilot-wave"

      Hi Alan,

      I support you in the argument to take off the blinders. Although I was never told to shut up and just accept the math, I was told that maybe I couldn't understand it. Fair enough, but I remember staying up all night throwing forks and spoons up in the air and pretending I was in an elevator so that I could understand the equation that I knew would be on the exam next day. I passed and Jimmy Haight my best physics teacher allowed me on the ski team where I learned more about gravity.

      I agree that as you say "a more natural way out of this dilemma is to dispense with the point particle entirely, and obtain the discrete particle nature from purely wave phenomena".

      That is what I did when I considered there might be a model of matter that explains both relativity and quantum mechanics. It is a rotating wave similar to your "helically rotating electric field vector corresponding to a circularly polarized (CP) electromagnetic wave". I have attached the general picture with the planar wave fronts arrayed around the axis of rotation which is in the forward (translational) motion of the rotating wave.

      Note how the planar wave fronts incline in accordance with EM (wave front and electric + magnetic fields must be perpendicular to motion of wave). That exhibits phenomenae described in the Special Theory of Relativity (Lorentz invariance) and furthermore when accelerated exhibits phenomenae described in the General Theory of Relativity.

      Of course when one considers the rotating wave (or field), then it logically explains gravity with required binding energy plus expansion of the universe and slowing of time. There is no need for the cosmological constant. I'm pretty sure I got the math right now on the Gkl derivation from the rotating wave.

      The inclined planar wave fronts of the rotating wave (or field) look similar to a propeller (or vanes of a jet engine). If you fly a plane in a tight circle and the propeller spins only ½ the way, then it looks upside down. It will take the plane two trips around to get the spinor propeller back into the original state. I suspect that is a valid reinterpretation of the "Balinese Dance" or "Feynman Plate Trick" and the helical rotation would thus be an inherent requirement.

      Good math makes good physics. I get a thrill of ah ha when the equation suggests a physical model and the physical models speaks back. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If one can dream up many dimensions, then one can look at alternative models, but certainly through the eyes of trained physics and math. My suggestion is to develop a special forum on the classically rotating wave (or field). It would be a work in progress with various specialists examining various attributes. There is also the technical application as well. I think there is already a patent application on the EM Propellor.

      I got to go for my jog and think. That "mysterious angular momentum of spin" and "dark energy / dark matter" are beckoning. I'd love to one day run past Einstein's house in Princeton and then maybe go on to Greece. I bet Dirac would enjoy your article.

      Bill ChristieAttachment #1: Rotating_Wave_picture_close_up.pdf

      Write a Reply...