80 Years of EPR — Ontology and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Hi Brendan,

an impressive list of topics. Is there any summary of the discussions, ideas raised or conclusions drawn, or overview of the outcome of the conference as a whole available to the public?

Hi Georgina,

Thanks for the interest!

We will upload the slides of the talks soon.

Regards

Olimpia

@Olimpia Lombardi,

If you still want a discussion after all those months, you have to drop a foundational problem. Something like the synchronisation of topological deformation between the elements of an all-inclusive mathematical set... ;-))

Sorry Olimpia,

I have spend some time reading the contents of the fqXi-forum so I don't think it is sensible to start a serious discussion.

The EPR Paradox's seemingly spooky correlations at a distance, has now been demonstrated to have a simple, classical explanation

Rob McEachern

Hello Mr Mceachern,

It is a beautiful development,thans for sharing.

;) and the cat of Schrödinger is solved :)the measures and hidden variables are difficult to appraoch when we consider different mathematicaltools towards an explaination.Personally I like the Borhian Copenaghian method of reasoning about the measures and motions andcorreated time.That said in fact both of these theories can be harrmonised in inserting this dark matter and gravitation also.We could measures mathematical extrapolations in correlaion with these particles ofgravitation,spherons in my model of spherisation with quantum sphères and cosml sphères Inside an universal gravitational sphere in optimisation of matter eergy on an irreversible entropical Arrow oftime.The entropy is not complete and we must insert this matter not baryonic.The nuclei also are bad understood, we appraoch but we are still sofar of the real fractal of sphères.Our measures are limited.I am asking me how to really approach,touch,utilise, see these particles, they are so speed and so small and without light....In the respect of both EPR or copenaghe we could hamoise the hidden variables in respect of borh works in completing mass with the spherons encoded more the serie of quantum BHs towards he central sphere.I am asking me if the quantum decoherence could help when we relativate it with determinism in inserting classments of spherical volumes for the superimposings.PositioN,orbital rotations, spinal rot,linear velocity before encodings correlated with informations and volumes,wave funcion,....all can harmonised with my equation if it is correct mlosV=constant.Thezero absolute also could be utilised for the corrélations with thermo and heat.Two systems appear ,a baryonic photonic system of heat and the matter not baryonic with spherons and quantum BHs probably correlated with the zero absolute and gravitation.The hidden variables can be harmonised with determinism if the good Tools are utilised.

Best Regards

I have searched for some publications about the subject by Olimpa Lombardi (and by Dennis Dieks) - in general: the ontology of the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics - and I was really surprised when I read the papers. This is not the common unfruitful stuff I have read for about 45 years about quantum mechanics. Personally I prefer the term "quantum field theory" because "quantum mechanics" is too much related to particles and that's limited empiric science. Quantum field theory is something more foundational than empiric science - describing the relations between phenomena - so it is a mystery to me why all the theoretical physicists keep on trying to play the "empiric cart".

The abstract and introduction of a paper by Newton da Costa, Olimpia Lombardi and Mariano Lastiri (A modal ontology of properties for quantum mechanics) describes in only a couple of sentences the range of their approach.

One should wish that the basic idea behind these papers - quantum field theory as an ontological enigma - becomes the subject of one of FQXi's yearly contests. First because is is a really foundational question - it envelopes all the other contests during the last 10 years - and second because it will invite theoretical physicists to take off their empiric "spectacles".

It might be that I have come to know where the hidden variable is, to explain for the anomalous quantum probabilities that lead to notions of entanglement etc. Its a fabulously simple solution.

Consider the quantum probability distribution of photons at various angles, passing or not passing a polarized light filter? Here is a graph that plots the quantum probability distribution and compares it to what is deemed a classical system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#/media/File:Bell.svg

It is a common claim that no classical system can replicate a quantum results, however I know of such a classical system that does, and it informs us of a dynamic of photon interaction which explains this behavior of photons, we might refer to as the hidden variable.

Observe the above graph, the probability curve from the 90 degree mark through to 180 degrees. If you stand a pole on its end, and measure the weight transition as you lean it over until it lays on the ground. You will find that the weight transition across this arc models the same as the probability distribution of the quantum system. You dont need scales to appreciate this, as you can perceive this transition of a poles weight by simply picking up or laying over a pole.

You might be wondering, what could a poles weight transition possibly have to do with quantum photons? But actually it tells you something important that is implicated to both systems. And once you know this something, this simple lesson translates to all considerations of quantum entanglement, Bells Theorem, etc.

Would anybody like to know the details of what I refer?

Steve