A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill

Dear Declan,

Here we are again all together. I enjoyed reading your contribution, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

"This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics". Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Declan,

Your wrote a very interesting and provocative Essay.

Classical and quantum are strongly connected with the issues of determinism and uncertainty. This discussion goes beyond physics as far as the fields of philosophy. It has also profound implications in the framework of unifications of theories. From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that, in the path to unification of theories, Quantum Mechanics had to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, which he called Generalized Theory of Gravitation, but he did not obtain the final equations of such a theory. At present, this point of view is partially retrieved by some theorists, starting from the Nobel Laureate G. 't Hooft. I agree with both of Einstein and 't Hooft. Hence, I strongly appreciated your Essay and I hope that it could be the starting point of a more general discussion.

In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss a way to remove a fundamental uncertainty in quantum gravity... with Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Declan,

As a fellow Aussie, I give top marks to all those (from anywhere) who have-a-good-go. It is thus, for me, so good to see you having-a-real-good-go to understand reality -- via your many publications -- and to find that we share this interest: "in re-constructing ... Quantum Mechanics into a Classical framework that can be understood and visualized using a universal set of principles." So I am certainly here to appreciate and encourage your work in that direction: even in the hope that we might collaborate. [nb: the principles that my theory advances are validated experimentally.]

It also seems that we agree on this, though we offer different solutions: that many physicists, philosophers and mathematicians "claim that particles can become entangled such that there is a correlation in the detected results from EPR type experiments that cannot be explained by Classical Physics."

Alas though: perhaps due to my own misunderstandings, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding in your research. Thus, perhaps I misunderstand your claim: "This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics [sic: what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?], and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can by reproduced when modelled this way." ?

In my view, energy conservation holds in each and every interaction (quantum or classical), and formalism beats modelism. So some questions follow:

1. In Figure-1 you claim the blue line to be the classical prediction. But isn't the classical prediction simply one-half of the green line?*

* 2. In other words, if we seek to model Aspect's experiments (or EPRB), and we allow only that the paired-particles are weakly correlated via their polarisation: then the consequent correlation (perfectly classical) delivers one-half the correct correlation. Thus, in that the blue line in Figure-1 is not supported by any classical model known to me: please, what is your basis for it?

* 2a. Do you see that the EPRB particle-correlation (via the pairwise conservation of Ang. Momentum), thus delivers twice the correlation of simple classical model offered in Q.2?

3. You are correct, in Figure-2, that the QM correlation can be modelled by means of non-detect events (which can be quite ubiquitous). But is it not the case that your model must reproduce the QM result repeatedly, as the non-detect events diminish with improved detectors, etc?

4. Further, in GHZ, would it not be the case that one complete 3-particle detection would be a counterexample to your modelling?

5. Are you aware of the history of the use of the "non-detection loophole"?**

** As I recall, the "non-detection loophole" emerges early in the history of Bell's theorem (BT): and was properly dismissed then. I suspect that the late Caroline Thompson (from Wales) might have documented this history, and attempted to advance it. Alas, in her case, she believed BT would be vindicated experimentally.

In conclusion, at the risk of it being my understanding: I currently reject your Conclusion on the grounds that you are using the "non-detection loophole" -- when no loophole of any kind is required.

To support my tentative conclusion, I would welcome you comments on my own theory. More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.***

*** My essay has a serious defect: I expected my readers to follow some elementary math and draw some interesting conclusions without prompting. [nb: to partially remedy my defect, and to help you, I will add a brief BACKGROUND note to my thread. I'll let you know when it's up.] You might also be interested in my comments on Luca Valeri Zimmermann's and Ken Wharton's essays.

Also: have you seen the "two computer" challenge that Anthony Garrett puts to Peter Jackson? [When you have programmed two unconnected computers to reproduce those stats in a situation where the question put to each computer is from a random number generator, let me know!] My theory refutes such challenges; including this next one from Anthony Garrett: "Bell's theorem is about logic, not quantum mechanics; would you tell me where that same logic fails in its application to the interrogation of two persons in adjacent rooms, please, and the inference that they must have been overhearing each other's interrogation when answering their own questions?"

PS: Declan, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise. Which (if/when) then gives a final question: Please, will you let me know what in my theory you disagree with?

Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Declan, in reply, from my essay-thread. ...........

Thanks Declan, your prompt reply is appreciated. It's also good to see that we have some agreements; but I won't dwell on them for now. Instead I want to discuss what looks like (in my opinion) a serious point of disagreement.

Please note that I have no wish to discourage you -- quite the contrary -- because I think you have guts and brains; and perhaps it is me that errs. However:

Imho, what you call "Classical" or "Classical Physics" is not classical at all.

Thus your "reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this: Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle) where an incident photon will give a - result."

May I take it that this "classicality" is part of your own theory? Or do you have a source? And can you be more specific, please, and consider your "detector" to be built from a polarizer followed by an analyzer?

For it's true that Bell 1964:(4) uses a similar approach, but only by way of illustration: for I'm not aware of any classical textbook advancing such a theory. What's more I do not see how your idea works for the usual classical demonstrations that are conducted with three 'sandwiched' polarizers: where brightness measurements show good accord with classical theory without allowances for "non-detects"?

You should be able to do the classical textbook calculation [edit: in and EPRB-setting with particles pairwise-correlated by linear-polarization] and see that it yields an expectation of one-half the QM value; which is NOT the blue line: instead it will be one-half the green line.

Then, regarding this next point of yours [with my emphasis]:

"Essentially it seems to me [DT] that you [GW] are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment. Yes, there is no doubt of that - but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the same angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!"

In reply, with Einstein-locality ensuring that no detector has any 'knowledge' about the other: in EPRB (eg, using Aspect's experiments) the probability of +1/-1 from each detector is 50/50, for all (a, b); so there is no "knowing" required. And the related correlation is twice the classical correlation because pairwise "entangled" photons (ie, in the singlet state) are more highly correlated than pairwise correlated photons (in beams) correlated by linear-polarization only.*

Re the latter, I recommend that you do the classical calculation; re the former I would encourage you to study my essay and ask questions. For I am keen to see where we might disagree and where things might be improved; me noting that the only change I make to modern physics is to take Bohr's "disturbance dictum" seriously.*

* My own dictum: Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery; and correlated tests on more correlated things produce more correlated results without mystery.

PS: The GHZ I mentioned is [14] in my References; you'll see the 4-particle GHSZ variant of EPRB in [13].

HTH, with best regards; Gordon

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Declan, from my essay-thread; GW. -------

Declan, thanks for this:

From you: "I was happy to accept that the linear expectation was already derived by others, and on thinking about it could see how it was derived (as I explained earlier with the hemispheres) so I saw no need to re-derive it in my paper as it is in the Wikipedia page anyhow. Incidentally Alain Aspects presentation does show how it was calculated on page 13, with the sign() formula for A and B."

In reply: But they are not classical derivations. As I said earlier: Bell 1964:(4) uses a similar approach (ie, sgn), but only by way of illustration. Thus we have your Blue line associated with "imitation, naivety, and by way of illustration". Further, had I derived the Blue line in highschool (where we learnt of Malus' Law), it would have been marked 0/10.

That's why I recommend that you drop the straight line: and instead do, and plot, the classical half-Green line calculation. For then (at least via my theory) you are half-way to describing the origin of the Green line, without mystery

Though that would leave you with the claim that the Green line can be replicated classically on two independent computers. I'm out of touch with the latest bets against such, but some were considerable. This is the same challenge that Anthony Garrett issues; but without the $$ I suspect.

I look forward to your comments on my theory.

With my thanks again, and best regards,

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Dear Declan, ...(copied to your and mine)

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Declan

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Declan, as foreshadowed above, here's some background on my theory; Gordon

Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic."

Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Declan, re the correlation graph that you sent me: please post the graph as an attachment on my essay-thread. I would like to reply in detail with reference to that context. Thanks; Gordon

Declan, this is from my essay thread, in reply to the graph that you emailed me. GW ...............

Declan, thanks for attaching that strange (red-spotted) graph that you emailed to me. From your emails it appears you think it correct and that (somehow) my suggested remedy won't work. I'm hoping what follows (and further discussions, if necessary) may convince you otherwise.

I'm also hoping that you will now quickly spot the source of "the twist" in your graph -- when corrected, it will mirror one-half the Green line -- so that you can then offer it as remedy to the many world-wide fallacies that attach to that misleading straight-line. Of course, as discussed, I would also encourage you to revert to formalism NOT modelism in this area: where the former is simpler (and far less misleading; see the equations below).

In a fairly obvious notation: α denotes Aspect's (2004) experiment (s = 1). β denotes EPRB (s = 1/2). Subscript c denotes a classical variant of the quantum experiments: ie, classically, the particle-pairs are correlated under linear-polarisation only. Thus, classically under c, and from my theory under "entanglement" -- see my essay -- we find:

[math]E(a,b|\alpha_c)=P(AB=1|\alpha_c)-P(AB=-1|\alpha_c)=\tfrac{1}{2}cos2(a,b).\;\;QED.\;\;(1)[/math]

[math]E(a,b|\alpha)=P(AB=1|\alpha)-P(AB=-1|\alpha)\;\;(2)[/math]

[math]=cos^{2}(a,b)-sin^{2}(a,b)=cos2(a,b).\;\;QED.\;\;(3)[/math]

[math]E(a,b|\beta_c)=P(AB=1|\beta_c)-P(AB=-1|\beta_c)=-\tfrac{1}{2}a.b.\;\;QED.\;\;(4)[/math]

[math]E(a,b|\beta)=P(AB=1|\beta)-P(AB=-1|\beta)\;\;(5)[/math]

[math]=sin^{2}\tfrac{1}{2}(a,b)-cos^{2}\tfrac{1}{2}(a,b)=-a.b.\;\;QED.\;\;(6)[/math]

The superiority of formalism over modelism then becomes clear. A physicist (thanks to Bohm), comparing (1) with (3) -- or (4) with (6) -- sees that the superior correlation of the quantum-source gives superior results, without mystery (compared to the weaker correlation provided by the "classical" source). In other words, pairwise correlation under linear-polarisation is weak compared to pairwise correlation under the conservation of total angular momentum.

It follows that the so-called "classical straight line" -- from all your sources -- is misleading: and the related flawed analyses do not support profound claims. Which is not to discourage you -- it is rather to redirect you from a popular dead-end to some real-physic; perhaps beginning with you challenging and correcting the hard-straight-liners; including Aspect.

To that end -- since my theory reflects the end that you (and many others) are seeking; with just one commonsense refinement to modern physics -- I look forward to discussing where I too might be on the wrong track.

With best regards;

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Declan, I've replied below, showing how Malus does give the correct result: and sure that you will spot your simple mistake when you see my equations. Cheers; Gordon