Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
Robert you write "Except for the very inconvenient truth that, in Reality, a coin continues "to be in multiple states at the same time..." even after it has been measured..." That' s where the use of language and ambiguity comes in. The outcome isn't the independently existing object, It's a measurement, or observation, relative product. A product of ' observed or measured this way" and the object's absolute existence as it is.
Yes the astronauts could be shown what the other is seeing. There is no one correct view.
There is never collapse just a change of what is being considered to usually a singular relative observation product .
The absolute material coin has to exist , to be the source of sensory information from which all possible observation products could be generated. An astronaut could be situated anywhere in proximity to the coin and generate the observation product generated with that viewpoint.
Yes, absolute objective reality is missing from both Relativity and quantum theory.

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

There is no one correct view.

But there must be, whenever a system emerges, that requires that fact to be true - as in any system that requires one correct password, or decryption key, to gain access into the system.

That is what Shannon's Information Theory is ultimately concerned with, and that is exactly what has always been missing from all the theories of physics.

Any system that already knows, exactly what the "one correct view" must be, in order for the system to ever work correctly (deterministically), never has to bother, with trying to deduce how it should behave, from its own "observation products."

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
There is one correct view when seen only one way, so only that view is allowed. But there might have been a different view. Just as valid under those alternative circumstances instead. If talking about particles substitute 'detection/'measurement' instead of observation of a macroscopic object. How the detection is conducted is like "seen this way'. It gives the singular, relative, corresponding state outcome for that particle

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

Indeed. But there can never actually be "a different view", for an elementary particle - precisely because it only has itself to use, as the sole guide, for any "seen this way" - the one and only way - that it just happens to be. Thus, any deterministic "detection", can only consist of detecting a "perfect" match for itself, precisely because, it has nothing at all, other than itself, to ever compare against anything else. That is why the concept of "identical particles" plays such an important role, in quantum theory. And that is why understanding the detection ability/behavior, and its associated "Uncertainty", in detecting any small difference between an "identical" twin versus a "fraternal" twin, is critical to any understanding of Reality.

Under exactly what circumstances, can a particle "detect" a small difference, between an "identical" twin and a "fraternal" twin? That is ultimately what Uncertainty in quantum theory, is all about. And that is exactly the problem that Shannon's Information Theory solved, 75 years ago. And that is exactly what the Physics World, has never understood.

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
Different measurement options can be used. Such as orientation of Stern Gerlach apparatus. So though there can only be one outcome state, an individual particle, before detection/ 'measurement' has the potential to produce different outcome states corresponding to the orientation of apparatus used. True, once the detection is made the outcome can only be what it is found to be, there is no alternative to 'seen this way' anymore.
I think we agree there is something very wrong with quantum physics. I have spent my time considering the kind of metaphysics needed to understand reality as it exists and reality as it is measured and observed. Which are not the same. You seem focused on information theory providing a solution . What were you trying to show with the astronauts and coin?

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

Different measurement options can be used.

True. But, in some circumstances, it is a very bad idea, to ever actually use them; because, unfortunately, there are common circumstances, in the real world, for which, it has been proven (by Shannon) that doing so, will inevitably cause frequent, gross errors, in the "measurement outcomes." In other words, all such measurements will be garbage.

'measurement' has the potential to produce different outcome states corresponding to the orientation of apparatus used

True. But many of those 'measurements' are guaranteed to be garbage; by which, I mean, specifically, that the 'measurements' imply that something is 'true', even though it is actually known to be 'false', a priori.

I have spent my time considering the kind of metaphysics needed to understand reality as it exists and reality as it is measured and observed.

It is time for you to seriously consider the metaphysical fact, that trying to understand Reality, by deducing valid conclusions, from measurements indicating that 'what is true' is actually 'false', is an exercise in futility. Everyone, including you, must first learn how to avoid ever making any such totally misleading 'measurements.' And the only known way to do that, is to employ the astounding, mind-boogling, breathtaking method discovered by Shannon; avoid ever making any 'measurements' at all!!!! - do something else entirely - something that is guaranteed to eliminate all the garbage (bit errors) from the "observation outcomes.' The 'Measurement Problem' will simply cease to exist, the very instant, that one ceases to ever make or employ another 'measurement!'

What were you trying to show with the astronauts and coin?

That is the situation involved in every Bell Test. Every Bell Test, in effect, is trying to 'measure' the true state, of dirty, worn-down 'coins', that are frequently being observed from a nearly edge-on angle. It is impossible to correctly 'determine', the state, under such circumstances. All the supposedly 'weird' correlations, are entirely caused by all the resulting garbage 'measurement outcomes.' That is not an idle, metaphysical speculation. It is a proven, reproducible fact, in the classical realm. In the classical realm, it is known, a priori, what the 'true' state is, because the objects being measured, were created in a known state. But the frequent, garbage measurements of those objects, nonetheless, yield the completely opposite state! When all those, easily identified, garbage measurements (bit errors) are eliminated from the subsequent correlation analysis, the 'weird', 'quantum' correlations vanish.

Garbage in, garbage out: that is "Quantum Reality."

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern Thank you for that comprehensive reply. I know where you are coming from.
Re metaphysical speculation. I 'd argue its more than speculation,. There is hard evidence ;

that objects emit what we call electromagnetic radiation, when illuminated. We can demonstrate it using a light meter.
Eye photoreceptors and device photo cells absorb and respond tot he absorbed EM radiation.
Chemical change can be detected.
3.Each observer receives a different subset of EM emitted or reflected into the environment by the object. Easily demonstrated using an object seen to be different colours.
4.A device acting as observer. such as a digital camera can be shown to generate a semblance that corresponds to the input received. How the cameras work is technically understood by the manufacturers as well as experienced by people daily.
5.To provide multiple views an object must exist not just as seen by one observer but as source of sensory stimuli allowing all possible views. So, space in which things exist rather than observation products are seen must be absolute not 3d, as all observation viewpoints are valid,
6.it is reasonable that quantum objects, like macroscopic objects unseen have existence in the environment filling absolute space . The quantum objects become known by detection or measurement that forms a singular ,relative ' seen this way' outcome state product. The moon object exists even when an observation product isn't formed by a particular observer, so they don't see it.

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

I'd argue its more than speculation

So would I.

But I would further argue, that the reason philosophers and physicists alike, have all failed to comprehend the true nature of reality, is because they all have assumed that the entire physical world (except perhaps for conscious beings), must be behaving physically, in response to any "observation products" or "Laws of Nature", rather than behaving symbolically.

But that assumption appears to be incorrect - not just for conscious beings, but even for elementary particles!

Because Shannon discovered that even inanimate objects, can be made to behave much less chaotically and much more deterministically, if they behave symbolically. And Mother Nature appears to have discovered that same principle of operation, eons before Shannon ever did.

But most interesting of all, Shannon realized that the symbolic "alphabet", that must be used to generate any truly-deterministic cause and effect behaviors, is an "alphabet" consisting entirely of "White Noise." - one of the very things that causes the "Measurement Problem." Fighting fire, with fire:

Pure Order, emerging from Pure Chaos! Who would have guessed?

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
On absorbing EM radiation: Photoreceptors (biological)show chemical changes.Photocells (inorganic) show change in electrical resistance.

Alaya Kouki

In GR eventhought in empty space there is always energy which fill all the space with negative pressure. So space , time and energy have mathematical nature and empirical realities.
I can proove it as follows:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector wave-vector (duality wave-corpuscle)
Split the duality wave-corpuscle in two dualities:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
What is 4-vector identity?:
4-vector identity= (inertial time times celerity of light, inertial time times speed of corpuscle)
What is inertial time ?:
Inertial time=Inertia of the corpuscle/universal constant
What is inertia of the corpuscle ?:
Inertia of the corspucle= Energie of the corpuscle/square speed of light
Don't think that the universal constant in the definition of inertial time is equal to c3/G: it can be different, it can be a new universal constant and gives a 5th dimension for the corpuscle.

Georgina Woodward

The way that vision and cameras work ,there has to transmission of the stimuli, which lead to production of seen light from material object source to observer device or organism. That means there is an intermediate stage, where the stimuli exist in the physical environment unseen prior to detection. By stimuli here I'm referring to light' quanta.'

Georgina Woodward

123 what do you find insightful in their comments?

Georgina Woodward

The misunderstanding, from which the measurement problem and supposed entanglement arise, occurs early on before the experiment. There is the assumption that outcome states occur randomly at measurement (with correlation of outcomes of particle pairs measured in the same way.) Rather than considering that the existing particles condition, ,unmeasured, at creation of the pair affects what is found at measurement as well as the 'how to measure' decision. 'Entanglement' is not happening it just seems so due to the preexisting condition of the particles.

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward
That is correct, as far as it goes. But it does not go nearly far enough: the "existing particles condition", at the heart of the problem, is a very specific condition, concerning exactly how "identical" the particle pairs really are. As it turns out, "identical" twins behave very differently than "fraternal" twins, in Bell Tests of the EPR Paradox; resulting in precisely the difference observed, between "classical" and "quantum" correlations.

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
By the condition of the particles ,I am intending to imply something about how they have been,,, prepared, determining their absolute , unmeasured trajectories through absolute space. Sorry for being ambiguous.
The root cause of the difference is , IMO , the outcome states do not exist as neat proportions of types that can be counted out .They become what they are found to be. Imagine a basket ball launching device. Back `to back with a device of the same type . Both mounted on a revolving platform . The center of rotation is an imagined point where middle of the adjoining backs of the devices meet the ground. Surrounding this apparatus is a circular court and 3 hoops distributed around one hemisphere and directly opposite each hoop is a matching hoop around the other hemisphere. Launcher 1 is set to fire at a, b ,or c before each test. Launcher 2 automatically takes up position .Firing at a', b', or c'. Whether the ball goes though the hoop or not there can be an expectation of correlation with the 'partner' launched together. It is only strange if the whole launching business is ignored and the basket scores are assumed to choose to be correlated as if the basketballs are aware of each other. There will be errors in practice. Maybe imperfect pair production and Non pair particles thought to be pairs for example. But that is not the source of the problems with the theory. There is obviously something wrong with saying before deciding aim and throwing ,the outcome basket, if one is to be scored.

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

determining their absolute , unmeasured trajectories through absolute space

That is irrelevant to a Bell test. In a Bell test, the two basketballs would always be fired along the exact same, known trajectory, in exactly opposite directions.

The whole point of the tests, is that the two Basketballs are also spinning - in exactly opposite, but unknown, random orientations. Your job, is to determine the unknown orientation of each ball's spin axis (either "up" or "down"), in 3 dimensional space, and then correlate one ball's orientation measurements, against the other ball's orientation measurements. The whole point of the test, is to demonstrate that "quantum" objects, will not exhibit the same correlations, that basketballs do.

My point is: Basketballs are not the only type of "classical" objects existing in our universe. Coins also exist. And if some coins are "manufactured" in accordance with Shannon's peculiar recipe, for one single-bit-of-information, then unlike basketballs, those coins will exhibit the same correlations as "quantum" objects.

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
Sorry again for being ambiguous and unclear. I wasn't trying to replicate a Bell test.
I've set up the thought experiment so trajectory, relative to position of detectors, can be adjusted. The particle source could be fixed and the detectors moved instead ,to get the same effect. I think I need to show that even though the outcome states are only manifest upon production they are nevertheless correlated.
A certain gentleman always wears odd socks ,one blue one red. Gifting him such a pairing: if the first parcel arrives with red sock inside, the parcel containing the other must have a blue sock inside. The socks are existing things. Like cakes from the same batch and recipe exist, a caterpillar grown fat and leaf exist, similar existing injuries from same dangerous existing obstacle .We could instead send a parcel containing a card saying basketball score for device 1. The other will be the score for device 2. Even not yet manifest they are necessarily correlated. But not entangled. Neither score knows anything of the other, before or after manifestation, and is not choosing anything.

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

I wasn't trying to replicate a Bell test.

And therein lies the problem. If you do not replicate the effect, observed in a Bell test, then you almost certainly have not replicated (or identified) the cause for the effect, either.

A certain gentleman always wears odd socks ,one blue one red...

Physicists already understand why Bertlmann’s socks "are necessarily correlated. But not entangled." Hence, they have no further interest in such experiments. But the correlations observed in Bell tests are different. The only question of any on-going interest is, why? What causes "quantum" objects to correlate in ways, that are totally unlike Bertlmann’s socks, or any other previously known, "classical" system?

And my answer is:
"it is easy to demonstrate that the cause of "Bell correlations" is entirely due to the "non-identicality" of the entangled pairs, rather than any supposed "non-locality" of the real world, in which those entangled pairs actually exist."

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
The socks, and other examples of correlation given there, already exist. We could call it embodied correlation. The basket scores don't exist, yet will be correlated, because of how the particle pairs are produced, when they are manifest. In that way they are unlike the other examples of correlation.
There is never 'entanglement' whatever the scale.

Robert McEachern

Georgina Woodward

they are unlike the other examples of correlation

And precisely because they indeed are, unlike "quantum correlations", they are of no interest, to anyone primarily concerned with identifying, what could ever cause effects that are like, rather than unlike, "quantum correlations".

Georgina Woodward

Robert McEachern
Surfaces like coin face s pre exist measurement . They aren't produced at measurement, The basket scores are unlike the other correlation examples given; socks, caterpillar and leaf, injuries'/obstacle but like quantum correlation, in that newly generated regard.

« Previous Page Next Page »