Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

... all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

So I hope you'll be back soon with some questions! For I'd welcome the chance to show you that: (i) the maths is little more than high-school stuff; (ii) the defining of new things is little more than my ensuring that all definitions are cleaned-up mathematically.

In this way I'd expect you to find that long conversations might be reserved for areas of common interest; like the benefit of videos/lecture/pictures/animations. Which all sounds more like your department and some near-future co-operation.

To that end, my immediate goal is to invite serious critiques of my work so that it is clear what I must fix/improve. The point being that the four unified experiments do deliver the results that I claim: for all my results are consistent with actual experiments; or consistent with accepted quantum theory where experiments have not yet been done.

With my thanks again; Gordon

Gordon,

Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn't anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren't capable of following your logic. It's just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort necessary to follow your arguments is greater (in some sort of subjective valuation system) than the expected benefit. Most people (as you well know) have already accepted the tenets of QM, and are prejudiced against views that challenge "the establishment."

In other words, most people expect your logic to have a failing somewhere, and even if it didn't, they believe that the conclusions would not be somehow valid or substantive enough to truly challenge accepted interpretations of QM.

I am used to thinking in English, simultaneously accompanied by a visual imagery of the thing under consideration (they happen seamlessly together). I don't recognize a single "symbol" in your essay. For me to learn those symbols would take too long (the way such things work is that if you work with symbols for some years, your mind fluidly treats them as meaningful language), and since I don't expect to be doing this kind of thinking in the future, it would not be an optimal use of my time.

Because of my jobs in finance, I had to become proficient in MS Excel, and I will admit to being able to "program" logical statements that run into thousands of characters and still be able to "keep the logic" in my conscious working memory (so to speak). Over time, Lotus 123 and MS Excel varied their capability of handling formulas of certain lengths, as well as the number of nested "if" statements, so sometimes it had to be broken up into several cells that (in combination) resulted in the formula I needed. But this does not guarantee that I could do what you do with your symbols. I think you have a unique gift.

But your problem is that you aren't getting the right people to spend the time learning to understand the logic of your arguments. Worse still, because of that, they do not realize the consequences (or, rather, they prefer to not acknowledge them). If you want to make a difference (and not just have a chat), then you need to get your work reviewed by the right people. It won't be easy. They have jobs, reputations, funding, and peers to consider.

I think you get the drift.

En

Thanks En; some good points, and much appreciated. But this one is strange: I don't recognize a single "symbol" in your essay.

Please, En: Probability P is defined in Table A3 of my essay. Surely, in top-level Finance, P is in play every day?

PS: To be clear, the concrete and abstract elements of the unified experiment (particles, detectors, etc) are given in Table A1.

Gordon

Hello Vladimir,

And, Yes: I defend local realism in a technical but very elementary way. Further, from reading your essays, I'm sure that your brain is quite capable of understanding my "logical equations and statements" for they involve little more than high-school maths and logic.

Moreover, if you want to study my work in detail, I am happy to hold your hand and answer any questions. In this way we might see the extent to which your beautiful graphics could be applied to important local-realistic results which are proven experimentally and/or consistent with accepted quantum formalisms: though my work refutes any claims or interpretations invoking nonlocality in Bell-test experiments.

As for your essay in your link above: I've sent you some personal comments on your notation there. I'll comment further on your current essay on your forum. It is clear that your work is beautifully presented and much more adventurous than my own.

PS: Regarding Ed Klingman's work, I am satisfied that it is nonsense! Apart from my own analysis (some of it lodged in his forum), you will see that he cannot address Cristi Stoica's elementary challenge (Cristi being a highly-ranked essayist here). Further, under David Mermin's well-known examples of Bell-tests with Red and Green lights, Aspect's experiments are essentially isomorphic to Bell (1964), etc. Yet, again, Ed has no answer!

With best regards; Gordon

  • [deleted]

  • Post #39

I liked the quotation at the bottom of the last page of the essay:

"On one supposition we absolutely hold fast; that of local/Einstein causality: 'The real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former,' after Einstein (1949:85)"

What people don't realise is that the problem with local-realism is due to insisting on the "realism" of counterfactuals. Which by definition are things which might have happened but didn't. Might have been real, but weren't realised.

You have to realise that not all elements of mathematical models are necessarily parts of the "real factual situation". What people call "realism" is actually idealism. The realists assume also the existence in reality of items which don't have to be there. Hidden variables. They're not just hidden - they are mathematical fictions! The wave function itself was the first hidden variable of hidden variables theory. It's there in the mathematics. You can hide it in various ways, or express it in different terms (density matrix, geometric algebra, ...). But why do people want it to be there in reality as well as among the symbols we write on paper and manipulate algebraically?

Of course, quantum physics is consistent with locality: it is a sensible theory. It passes the first sanity test: It predicts that the real factual situation of S2 is independent of what is done with system S1.

This sanity test has been expressed in a much stronger form than was often done in the past in a wonderful but difficult paper by Pawlowski et al (Nature, 2009)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08400.html

You can find a "free" version of this paper on arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2292

The authors introduce the principle of information causality, which roughly speaking says that if Alice sends n bits of information to Bob, and Bob and Alice are at the same time doing measurements on stuff in their labs, then Bob only gains at most n bits of information which he didn't already have at his place. The case n = 0 is "no action at a distance". They show that information causality implies the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2 (this is the bound which QM can attain, higher than the local realism bound of 2 of the CHSH inequality).

Thus QM passes the sanity test with flying colours. In fact, among all sane theories, it allows the strongest possible pattern of correlations of measurements done at distant places.

    Sorry, anonymous was me ... somehow I got logged out by mistake

    Thanks for your comment and the source for Pawlowski ++.

    In relation to my essay, I'd like to be clear about this sweeping comment of yours; my edits shown thus [.]:

    "You have to realise that not all elements of mathematical models are necessarily parts of the "real factual situation". What [some] people call "realism" is actually idealism. The [foolish] realists assume also the existence in reality of items which don't have to be there. Hidden variables. They're not just hidden - they are mathematical fictions!"

    We agree. For I specifically define realism in terms of beables (things which exist, after Bell). Thus, from my essay, per paragraph 2.1.

    "Taking care with analysis to ensure that no step here is negated by experiment, our approach - per Appendix A - is based on commonsense local realism (CLR).

    Taking care with Nature, we hold a consequence of realism to be: 'at all times, the set of beables possessed by a system fully determines all relevant probabilities,' after Gisin (2014)."

    So (in the quantum experiments Q1/2 and Q1 in my essay), λ and λ' -- correlated by the conservation of total angular momentum -- are termed "hidden beables" in that they cannot be known by us!

    Bell (1976) suggested the term uncontrolled instead of "hidden" in that they cannot be manipulated at will by us. Either way, to be very clear: I certainly have neither use nor call for mathematical fictions.

    With my thanks again; Gordon

    I cannot follow your math, Gordon.

    Akinbo Ojo wrote as a kick-off "As the mathematically inclined are wont to do, there is a heavy use of symbols to convey meaning. I note that these symbols are interpreted in Table A1, perhaps it would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols. This I understand may however interrupt the flow of a mathematical speech."

    Mathematics is not a flow of symbols. Sure: formulas are pictures and a picture speaks a thousand words. Formulas represent ideas. Formulas and speech should blend together, each supporting the other. Dirichlet pointed out that the essence of mathematics is to replace computations by ideas.

    In computer programming, there is such a thing as "literate programming" which means writing your code in such a way that a human can understand what is going on, as well as the computer. A famous mathematician explained how to give a good talk: imagine you are going for a walk in the forest with a friend. I suppose that just occasionally, you might write some symbols in the dirt with a stick. I am trying in friendly words to say that I think that "this essay is not an essay".

    Gordon,

    Reading your essay and the above comments it's clear to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we we currently approach and analyse 'nature', or rather 'describe the evolution of the universe'.

    Your essay is hopelessly out of place and lacking in application of scores, only 9 in total averaging 5. It's clear identification of one of the most confounding pieces of poor application of mathematical logic in physics should certainly put it in the top group and amongst the most well read.

    Our essays argue essentially the same very important point, if from very different 'aspects' (lol). I don't think we need to discuss the clear veracity of that truth, just perhaps how it can best be communicated. To that extent I have to admit I agree with Richard above that just the mathematical analysis is inadequate, as is just the physical mechanism. I identified your work to QM Prof Pheonix and he had a similar response to Richard. If the problem lies in the receiver, then the signal method needs improvement. As none of us can be genius at multiple disciplines I still believe that the future of advancement in understanding best lies in collaboration.

    Your essay gets a top score from me even if it is 'overloaded with symbols' because the (though curtailed and limited) descriptions are correct, meaningful and understandable. I do hope it get's into the finalists, but fear it may not due to that narrow aspect. I'm now more than certain that we must combine an intuitive physical mechanism with the conclusive correct maths.

    I'd hoped you'd have read my essay, but if not please do, also my recent paper expanding on the mechanism and identifying the same flaws in Bells analysis as you (and Bell's quotes showing he knew they must exist!) The analysis directly addresses and resolves those key matters that you correctly identify nobody else does (but lacking the maths so with the same issue as yours!) I hope we can then stay in touch.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0081v1.pdf ">Jackson, P. A., Minkowski, J.S. Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. Academia.edu 9th Nov 2014.](https:// https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglement_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0081v1.pdf )

    Well done and very best wishes.

    Peter

      Many thanks Richard! Using the convention that (1) refers to equation (1) in my essay, etc., my preliminary response follows:

      1. Given that my work is found in an essay contest, let's agree that it's an essay (of some sort).

      2. Given your problem with my math, let's agree that it's an essay in need of an editor.

      3. Given my respect for your tenacity in matters Bellian, let's see if I can develop as that editor. And let this be the end in view: the essay is either improved in its next incarnation or it's withdrawn!

      4. Let the apprentice begin by re-titling the essay:

      Commonsense local realism settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein

      where commonsense local realism (CLR) is carefully defined in the essay.

      5. Given Appendix A, you are aware of the concrete and abstract models in Table A1; etc.

      6. Given no math in Appendix A, we come to your difficulties in Section 1: Truth.

      7. Therein (1)-(10) are presented as revealed truths; ie, truths revealed by Nature when interrogated correctly. Further, since they are presented as universal truths, they are represented in the language of mathematics, devoid of any native tongues.

      8. Given that you understand an Expectation in QM, and that such are conditioned by the experiment under consideration, you will understand LHS(1) = (2).

      9. Thus, sandwiched between LHS(1) and (2), we find RHS(1) named from the left and defined from the right.

      10. The symbols in RHS(1) are then defined in (3)-(4). How then do you understand (3)-(4)?

      Hoping this helps us along the way -- towards that end -- with my thanks again; Gordon

      Hi Peter, and thanks for getting in touch, etc; and for me so fortuitously with you following Richard with the same points.

      Certainly I agree with your analogy about receivers and senders. So please do not hesitate to enter your own difficulties in this thread of yours as you follow my dialogue with Richard. That way we two crackpots (under the widely accepted definition of that term) can maximise the benefits of the above serendipity. Especially as Richard is widely read and published in matters Bellian.

      I have not read you essay; you are fifth on my current FQXi to-do list and I will get there before the deadline!

      However, as you will recall, the depth of your analyses leaves mine looking very superficial. Though I take hope from this one fact: we are both conscientious local realists (CLRs).

      PS: I need to write up a small but serious difference of opinion with fellow CLR Alan Kadin and his Figure 4. Have you looked at it? Any opinion? (It's a promising essay and it reminds me of some of your ideas.)

      Thanks again, with more at your thread soon; Gordon

      En, in your forum you say: "Since this is about your essay, I will transfer it to your page." Alas, it's not clear where you wanted these next matters discussed so I brought them here (with some minor edits).

      EP: "In the meantime, if you have time and the inclination, you can look up two comments that I have made on other people's pages. They will give you a strong indication of the reasons that motivate my essay, and (potentially) provide philosophical "grounding" for all realist views."

      GW: As "well-grounded realists" we appear to be in close agreement.

      EP: "One is on Peter Martin Punin's page, so if you go there, look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 04:55 GMT."

      GW: Our agreement continues!

      EP: "The second one is on Marc Séguin's page. You should look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT. I intend to continue the discussion (which did not end with Marc alleging that we both make comparable assumptions, but I let him off the hook) on Punin's page. His position, being Platonist, subsumes the MUH. Being an engineer, you should like my comment on Marc Séguin's page, as it involves a bicycle chain analogy. That's all I will say on my page."

      GW: Close agreement continues BUT big difference re your pocket calculator analogy! As in all of the whole real big wide world, maths is running under every bonnet and bang and banana-skin. In the pocket calculator case, the battery runs flat due to the calculator's maths (ie, Nature's maths)* and that "streaming electricity" of yours!

      * In your terms, given your work in Finance, let's call it Nature's accounting: which brings me to back my essay! (And ditto that bike.)

      Hoping this helps; cheers: Gordon

      Gordon,

      Yes, I have some familiarity with probability. But I was never happy with it. The probability of a single event is either 0% or 100% (it will either happen, or it will not). Only if you apply it to a sequence of events will it make sense.

      You overestimate the use of probability in business. You never have sufficient information to make decisions based on facts. CEOs use subjective judgment to make big business decisions. There is so much incredible amount of "hit and miss," (accompanied by waste) that it would make an engineer's skin crawl. The only reason why this is not clearly visible is because the other guys (managers of other businesses) aren't any better at this.

      I just saw your comment from the 21st. I will disagree about your calculator comment. It just follows a physics "logic," and doesn't give a damn about mathematics. You may think in terms of mathematics, but it is all physics.

      But I don't want to "quibble" about technical things. We agree that the universe is deterministic. How else could it be (random)? I would hate to see what would happen to us if that were the case.

      En

      En, taking your paragraphs in turn; some thoughts:

      1. My essay is about sequences of events.

      2. Thanks for explaining my success as MD of an international operation.

      3. Maths is the best logic in physics and elsewhere:

      ... physics "logic" = maths.

      4. Let's not quibble.

      Thanks; Gordon

      Gordon,

      Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only penetrating a) so far, which I think is incorrect. The particles approaching the splitter will be random +/-, so even if ALL are reversed at a normal SG splitter the outcomes will still be random! It's the strange nature of randomness (Alex Soiguine has a couple of useful papers on that). The (rather complex) diagrams in my paper track the full mechanism. But we must be very careful as there are many different set ups.

      Peter

      Gordon,

      Thanks for the compliments and comments on my thread.

      It does appear you've seen the 'width' of consistency rather than the depth of deriving non-local state reduction using the key circumvention of Bells inequality, as you don't mention that part. I think it's a shame all seem to want to work only alone. I responded to your comment there, reproduced below.;

      Gordon,

      I don't see my derivation as 'the full monty', just the minimum required to reproduce the findings termed quantum non-locality (QNL) without abandoning local reality. I don't quite understand what it is you 'have to offer' beyond that simple need to circumvent the Bell constraint. What else is needed? Can you elucidate?

      Once that tough nut was cracked, sure a whole lot of other solutions to anomalies came flooding out. They're mainly just verification, though ok, many are also important in themselves, and yes, far too much flooded out for most human brains to assimilate, but noe of thet detracts from the accomplishment of the simple task rationalising QM and QNL.

      I do agree we've approached from opposite aspects, but I think that'd be useful as the problem can't 'get away' and both together have 3 times the value. I'm used to working with top teams to accomplish complex projects individuals can't, but if you don't think you could collaborate that's fine. I'm sure someone will. but I hope you'll stay in touch.

      Best

      Peter

      7 days later

      Gordon,

      You assessed my last comment in 4 sections.

      I will not argue with any of your assertions. I am after much bigger fish. I have a firm belief that what is standing in the way of progress in today's physics is "entanglement."

      If there ever existed a more preposterous idea in the history of science, I would like to hear about it. It even leads to billions spent on QC (whose "speed-up" is contingent on the concept of entanglement).

      "Entanglement" is the number one problem in physics today. I could not have said it any more plainly. Just think what all would have to change if the concept of "entanglement" were to be abandoned.

      I also don't like strong AI. If that were possible, we could lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. Think of it like this. Regardless of the means, how could it be possible to make something think better than you can? It is utterly preposterous.

      I will make you an offer. You present me with a business problem you are facing, and I will propose a solution. I don't want any compensation (nor any recognition - I want to remain anonymous). I will sign a non-disclosure if that bothers you.

      Not to be condescending, but I have met many Managing Directors. They were Directors, but hardly (or, better said, barely) managing. That may not apply to yourself, so don't take it personally. In my experience, only 1% of all managers were good at their jobs. Incompetence reigns. At all levels.

      En

      Write a Reply...