A Dialogue Concerning Fundamentality in Quantum Mechanics by valia allori

Dear Professor valia allori,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Prof. Allori,

I enjoyed your dialog on the foundations of quantum mechanics, including its historical development.

However, there is an alternative interpretation that was apparently never suggested historically, namely that a fundamental quantum wave is a real soliton-like wavepacket. Solitons, of course, require nonlinear differential equations, and the entire theoretical edifice of Hilbert space is built upon linearity.

In my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I point out that nonlinear behavior in an electron could give rise to a soliton-like wavepacket, which could exhibit the exclusion principle without requiring Pauli's mathematical construction. It was Pauli's construction that inadvertently created quantum entanglement, which has been a source of contention ever since. In the past few years, massive funds have been poured into quantum computing research by governments and industries, but quantum computing requires entanglement to function. My prediction is that quantum computing will fail catastrophically within about 5 years, and only then will the foundations of quantum mechanics be reexamined.

Alan Kadin

It is nice technique to present this endless dialog, and is a good pedagogical demonstration .You covered most of the problems by short sentences.

Regards,

Mohammed Sanduk

Dear Valia Allori

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Prof Valia Allori

You have wonderfully stated about wave function as a simple discussion between Wendy and Patty befitting a smart journalist who tries to take home something from this discussion, combining metaphysics in quantum mechanics..... Very good sir.... By the way....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Valia Allori,

Your essay is very clear. Thank you.

Your graph analyzing the relationship between EPR and Bell is exact. You are right. The universe would be no stranger if there were non-local hidden variables. After all, the universe is non-local anyway!

I was wondering how the Kochen-Specker Theorem effects your analysis. It is not about nonlocality. Any thoughts?

Thank you.

If you have a chance, please take a look at my essay.

All the best,

Noson

Dear Prof Allori,

thank you for this very engaging contribution. The form of a dialogue in a bar helps reconstructing a debate of many decades over the ontological status of the wave function.

I appreciated it very much, higest rating.

If you happen to have time, i would be glad if you have a look into my essay as well, that treats in detail the consequences of Kochen-Specker and Bell's theorems.

All good wishes,

FLavio

Dear Valia Allori,

Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

I also request you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Prof Allori,

Very creative way to approach the question - as a conversation. I had hopes that Lauren would be the last 'speaker' in your piece, and that she would summarize and maybe unify the W versus P debate ideas of her friends, along some new line of thought, some new interpretation. :-) I applaud your very fine plain language explanation of the current relations disparities between QM and scientific realism (nee relativity). Correct interpretations of the alternative models is a main step toward possible resolution.

If you have the time, I would appreciate you reading another 'plain language' essay here .. mine obviously (I am new to FQXi at 70yo) .. "Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals - Have We Spotted Them All?".

Mainly .. I would like it if you could ask Wendy and Patty (your alter-ego's ?)

to read the essay from their mindsets, to get their critical opinions. It would be enlightening. :-)

One addendum. My essay ends with a proposition that science might do well to re-examining certain presumed equation format~structure relations, as a possible route to resolving the physics phenomena they model. I left some clarifying remarks out of the essay, but - importantly - do include them in a reply post to Juan Ramón González Álvarez, who read and commented on my essay, that would be good to read as well (not terribly long).

Appreciating the clarity for description that you have, you would honor me with your own review of the ideas I present. (I am not so much concerned with any score rating, as I am with your actual analysis - which has strong conceptual value.) I am a General Systems theorist, so I look for relational similarities in the math models of very many systems, including biology and cybernetics.

I wrote some clarifying additions also, in a conversation thread with Steven Andresen - especially a link where I discuss the work of anthropologist Dean Falk - that is appropriate for the frame of reference I use in analyzing systems.

[I am discovering that FQXi is a nest of 'please read my paper' posts. Apologies for being another one-among-many. Just know, I am anxious to have extended conversations with anyone willing, to learn from other views and understandings. Thank you!]

James N. Rose

Dear Valia

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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

Valia,

Nice format and analysis of the issues. But what if momenta aren't just 'singlet' but what we actually FIND on spinning spheres? And what if momentum transfer with detector (rotatable) field electrons gives outputs of 'SAME or OPPOSITE' momenta for the 3D distributions? Add some seasoning and the EPR paradox evaporates.

It takes some following but a full mechanism is in my essay. CHSH >2 plot in Declan Traill's. Gordon Watson's also on the right track.

Do interrogate it & comment there.

Very best

Peter

Dear Valia,

Thanks for writing this dialogue about the disagreement between two ways of viewing the world according to quantum theories. I hope Patty and Wendy will meet each other again soon for another drink and debate.

On your final point, I don't think the wave function realist should agree that the primitive ontology theorist has a simpler account of how macroscopic objects of the kind we observe arise from a quantum ontology. For without the wave function, there isn't enough to capture any of the features of our experience. Without the wave function, the primitive ontology theorist has only positions. Once the wave function is introduced into such an account, as it must be,, I am concerned the explanations of Patty and Wendy will be comparably complicated.

Best,

Alyssa