Quantum strangeness from the uncomputability of nature by Tung Ten Yong

I think that there is something in this proposal that is quite problematic.

If we adopt the posture advocated in the essay, namely that " If there can be no preexisting algorithm that is able to determine the value, the values simply do not exist", we would have to conclude that un-computable numbers do not exist either. The only real numbers that would exist would be those that are in fact computable and as indicated by the author those are countable. And if those numbers do not exit, then it would seem rather strange to argue that they do represent the state of any physical system.

Perhaps the author would care to clarify, if there is some confusion on my part.

Hi Daniel,

I also question your statement: "If there can be no preexisting algorithm that is able to determine the value, the values simply do not exist."

If an unstable particle spontaneously and randomly decayed, the decay products would not be predictable by any finite algorithm. The lack of predictability does not logically imply that definite values do not exist, however. This would be true only if you assume determinism and deny the possibility of spontaneous and random transitions. My essay, "On the Decidability of Determinism and Time's Arrow," discusses the empirical basis for determinism, and concludes that there is none. Determinism is strictly a matter of assumption.

Are you assuming determinism?

Harrison

Dear Dr Tung Ten Yong,

It is a good attempt to form a fifteenth quantum mechanics explanation...."ideas from computability theory are used to devise a local mechanism that explains how quantum value indefiniteness and quantum nonlocality may arise." Probably a little more study may be required.

I also tried to attempt an explaining on Cosmology side and developed 'Dynamic Universe Model', which solves many unsolved problems and many predictions came true. I was working on that for the last 40 years.

I hope you find a little of your valuable time to give some comments on my essay' A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy'

Best wishes

=snp

"The entire Shannon information theory is based on the concept of entropy..."

That is not true. Shannon's conception of information, unlike the conception employed in physics, is founded upon an absolute requirement for performing perfect reconstruction of a signal, and thus, error-free recovery of information. The physics community's failure to comprehend the significance of that fact, is directly responsible for their failure to understand what quantum theory, entanglement and "quantum correlations" are really all about.

Rob McEachern

Do you know the concept of "probably approximately correct (PAC)"? Such conceptual work may help you to understand your AIT concept.

As this essay has the word 'uncomputability' in the title which also appears in my essay I had to read it. I see some issues with the concept:

spin-half is represented by uncomputable number, more precisely it should be spin direction but the direction depends on the frame of measurement and there is no absolute frame, how to deal with that?

pure state is represented by an uncomputable number with 1 for the digit which corrseponds to direction n. I have difficulty understanding this, this number has only single one and all the rest are zero? Then it would be computable.

Is this number fixed?

measurement is respresented by the calculation of one single digit. But how the position of this digit is selected?

The second part of the essay looks unrelated to the first part.

Dear Tung Ten Yong!

We see important fundamental questions in your essay. In our opinion, 10 points is not enough to evaluate your work. We set 10 points! We like your approach when the properties of numbers are related to quantum properties. This is a promising attempt, in our opinion. We ourselves acted as well. Once we formulated the hypothesis that the continuum of space corresponds to set real numbers, and instants of time are rational numbers, a countable set.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Dear Tung,

Goof analysis of Bells view. Very brave to offer a model. All say it doesn't work, but I perceive some elements which could correspond to one which does. if you can think ontologically for a moment;

OAM has TWO momenta states available for momentum transfer by vector addition on interaction; CURL is max at poles and 0 at the equator. Then also LINEAR; 1 at the equator and 0 at the poles! What's more both these change in value by the cosine of the angle of latitude over 90 degrees!! Also a sphere axis can be orientated anywhere in 3D, so rotate on it's 2 secondary axes.

First consider the pair as having the same random axis angle but opposite orientation. Now consider the polariser screen electron, angle set by A & B. Work out the vector addition, then do it again at the photomultiplier electrons, then the 'click rates' (major axis orientations) DO produce the QM data set, the Dirac equation and Bells inequalities, and just as Bell anticipated! (output verified independently by computer plot.)

So I think you were on the right track, just needed a bit more ontology. Let me know if you can follow it, or see my last years essay which I touch on this year.

I think your very low rating is a travesty, so will help it.

Very best

Peter

Tung,

Good essay. I agree the flaws in the assumptions of QM. You have an interesting unique approach to the apparently intractable problem. This somewhat corresponds to the physical derivation I identify, covered in more detail in my essay last year, independently verified as violating the Bell inequalities by computer plot in Decal Trails essay. I'd appreciate your own view on that.

best

Peter