• Blog

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

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?

    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.

    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.'

    5 days later

    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.

      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.

          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.

              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.

                  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.

                      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."

                          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.

                              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".

                                  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.

                                      Robert McEachern
                                      Some things are as they are found to be, because of what exists, such as the chemical pigment of the socks, that make it appear red, 'looking at it a different way does not alter the pigment. likewise whether a coin is damaged or not, looking this or that way is not causing a change to the material. Whether a basket is scored does matter how the detector (basket) is oriented. I haven't made it clear in the preceding discussion.

                                      Correlation that is within classical expectation may be uninteresting to quantum physicist, as you say. It is the extra correlation that's interesting to them. I'm not convinced the extra is correlation at all, but co-occurrence. Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation , or influence of one upon the other. Or choice by the particles. Rotating a polarize affects how the ‘light’ interacts with the polarize. More ‘light’ passing through will give more detection. Therefore more co occurrence of detection. Different orientation of detector should have different names for positive detection. Emphasizing that all positive detentions, from same orientation tests and different orientation. are not equivalent. This is showing the results of specific kinds of interaction with specialized materials or apparatus occur not general behaviour of sub atomic particles. It is more likely a consequence the specific circumstance of interaction than the particles choosing co-occurrence of particular outcomes.

                                          Georgina Woodward

                                          It is the extra correlation that's interesting... Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation...

                                          The "extra correlation" happens, precisely because of what is not "in common in pair formation."
                                          Which would be a logical impossibility, if the pair actually were identical. But the assumption that they are actually identical (AKA indistinguishable), turns out to be false. That is the problem, that has befuddled physicists, for an entire century. The pair are similar (fraternal twins), but not identical (identical twins). A slightly different pattern of noise, on the surface of a pair of "blurry" coins, is all that it takes, to create the "extra correlation."

                                              Robert McEachern
                                              Misidentification, allowing more photons to pass that should be stopped or more to be stopped that should pass ,skewing the results away from random chance is a possibility. but why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves. why not due to the variable transmittance of polarizers as they are rotated. The extra correlation actually being co-occurrence rather than correlation .

                                                  Georgina Woodward

                                                  why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves.

                                                  There is no assumption! That is the entire point, that you consistently fail to understand; In the purely classical experiment, the coins were constructed to have exactly that property - because that is what a bit of information is - a packet of noise, riding upon a carrier.

                                                  Just think of what determines the value of any actual coin - it is not the physical "stuff", the metal substance; the metal is just the carrier of the "information" being used to determine the coin's value - but the actual information itself, is encoded, entirely within the markings on the surface - the "noise."

                                                  Shannon's greatest discovery, was the realization, that in order to be reliably detected - for any completely deterministic behavior to ever emerge, in a noisy environment - the "information" must be encoded to have, the statistical properties of white noise! In other words, instead of a picture of an actual "Head" and "Tail", you must use two different patterns of white noise, to represent/encode the "Head" and Tail" - because the noise-like encodings can be much more reliably detected, than any actual picture!

                                                  Hence, your "extra correlation" arises entirely from the fact that the auto-correlation of noise-like sequences, generate more reliably detectable, large peaks, than any other known type of encoding. Which is why "Mother Nature" appears to use them, to generate deterministic behaviors; and She generates them, out of the very Chaos itself - the noise!

                                                  And it can be amazingly easy for deterministic behaviors to emerge from the Chaos; rather than wasting time searching for it; just create it yourself! (“You” being Mother Nature), out of pure noise!

                                                    This explains well
                                                    Your [Daily Equation #21: Bell's Theorem and the Non-locality of the Universe
                                                    ](https://)youtu.be/UZiwtfrisTQ

                                                    Untested there is no definite spin state as the 'seen this way' relative perspective has not been decided and applied. the particle is spinning though in absolute space as a part of the singular pattern of existence ,that does not have a singular viewpoint. So it is not true that it has a singular (relative) spin in 3d , giving immediate (spooky) correlation. Instead, the same relative perspective is instantly applied to both, when choice of same measurement orientation is chosen. We need not assume that having pre existing states is the macroscopic norm. We are just accustomed to a having a relative perspective of objects or imagining a relative perspective applying to a physics scenario. We assume 3d space is where things happen but it is actually absolute space as any possible viewpoint could be applied giving a different but equally valid state of the observed/measured or even many seemingly contradictory states-each being valid for their own context. This is not many worlds but many possible perspectives. Prior to choosing a singular perspective to apply.