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

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 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

Hi Luca, and many thanks! [nb: below, the superscript-function does not work with ±. I use "bold" to identify the start of my comments; not for emphasis.]

I agree: "The disturbance interpretation is very appealing, since it maintains our realistic view of beables."

I acknowledge that many agree with you: "The formalism [I] use is not so transparent."

But this next from you gives me hope for the formalism: "However I think I got the idea." nb: the formalism is meant to be physically significant in that a beable is represented by the same physically significant symbol: objectively/ontologically in spacetime and abstractly/epistemically in the mathematics.

I thank you for this: "Where I see a problem is the link between formula (8) and (9). This needs more clarification. The source information (beta) disappeared. I can imagine, that this is because of the perfect correlation of the angular momentum (ref. 15.12). However from the observed polarization vector (ref. 15.10) the total information of the angular momentum (ref. 15.11) cannot be inferred completely. Hence the source (beta) should not disappear in the derivation of the conditional probability." Please note: I do NOT infer to the total information of the angular momentum; for (as you rightly say) such cannot be inferred completely under β. However, I can carefully infer to the equivalence relations: and here I use a weaker, more general equivalence relation than that used by EPR and many others (about which we seem to agree; which is good).

In addition, note that β in (8) specifies the conditions under which the related (immediately-preceding) argument must be interpreted. So β drops out when we interpret (8) correctly and arrive at (9). This is explained in ¶6.2-6.3; but let me add for greater clarity:

The physical significance of the argument in (8) is this. Under condition β (and thus using the equivalence-relations established under β, etc) we are asked to evaluate the (possibly-disturbing) interaction between a polarizer δb± and a polarized particle q(a-). And we need the probability that q(b+) is the outcome. But, via our equivalence relations, this interaction/probability is just that covered (already classically) by Malus' Law.

So we use Malus' Law, to write (9) immediately. And we write QED because our result is that confirmed by QT under β. HTH?

In reply to this: "I will come back to the disturbance interpretation - how I see it - another time. Only so much: causes and effects are not as unambiguous as they seem and the condition for the possibility to make inferences from a measurement might depend on conditions not included in the description of the experiment (for instance the environment, which must be separable from the system)."

Agreeing with EPR, every relevant beable must be included in our analysis. So if you follow the suggestion in ¶4.1 to Watson (2017d:§2) you will see that my (1)-(2) includes the beable of spacetime, here reduced to 3-space since time and gravity are not essential beables under β.

With my thanks again, I look forward to your further comments on my disturbance interpretation: and any other concerns, critiques, suggestions, etc. I cannot be offended and learn much from such.

Gordon

Eckard, from me, via your essay-thread: GW. -------

Dear Eckard: above you wrote:

"Gordon Watson wrote: -- "Reality makes sense and we can understand it." --

In my understanding, this is a tautology because I am merely distinguishing between mysticism and conjectured reality of anything including the also comprehensive notion of the physical universe."

My use of that phrase is an affirmation that links to your statements: "There is only one reality;" and "Causality [see my use of -- "interactions" --] is most fundamental to reality." Thus, as in my essay, my efforts to understand begin with the premiss of true local realism (TLR)* in spacetime.

"Not curiosity, not vanity, not the consideration of expediency, not duty and conscientiousness, but an unquenchable, unhappy thirst that brooks no compromise leads us to truth." G. W. F. Hegel.

* TLR: true local realism is the union of true locality and true realism. True locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein. True realism insists that some existents may change interactively, after Bohr.

All the best; Gordon

By GW, from Declan Traill's essay-thread:

.........

Declan, referring to my earlier suggestion, and seeking to continue our discussion efficiently, it would help me if you could post your responses on my essay-thread so that I get an alert!

Now, to be clear on a significant point of difference in our theorizing: ie, I point out that your theory is not classical.

In your essay you write that Figure-1 shows the "Classical prediction in Blue." From your comments above, I take it that you did not derive that line yourself? And that you have no such derivation?

Here's what I find when I check the two sources that you cite in comments above:

You write: "It's not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem: See the diagram in the overview section here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem"

But, in reply, please note the Wikipedia wording:

"The best possible local realist imitation (red) for the quantum correlation of two spins in the singlet state (blue), insisting on perfect anti-correlation at zero degrees, perfect correlation at 180 degrees. Many other possibilities exist for the classical correlation subject to these side conditions, but all are characterized by sharp peaks (and valleys) at 0, 180, 360 degrees, ..."

The best possible local realist imitation: insisting that it be bound by two points!* Best possible? Imitation? And presumably a naive-realist (see next).

You also write: "Also see this presentation by Alain Aspect on the EPR experiment:

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/pdf/Aspect1.pdf"

Please note that Aspect's slide is headed: "NAIVE example of LHVT."*

Thus, so far, nowhere do I see a classical calculation delivering your Blue line. (And my comments on the non-classicality of your attempt to MATCH the Green line remain.)

* PS: The benefit of classically deriving one-half the GREEN line, based on polarized particles is that you can see that the tighter correlation under the singlet state in EPRB will deliver an understandably different (but related) correlation, without mystery.

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

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. I would like to reply in detail with reference to that context. Thanks; Gordon

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

Thanks Declan. Surely that 2-computer contest is still running ...

Trusting you've spotted the source of your erroneous twist; with best regards; Gordon

Peter, how glad am I (as previously explained) that I got out early on this stuff! Some thoughts.

Maybe:

1. Sketch it like the Figure in Fröhner that I referred you to.

2. Importantly, sketch each of your beables and interactions on separate sheets of A3 paper; in time sequence: so that details are not lost when you make slides for online display. Supported by 3D models.

3. Recall that, in Aspect and EPRB, the Detector unit-vectors a and b are in 3-space; not necessarily orthogonal to the line of flight.

4. Purely hemispherical or sgn models do not work.

5. Get familiar with the FEW QM models that deal with polarizing particle-field interactions.

6. NB: Understand the BB dynamics via GA and my vector-product approach.

7. Convert your coded scribbles (above) to complete sentences, with all abbreviations defined at the start.

8. Then, please, tell me again what your goal is.

8. Sorry if it looks like I'm saying, "LOOK; over there", as I sneak out .. .. .. ..

Good on you, hang in there, +++, and all the best; it's past my bedtime; Gordon