Nature\'s grammar, mathematics, settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein by Gordon Watson

PLEASE: THIS THREAD is RESERVED for the AUTHOR'S USE ONLY

to collect his mistakes, error-corrections, clarifications ++

(including extracts from key discussions) for easy access by readers.

Thank you; Gordon Watson

PS: Friendly reminder: Please start the discussion via this thread or a New Post -- and NOT the one above -- knowing that questions, critical comments ++ are welcome here. Thank you; Gordon Watson

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for you helpful suggestions; one excuse and some actions follow:

1. As you rightly say, it "would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols." Alas I had no authority to interrupt the flow of the opening speech: delivered, as it were, by Nature herself. And where I do later intervene ... there's work to be done.

2. The symbols thus stand as an elementary qualifying test: which I considered OK, given the mathematical nature of the theme and the opportunities here to learn via questions.

3. I've posted at Armin's Forum and a nice challenging exchange has begun. I hope you might join in?

3. Re SR, note that I rely (only) on the only aspect of SR that you endorse: that which forbids influences travelling instantaneously between Alice and Bob.

4. I am interested in discussions with SR dissidents sometime; for the moment I happily rely on Armin's adherence to SR: thus SR does not distract from us each clarifying the original components in our work. And given my limited need from SR, I doubt I'll be led astray.

5. I am very happy to continue the dialectic in your Forum; as is young Hugh. He has a proof that a point CANNOT perish. When I said your point had extension, he said that's OK and asked its shape.

My thanks again; Gordon

Akinbo, to your points:

1. Thank you. I've answered Armin's first question and await his response there.

2. Thank you. Let's hone our creative jousting skills here (at FQXi) and prepare you (it seems; see next) for further un-seatings.

3. That young fellow passes, to me, the case he brings against you (and not (YET) against the ancients or the gods). So let's begin with "the Akinbo point"* -- that strange new point on p.5 of your essay. (See continuation at foot.)

In our view, you might have clarified your text by naming and claiming the [though impure per Leibniz] Akinbo point:* For we and Leibniz (via his 1714b, para #2) seem to be as one on this one point of purity: A pure point, having no parts, cannot be extended, shaped or split:- yet (so our thesis goes) it may be forever named and claimed!**

* seeking to eliminate misunderstandings already breeding wildly.

** reserving "the Ojo point" for a proposed gift to the mighty Ojo clan!

To be continued here, with my thanks again; Gordon

Dear Akinbo,

1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:

2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your answer to this question: Please, Akinbo, given these 10 pristine pairs of socks straight from the maker and routinely packed in pairs by them: Can you distinguish Left from Right? My point being: to show that smaller things may be trickier to assess, catalog and understand than bigger things.

3. Now, while we play as above, my technician has delivered to you the calibrated polariser-analyzer (Alice's D with printer) required for experiment T: a simplified version of experiment C1/2 (see Table A2 in my essay). And, as he told you, the principal-axis of D is initially oriented b and you can freely reorient it to any orientation a (or return it to b) as and when you choose. (To be clear, you are Alice here.)

4. At this point, please note that all my C-based experiments -- see Para. #A4.9 of my essay -- aim to build confidence: for they may be understood via the physics of Etienne-Louis Malus (ca.1812) and of modern undergraduates. NB: The Q-based experiments are wholly quantum. Also note that (unless stated otherwise or in error), my terminology, etc., is always meant to be specified and understood as in my essay.

5. Now, in that I am the inventor, designer and manufacturer of the black-box in this experiment,** I choose to use it on this occasion as follows: every particle sent to you will be U (= Up; signalled to you via a blink of the Ultramarine-coloured light on top of D) in relation to orientation b. Thus your Dandelion-coloured light (signalling D = Down) remains untriggered whenever D is set to b.

6. This latter fact can be checked by switching to b at will (seeking to catch me or my black-box out), and calling for my data (since I test, at b', the twin of every particle that you test). My data will show that, on every occasion, I have D (= Down: as signalled to me (and printed) via a blink of the Dandelion light on top of my D'). Clearly, the binary identifiers U/D are meant to correspond with the binary Left/Right of your original socks.

7. Now, since the particles come to you at the rate of one every second (let me know if that's too fast, etc.), you can now play around and determine the proportion of Dandelion blinks (signalling D-particles) as a function of angle (a,b) when you choose any arbitrary a. Checking against my essay, I trust you'll be surprised by your results. The point here being that you should now better understand Paras. #A4.5 - A4.8 in my essay: and now clearly appreciate the inadequacy of the naive realism associated Bell (who once used Bertlmann's socks in his argumentation) and d'Espagnat when they depart from Bohr's important insight in #A4.5.

8. Since your correlated pair of socks cannot be as you wished, I trust the above provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the case. To be clear: though we and our socks live in a quantum world, a pair of wearable socks (no matter how small) does not behave like a pair of correlated particles (bound, as they are, by Bohr's oft-forgotten insight).

9. NB: Whereas the extension of your sock experiment to smaller socks produced difficulties: there are no such difficulties (it is in fact easier) to extend T to Q1/2 as defined in Table A2 of my essay; for we simply remove the black-box. It is the Q-based experiments that give Bellian nonlocality the flick.

10: I conclude: Though controversies generated by Bell's theorem cannot be fully addressed via things like socks, they can be adequately addressed and resolved (consistent with the principles of common-sense local realism) via the very small refinement of sock-like thinking in our Q-based experiments!

* To be clear: I ordered 10 pairs of standard socks for premature neonates.

** That is, the back-boxes are not mere "black-box" reformulations; they can be built.

With my thanks for your interest, and hoping the above helps somewhat; Gordon

Many thanks Akinbo,

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in the tests you define: classical black/white balls, quantum positive/negative charges AND ordinary black/white buttons are isomorphic (= corresponding or similar in form or relations in so far as your specified tests are concerned).

4. I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk with ordinary black/white buttons (or similars; like Left/Right socks). So please do this "classical" test and let us have a report confirming your above conjectures.

5. We now turn to bypassing your incorrect "using spin therefore" statements at your point #2:

5a. Spin is NOT isomorphic to the 3 "classical" classes above.

5b. Spin is a typical quantum property: which is just what we want!

5c. For spin is typically perturbed when a particle interacts with a polariser.

6. Which nicely brings us to that experiment T defined 2 posts above:* with its spin-half particles for comparison with Bell (1964). For there we have a "classical" experiment (in my terms; see essay), with quantum-style perturbations of spin-half particles to boot.

* Alas Akinbo, there is no escaping experiment T; even here where we do your bidding.

7. However, and beautifully, old Malus' Law [as adapted by me to the spin-half particles that we have here; see equations (1)-(2) below] is all you need for complete understanding: remembering that T is NOT the full-monty EPR-Bohm test in Bell (1964) but is a real (executable) non-misleading test for pedagogic purposes.

8. So, BIG HINT, with you being Alice.

P(U|T, Alice) = cos2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (1)

P(D|T, Alice) = sin2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (2)

E(UD|T, Alice) = (1) - (2) = -a.b; (3)

since +1 is typically assigned to U, -1 to D.

9. When you are clear on this (it takes a while, but re-reading my essay may help; especially re Bohr's important insight): you will note that we have not used those tricky terms in your point #3; and we invoke no "orientation inconsistencies" per your point #4.

10. Trusting the above moves us, we growing band of CLRs (convinced local realists), to much closer agreement: please do not hesitate to raise any ongoing issues.

With thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns; and with best regards; Gordon

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Now: from your new essay, you might be best discussing this next point with Akinbo Ojo (re the nature of real points and surfaces): "Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface."

For my part, on the same p.2 of your essay, I find:

"All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously."

JOE: Please DO NOT concretely ATTEMPT this next experiment but think about this abstract scenario: In my experience, if you attempt to exit an American freeway incorrectly (eg., say, at night), you will typically see a large sign; typically red: "WRONG WAY: GO BACK!"

However, if you do NOT go back but continue on (here, by thinking about one headlight in each pair), you will soon OBSERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY many distinct headlights coming in your direction THOUGH THEY TRAVEL at different non-constant speeds toward you. Thus, Joe, please: how then am I to understand the quoted statement?

PS: At (almost) the same time that I received your message, I received another with a suggestion. The messages are so similar that I've decided to test a by-line with my FQXi signature (see below).

In my opinion, the byline goes to the heart of your (FQXI 2015) essay (as captured in its title). So I really would welcome your critical comments ... and such will be very relevant to my essay this year ... in the hope of coming to a new agreement. Thanks Joe.

..................

"Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling (which can be tricky), but just one grammar, Nature's beautiful concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Watson (2015:5).

With best regards, I'll pop a link in your comment box; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Dear Joe, v.2 follows (based on that lodged at your Forum):

..........

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

............

With best regards; Gordon

Dear Joe

1. I trust this friendly form of address is still acceptable to you? As it was in 2013? So why not call me Gordon?

2. Please, do I anywhere refer to "abstract nature"? In the opening sentence of my essay you can see: "Ever-truthful (never lying or misleading; which is handy), in accents ranging freely from big bangs to whispers (which can be tricky), Nature counsels us in many ways and sometimes nicely: * ..."

3. I trust it is therefore clear that my definition of Nature is as one with that commonly accepted: "In the broadest sense, Nature is equivalent to the natural, physical, material or concrete world or universe. Thus "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. The study of Nature is a large part of science."

4. NB: Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often taken to be a separate category from other natural phenomena. Therefore please note that I specifically exclude human activity via this qualifier: Nature (ever-truthful; never lying or misleading; which is handy).

5. I trust this makes my position clear. So, please, to help me understand your position clearly: Please answer the question (3 posts ABOVE) about oncoming cars and their headlights at night. For I'd like to see how far we can progress beyond our agreement (as I see it): That we must carefully distinguish between concrete and abstract objects.

* Like when, as a child: I planted one seed and Nature delivered 10 large melons and 423 new seeds; or when I explored the underground drains of our town and a rain squall flushed me safely out!

Thanks; Gordon

Many thanks Akinbo,

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in the tests you define: classical black/white balls, quantum positive/negative charges AND ordinary black/white buttons are isomorphic (= corresponding or similar in form or relations in so far as your specified tests are concerned).

4. I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk with ordinary black/white buttons (or similars; like Left/Right socks). So please do this "classical" test and let us have a report confirming your above conjectures.

5. We now turn to bypassing your incorrect "using spin therefore" statements at your point #2:

5a. Spin is NOT isomorphic to the 3 "classical" classes above.

5b. Spin is a typical quantum property: which is just what we want!

5c. For spin is typically perturbed when a particle interacts with a polariser.

6. Which nicely brings us to that experiment T defined 2 posts above:* with its spin-half particles for comparison with Bell (1964). For there we have a "classical" experiment (in my terms; see essay), with quantum-style perturbations of spin-half particles to boot.

* Alas Akinbo, there is no escaping experiment T; even here where we do your bidding.

7. However, and beautifully, old Malus' Law [as adapted by me to the spin-half particles that we have here; see equations (1)-(2) below] is all you need for complete understanding: remembering that T is NOT the full-monty EPR-Bohm test in Bell (1964) but is a real (executable) non-misleading test for pedagogic purposes.

8. So, BIG HINT, with you being Alice.

P(U|T, Alice) = cos2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (1)

P(D|T, Alice) = sin2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (2)

E(UD|T, Alice) = (1) - (2) = a.b; (3)

since +1 is typically assigned to U, -1 to D.

9. When you are clear on this (it takes a while, but re-reading my essay may help; especially re Bohr's important insight): you will note that we have not used those tricky terms in your point #3; and we invoke no "orientation inconsistencies" per your point #4.

10. Trusting the above moves us, we growing band of CLRs (convinced local realists), to much closer agreement: please do not hesitate to raise any ongoing issues.

With thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns; and with best regards; Gordon

PS: Typos corrected and this added: I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk using equations (1)-(3) to derive E(AB|T) = -a.b.