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

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

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

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

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

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