• [deleted]

  • Post #15

Hello Ian,

Surprised to see you claim existence of a neutrino magnetic moment. Quick google search gives reasonably recent reference

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269315009545

where they claim an upper bound only of a few 10^-11 Bohr magnetons. Hope this is not central to your point.

Trying to get some sense of what a beable is. What is relation between beable and the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction? Beables are observables? If so, then a beable would be the incoherent lump of energy we get when we collapse a wavefunction, beable = single measurement observable? If, why not just call it that? If not, how is it different?

Now I'm confused, see the statement that vector potential is not observable. What about Aharonov-Bohm effect? The quantum phase associate with a potential can be measured, just isn't a single measurement observable. Phase is relative, requires two measurements.

and beyond that the statement that E and H fields are beables. They are not single measurement observables. What we measure in collapsing a photon wave function is dependent on how we collapse it - do we use a loop antenna or a whip antenna?

finally googled for beable and got this - anything that could possibly be. So it becomes a task of figuring out what is impossible? Such fun. Thank you bery much.

section 2 opens right on point with this - "can a universe be a beable?"

answer is yes.

local and nonlocal keep popping up in the text. Distinction is straightforward, and not confined to what we usually regard as a quantum-only phenomenon.

Unlike the 1/r hidden variable quantum potential of deBroglie-Bohm, it is the

1/r^2 potential operative in nonlocality. inverse square potentials are those who forces are orthogonal to the resulting direction of motion. They can do no work, cannot communication energy/information, only quantum phase, not a single measurement observable.

Inverse square potentials include scale invariant quantum Hall of the vector Lorentz force (this is Aharonov-Bohm effect), centrifugal, Coriolis, chiral, three body,... all scale invariant. They cannot be shielded. Brings gravity to mind.

Darn. Wish I had more to offer here, but just don't get the hidden variable pilot wave stuff and all that has been associated with it. Perhaps I'm tying beables too tightly to dBB? In any case I'm more confused that when I started. To my mind it is just wavefunctions and their interactions, and all the rest is windowdressing we fuss with when we can't see out the window - dark, snow to the rooftops, ice a quarter inch thick on the inside of the glass,... This is what the picture you paint looks to me. Entertaining at times but no fire in the fireplace, and too many empty rooms.

Don't feel like i know enough at this point to rate this essay. Just confused.

    Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I see your point though I'm not necessarily saying that the subject-object distinction is all there is to induction and inference. I'm simply saying that it is one facet of it.

    Thanks Wilhelmus! Some very interesting thoughts indeed. Yes, every theory is incomplete. Absolutely, though there is some debate about whether we may eventually find one that is not. This would be the "theory of everything" if it actually exists. I'm not convinced such a thing is even attainable.

    I actually agree with both your statements. In my essay, I am only saying that the universe is not fundamental in the types of theories in which it can properly serve as a beable in the sense implied by Bell. Likewise, in no way am I saying that deduction will get around the problem of induction. Indeed, a good chunk of my PhD thesis was on precisely that.

    Hmm. I guess the question of existence is a sticky one. Personally, as I suggested in the essay, there are certain things that simply aren't provable. But the essence of science is that there are objectively knowable things. So while knowledge in quantum mechanics may be probabilistic, it is still knowledge and it is still predictable in the aggregate, i.e. the probabilistic sense. For instance, while I may not be able to predict if a single cow is brown or black, presumably many such measurements will tell me, on average, what many such cows will be and it is that average (mean or expectation value) that is ultimately highly predictable. After all, quantum electrodynamics, which is built on quantum mechanics, is arguably the most predictively accurate theory ever constructed in terms of how well theoretical predictions match experimental outcomes.

    Thanks for the name of that book. I have never heard of it.

    Thanks Cristi! And thanks for the birthday wishes! Hoping to get to reading your essay soon.

    Actually Bell was a dBB proponent. And you are not the only one who finds beables a bit vague. If you read Bell's original papers, they are not all consistent. What they do seem to represent is an evolution of his thinking on the concept. But the short answer is that, in modern terms, most people accept that a beable, whatever it is, sets the ontology for a theory.

    As for the neutrino magnetic moment, it is worth pointing out that the current constraints are all experimental and have only been able to show that, if it exists, it has an upper bound that is extremely small but, crucially, non-zero. As such, there are some alternative theories in which the neutrino is not a fundamental particle but rather consists of something like a W boson and something else (the exact other particle escapes me at the moment).

    Anyway, it is certainly not crucial to my argument.

    "I am only saying that the universe is not fundamental in the types of theories..." I agree. My point is, that says more about the nature of mathematical theories, than about the nature of the universe. Theories are virtually devoid of information. The universe is not. Hence, the map fails to provide anything more than a very meager description of the territory. Reality is determined by the vast information content of the initial conditions, not the exceedingly sparse information content of sets of equations; change the initial conditions, and you change the resulting reality, even if the equations remain the same.

    Rob McEachern

    Hi Ian,

    Yay, beables! :-)

    One important point about Bell's use of "local beables" that I think it's important to stress, is that every beable is *somewhere* and *somewhen*. In other words, they're parameters that are functions on spacetime. (To take Bell's example that you quote, the field values in classical E+M are clearly spacetime-localized beables.) In fact, if you take this spacetime-localization as the proper reading of his "belonging to objects" quote, the problems you note in section 1 pretty much vanish, I think.

    Then, when you get to nonlocal beables like wavefunctions, it also becomes clearer that you're talking about something very different. Concepts that apply to local beables don't necessarily apply to nonlocal beables. (In my way of thinking, the latter shouldn't even be called "beables" at all -- I prefer "ontology" here, to keep beables connected to spacetime, with wavefunctions and functionals of field configurations in some broader category.)

    But then I certainly come around to agreeing with your conclusion: if the universe is the sum total of all the beables, then the *universe* isn't fundamental -- the *beables* are! But would you be okay with adding the laws and boundary conditions that constrain those beables to the set of things that are "fundamental"?

    Thanks for the essay! -Ken

      Dear Ian Durham

      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

      Thanks Ken. Yes, I absolutely think that the laws and boundary conditions that constrain the beables *must* be fundamental, at least within a given theory. So if the given theory is about the universe as a whole, then they would be *the* fundamental entities.

      As far as Bell goes, perhaps not surprisingly I have a slightly different reading of what he means by "beable" in the sense that I don't think he is as consistent and clear across his papers as everyone seems to think he is. So I'm not sure I entirely agree with your first two points, though I will have to think more about them.

      But, yay beables! Never thought I would write this kind of essay (or reach that conclusion, for that matter) and yet here I am...

      Respected Prof Ian Durham

      Wonderful conclusion..... " a universe that is a beable within the framework of some theory, cannot be fundamental." 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

      I'm not an "anything"-ist. Bell clearly had some really good ideas but I certainly don't agree with him on everything. What interests me are the implications of his theory of beables. I haven't decided whether I like it as a theory or not, but that's because I don't think it's been vetted enough yet. This effort was a small one on my part to further vet his theory.

      Ok, I get it now.

      The reason I asked is that your conclusion from the abstract: " ... that a universe that is a beable within the framework of some theory, cannot be fundamental" is absolute.

      Since general relativity is a mathematically complete theory -- not a framework -- in which beables exist and dynamically interact, universe included, Bell's theorem cannot be fundamental by your criteria.

      Another reason one might consider Bell falsified, is that all proofs for the theorem (that I have seen) are based on double negation.

      There are other reasons, too.

      Enjoyed the essay.

      Dear Ian Durham,

      You begin with a logician [or a general semanticist] pointing out limits on how much we can reasonably infer from a given observation. Thanks! Don't see much of that these days. You then say "quantum mechanics is ostensibly a [statistical] theory about the results of measurements."

      Bell, based on dBB, investigated "objective properties - beables - assigned to objects", in the way that physically real fields E and H are beables and Maxwell's theory. My current essay reviews Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations that Einstein based his 1905 paper on. I hope you will read it and comment on it.

      If one considers an ultimately dense vortex in a self-interacting field, it might seem to shrink to a point (like a skater pulling in her arms). Before that happens it may reach a limiting point [not describable in a brief comment] where electric charge comes into being. Does all of the 'vortex' go into the charged particle, or does a remnant survive (as a neutrino)? In a comment above you refer to a neutrino as potentially not a fundamental particle, but something like a W+ boson and something else. If a boson is a vortex in an ultradense 'perfect fluid' such as created at LHC, a neutrino may be a Z boson remnant (and nothing else) which yields a left-handed Majorana 'particle'.

      I'm in full agreement with Bell about real scalar fields but 'unreal' scalar electric potential. As one is the gradient or integral of the other, why should both be real? You ask "are fundamental beables knowable, and, if so how can we know them?" I suggest that if we can model them well enough to predict their mass (which SM cannot do) this might count for 'knowledge'. And yes, it is better to understand the universe we live in! Also glad you do not believe wave functions necessarily pose a problem for beables. A moving boat will induce a wave and moving mass can also. Rather than discuss your 'universe as beable', may I point out relevant aspects of Bell [copied from my response to another author]:

      Referring to Bell's "momentous no-go theorem", if you look at his first paper, his very first equation determines the outcome: A = +/-1, B = +/-1, where A and B are measurements on Stern-Gerlach. This is based on the assumption of quantum qubits. But QM provides only probabilistic predictions. Many-body experiments on spin do yield qubit outcomes, as should be expected. Stern-Gerlach does not yield qubit outcomes, but smeared results that match 3D spin dynamics in an inhomogeneous field. However Pauli's mathematical projection of qubit mechanics: O|+> = +|+>, O|-> = -|-> is Bell's assumption of reality. In other words Bell claims to look for a classical (local variable) description of Stern-Gerlach, but then constrains the problem to quantum results based on the mathematical projection of Pauli, not on the empirical results of Stern-Gerlach.

      Feynman later put the final nail in this coffin by assuming that his favorite two-slit photon experiment could be carried over directly to a two-slit spin analog (the SG experiment). Of course the same equations apply, because he's making the same mathematical projection, but the actual physics of the photon in two-slits is vastly different from the physics of atoms in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, and Feynman's extended SG gedanken model has never been tested. Despite that, several QM textbooks base QM on his model.

      Since Feynman and Bell's math and logic have been accepted as gospel, local realism has been excluded from physics. A no-go theorem based on atoms in a magnetic field, constrained to never-tested single-qubit spin results, is then "proved" by photon-based experiments which actually do produce two-state results: on/off detections.

      I repeat - the entire entanglement industry is based on the erroneous assumption that the results of the Stern-Gerlach atomic experiments are +1 and -1 deflections, "tested" by photonic experiments that use +1 and 0 detections. The atomic data produced by Stern-Gerlach clearly conflicts with Bell's initial assumption, but instead of trying sophisticated tests of Stern-Gerlach using modern technology the whole entanglement industry is based on 1922 experiments that clearly do not yield +1 and -1 results. The confusion of 1920s quantum mechanics is locked in, compounded by 1960's theoretical claims.

      My suggestion is to look for the basic assumptions that violate intuition and that lead to nonsense. My current essay provides a possible example of such.

      Thank you for surprising yourself with an essay on beables!

      My very best regards and best wishes,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Thank you, Ian for yet another insightful and thought-provoking essay.

      I remember that late night (for me) when I, in South Africa, and you, in Maine, were scrambling to get our essays into shape. I am very glad that you succeeded.

      I enjoyed the parable about the economist, mathematician, and logician. Clearly, the logician was not a Bayesian and could not incorporate his prior information about the coloring of cows. Surprisingly, the mathematician seems to have been a Bayesian; and the economist a very poor one with ridiculous priors about the nature of cows in a region.

      Your discussion of Bell's beables is interesting, and after reading a few pages in I feel that I could write an essay in response to this. The idea of assigning things, beables, properties is something I have given a lot of thought to. At this point, this idea that objects have positions in space and time, or have speeds or energy and momentum is clearly not right. Each of these 'properties' is observer-dependent, which means that they are not properties possessed by the objects in question, but instead represent a relationship between the object and the observer. This makes me feel more strongly that this is one of the problems of physics. These quantities represent relationships, not properties. It is possibly this fact that has led physics astray.

      You now have me thinking about how one can conceive of my influence theory, which results in an emergent space-time, in terms of beables.

      Thank you for an interesting, stimulating, and thoughtful essay!

      Kevin Knuth