The problem with determining causation,is that mathematical identities are not the same as physical identities. Hence, comparing results produced by mathematical theories, with experimental observations, can only verify that the computations agree with the observations, but not the reason or cause for the agreement.

Rob McEachern

    Yet another ridiculous article about how easy it is for the clever physicists to manipulate invisible quanta in finite controlled experiments that reveal absolutely nothing about observable reality. The real Universe is sublimely simple. The real Universe consists only of a single, unified, unique visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    16 days later
    • [deleted]

    Robert Spekkens says: "'Correlation does not imply causation' is a mantra of all statisticians to which Rob Spekkens and his colleagues added a quantum twist," says Artur Ekert, director of the Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore. "It turns out that in the quantum world certain types of correlation do imply causation. This is a nice surprise."

    You probably know this, but certain scenarios of correlation imply causation also, and the suite of tools in statistics was designed to handle that in a formalized and precise methodology with repeatability and reproducibility.

      Dear Ming,

      The National Science Foundation shelled out $1.32 million to researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara to validate Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General. I am a researcher in good standing. Einstein, and all of the theoretical physicists have been utterly wrong about the Universe. The real Universe is sublimely simple. The real Universe consists only of a single, unified, unique visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Joe,

      In science, the burden of proof rests with the challenger ... that would be you.

      Good Luck. You have a long road ahead.

      Gary Simpson

      Entanglement and quantum causation are subjects that are near and dear to me, but this article is entangled with both Berkson's paradox, which is simply that there exists a hidden bias in a statistical set due to selection, and the notion of a common cause or quantum source for more than one entangled quantum observer.

      This mix of classical bias in statistics that confuses causality and the quantum superposition that binds a source to an observer and also confuses causality seems to obfuscate rather than clarify quantum causality.

      In the referenced paper, a single photon exists in a superposition of polarizations in a Sagnac interferometer. Ring interferometers like Sagnac work with polarization as opposed to spatial decoherence, so that means even more complex physics to argue about.

      The bonding between atoms in a molecule as well as the bonding between a source and an observer results from the exchanges of a single photons. Both time and space emerge from these actions and putting a Sagnac interferometer in between a source and an observer is just a really good way to complexify the simple quantum bond that actually is what holds all matter together.

      Even quantum gravity is due to the exchange of a single biphoton pair between a source and observer, which are also an observer and source. Beamsplitters and dual slit measurements usually do not include the source in their quantum logic, only the photon and observer, and so these experiments are prone to the selective statistics of the Berkson paradox.

      Once the quantum superposition includes both source and observer as well as photon exchange, space and time naturally emerge and these various complexifications become just crossword puzzles of science. Fun to solve, but hardly useful for understanding the simplicity of the quantum bonding that holds the universe together.

        • [deleted]

        Dear Gary,

        Fortunately, reality does not have to be proven, it is self evident. The real observable Universe is utterly simple to understand. The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space. Real infinite visible surface does not have any invisible entanglements lurking anywhere in its interior.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Ming,

        I am thankfully not affiliated with any accredited academic institution. I have notified over forty physics professors that Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General is incorrect, and not a one of them has disputed my contention. Perhaps you would care to prove that I am wrong and Einstein was right.

        Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687

        Dear Steve,

        The real observable Universe is utterly simple to understand. The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space. Real infinite visible surface does not have any invisible finite entanglements lurking anywhere in its interior. Invisible finite quantum causation has nothing to do with infinite unified visible surface.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        I agree that the real observable universe is easy to understand: the real observable universe is made up of discrete matter and discrete action. You describe objects as infinite surfaces that shine infinite non-surface light onto other surfaces. Since a finite surface actually shines discrete photons of light even without any non-surface light, what you say makes no sense. Moreover, a surface can also be transparent and pass the shine of other atoms that lie behind it.

        Since light is made up of discrete photons as particles and surfaces are made up of discrete atoms that absorb and shine discrete photons, there is no sense to either surfaces of infinite divisbility or infinite extent. Once again, what you say makes no sense since we live in a discrete and finite universe.

        Entanglement is quantum property of the phase of light and matter and of the spin of that phase. It is from the discrete property of quantum spin that our notions of surface and infinity and the infinitesimal emerge. Although the approach of continuous space and time represents reality fairly well, that approach is a patchwork that is not much different from that of spacetime and therefore not a very simple way to describe all of the universe at all.

        Since all that you seem to do is repeat the same mantra that makes no sense to me or any one else on the planet, all I can do is inform others about how little sense your mantra seems to make. I like to think of the finite universe in the very simple terms of discrete matter and discrete action and that makes perfect sense to me...

        • [deleted]

        Dear Steve,

        Thank you for responding. Please read exactly what I wrote. I did not describe any objects. There are no objects in the real Universe. The real Universe is utterly simple. The real Universe consists of only one unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by one infinite non-surface light. Infinite surface could not possibly be made of finite discrete invisible particles of matter. Infinite non-surface light could not possibly consist of discrete finite invisible photons.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Joe,

        I will ask you several simple questions. I have asked you these before and your response was unsatisfactory.

        1. What predictions do your ideas allow you to make?

        2. What calculations do your ideas allow you to make?

        3. How do the answers to the above differ from what physics already is? Stated differently, what do your ideas add to physics as it currently exists?

        Good luck with your journey. Your first steps must be answers to the above.

        Regards,

        Gary Simpson

        Dear Gary,

        Thank you ever so much for your astute questions. The utter simplicity of reality is not questionable. The real Universe consists of only one unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by one infinite non-surface light. Infinite surface could not possibly be made of finite discrete invisible particles of matter. Infinite non-surface light could not possibly consist of discrete finite invisible photons. Real infinite surface cannot have finite predictability, nor could it be of finite duration. Infinite surface is easy to understand. Physics of the finite invisible is utterly incomprehensible.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        • [deleted]

        A secure socket link (SSL) does not mean its 'safe', quite the contrary. It means 'fastened'. An open socket is an open set. They were called 'cookies' in ancient Geek because any other link could fasten to them and people wanted carte blanc connectivity. To call oneself a 'researcher in good standing' in a cookie jar that requires no qualification, is rather like pointing out the tallest building in Witchita.

          Joe,

          You have once again failed to answer simple questions. You need to develop your ideas beyond their present state.

          Gary Simpson

          Thanks for explaining -now I understand what you meant by a cookie jar, I thought it just meant something inviting before you elaborated.

          I didn't know about Berkson's paradox, but have now read a little bit about it. I don't quite understand why, if it is result of a kind of selection bias, they are looking for it in the quantum experiment and then taking it to be saying something about quantum causation. Or maybe I just haven't really understood the article. Can anyone explain?

          Hi Gary,

          I love those your simple questions and I wished they were directed at me. They represent the standard test for anyone presenting an alternative view or theory.

          And very fond memories remain of your city... Houston, September 2015.

          Akinbo

          Hello Akinbo,

          Glad to see you on the forums. I'm looking forward to another essay contest.

          Please feel free to reply as though these questions were addressed to you. I will be interested in your viewpoints.

          And yes, these are the questions that everyone should ask themselves regarding any theories or ideas ... at least in my opinion. Anything that cannot be tested is not science. Anything that does not add something is not useful.

          Best Regards,

          Gary Simpson