Rescuing Reality

The real observable Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion naturally allowable. There must only be one unified, visible, infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word "is," one implies a finite state of being arising from a previous identifiable finite state best described by the word "was". The word "am" is truly descriptive of a state of infinity. (simple) Reality need not be rescued. (complex) theoretical physics as published in this silly article needs to be suppressed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

That special preparation of the particles that gives an 'entangled' pair means that any same first tests will give same outcomes because of the (imparted during preparation) similarity of the particles properties. Not because they are carrying the outcomes or are in communication with each other.The second particle of the pair does not instantly have the same (outcome) property, upon measurement of the first, because interaction with the apparatus is needed to produce it. The second particle does not require communication from the first but same treatment as the first.The outcome can be known because of the knowledge that the particle pair have had special preparation that will cause the particles to respond in the same way to the same first test.

The problem arises, when one does different tests on each member of the entangled pair, rather than the same test.

Rob McEachern

There isn't a problem The results are correlated only of the same tests are done as that preserves the realtionship formed at their production as a pair. The second particle isn't instantly becoming the corresponding output when the first is measured but the second particle responds to the provocation of the test it is given. There is no correlation between the different orientations of spin so knowing the spin of the first particle will not predict the spin of the second for a different orientation.

It is an observed fact, that the Correlation Results differ, at different detector angles.

See my link at the top of this page, for the explanation why this happens.

Rob McEachern

Jack,

I tend to agree with your trusted expert opinion, though I struggle with Sutherland's definition of "realism". He says:

"My research is concerned with the interpretation of quantum theory and such issues as Bell's non-locality, the quantum measurement problem and the nature of interference. In particular, I am interested in mathematical extensions to both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory that reinstate realism explicitly.

"By realism here I mean the assumption that an underlying physical reality exists in the absence of measurement. Surprisingly, maintaining this assumption in conjunction with quantum mechanics leads (via Bell's theorem plus certain reasonable assumptions) to either a clash with special relativity or to the existence of backwards-in-time effects. Since the experimental success of relativity and the theory's attractiveness in my eyes make me wary of abandoning it too hastily (even at a 'hidden' level), my research is focused on possible models involving backwards causation. In particular, I have constructed a time-symmetric formalism in which events are determined by both initial and final boundary conditions. A second model of this type is presently being formulated." http://sydney.edu.au/time/people/sutherland.htm

I don't think an "underlying physical reality" is necessary to assure local realism. I agree with Sutherland's time-symmetric determinism, with the proviso that the entropy generated by past and future events is identical. Entropy hides its origin (information from the future is as likely as information from the past), so entropy is a good candidate for the 'hidden variable'. Initial and final boundary conditions then have a common source, eliminating the boundary between classical and quantum physics.

Hello Mr Sarfatti,I see that you are on LinkedIn also,If it is with baryonic bosonic photonic thermodynamical particles, FTL is not possible.The special relativity if it is broken must be with particles which are not relativistic, nor baryonic.We cannot travel in time and we cannot pass c with baryons.Best Regards

Doc is still in you Tom :)you are going to really invent it one day this machine.and the formalisation of broken laws appear like the FTL with baryons.

The holism and Bohm is in you Mr Sarfatti, apparently you like his works and his interprétations of our quantum mechanics.

:) Let's dialog so and let's unify consciousness;matter and energy ....:)and let's fight the psychological sadeness due to social comportments ...

More highly creative hoop-jumping to preserve that "underlying physical reality". Is anyone willing to go out on a limb and state what they think "physical" means? If not, why fight to maintain an empty concept?

Robert, we are thinking about different scenarios. I was just thinking about X, Y and Z perpendicular orientations of Stern Gerlach apparatus.

If talking about polarizers I think it is a mistake to imagine that a polarizer passively extracts some of the of the photons from the population and does not provoking a response by the photons that pass. I have used the expression "selection pressure" for that provocation, thinking of how species are altered by the environmental challenges they encounter. If the outcome of the encounter with the measuring polarizer is a new state then Bell's theorem is not relevant as it was proposed to show that the realism of pre determined states will not fit with quantum experiment results. The three polarizer demonstration with two perpendicular polarizers not allowing light through but a 45 degree polarizer inserted between them then permitting some light through, seems to show that the light passing through the middle polarizer is altered by the encounter.

We are indeed thinking of different scenarios. You keep missing the point, of the Bell tests. The point is, in the Bell tests, there is no second measurement - ever. Each entity is only measured once. Hence, it makes no difference if a first measurement would alter a second, because a second is never, ever performed, on any given entity. That is the entire point of the experiment. The reason "entangled" entities must be used in such experiments, is to absolutely guarantee that if you measure the same property of each member of the pair, you will get the exact opposite result - always. But what do you get when you deliberately perform different measurements on each member of a pair? That is the only question of interest. A "weird" result can never occur for the reasons you have described - a first measurement on one entity influencing a second, on the same entity - because no such second measurement is ever performed.

Rob McEachern

So the physical is "what exists". And what exists is whatever is "physical".

You got it. People, especially mathematical physicists and philosophers (Aristotle in particular), want math to be something other than what it is. Math is nothing more than a symbolic language for describing relationships. In physics, it can be used to describe how things behave. But it can never reveal the cause for why they behave as they do, which is what so many really want to know, and want math and deductive logic to provide. The reason for this is simple: math identities cannot be physical identities. a(b+c) = ab+ac only describes the final outcome, not the mechanism/algorithm/"physical reality" (one multiplier versus two) that caused the outcome. To say that a math identity even exists, is to say that there does not exist a unique mechanism for obtaining any given value - the two sides of the identity are not in fact "physically" identical - only their "values" are identical. It is ultimately no different than saying that five pennies do not make a nickel, physically, but do add up to one mathematically. Hence, entirely different, often wildly different, physical interpretations (underlying mechanisms) can be assigned to the same math equation, because math identities enable one to rearrange the equation into a different form, thereby implying a different physical mechanism for evaluating the equation. Which form did Mother Nature chose to use? The math cannot answer that question. Only an actual observation, of Mother Nature's chosen form, in operation, can answer the question.

Rob McEachern

The words "physical" and "exist" have no non-circular definitions. I'd say that in fact, they have no meaning. And continued insistence that there obviously is - or has to be - a "objective physical reality" contributes nothing and is only holding us back. Is this Copenhagen? If so, that's where we need to go.

"The words "physical" and "exist" have no non-circular definitions. I'd say that in fact, they have no meaning."

You got it. The problem is, the same is true of all short symbols, including all words. Their information content (in the Shannon sense) is too small for them to contain any intrinsic meaning at all, so all such meanings are simply made-up and slapped on extrinsically. The issue is; Is there even any possibility that there might be a one-to-one relationship, between any such set of symbols, and a corresponding set of "things" in "physical reality"? The answer, in some cases is "no" - when the number of symbols differs from the number of things "out there", there is no possibility for a one-to-one relationship. If you employ too many components (like spin components) in your symbolic description of reality (how spin behaves), then there can be no possibility whatsoever, of any one-to-one relationship with reality, if spin "in reality" only has one observable component. Assuming that there is a one-to-one relationship (I ought to be able to measure more independent, uncorrelated compoments!), is why QM interpretations seem so weird.

Rob McEachern

Like so many other things, the definitions of words are relative. A dictionary defines words in terms of other words. But there are a couple of words that don't fit in that scheme; their "definitions" are just lists of synonyms. I think that's significant - they're not just outliers, they're outside our system of meaning. Look up "exist" and you get something like "to have being".

Can someone claim to have a theory that proves there's something "physical", without defining the term? I'd say no, it would just be more hand-waving.

Robert, I'm sorry my earlier posts could have been clearer. I am not talking about influence on the result of a second measurement on the same particle but the second measurement I mention is the first one done on the "entangled" partner.

In regard to the 'Selection pressure' description I have been thinking that the filtering out of some of the photons is like natural selection culling those individuals who can not survive the challenge and an analogy for the alteration of the surviving population is the epigenetic change that allows new phenotypes to be expressed by the genotypes that remain. The remaining population is not merely the pre-polarizer population minus some photons.