Essay Abstract

Abstract: Is reality best described in digital or analog terms? In proper context, we are asking: what type of math is best for that purpose? However, I argue that our universe is genuinely non-deterministic, as conventional notions of quantum mechanics imply. Since mathematics is by nature deterministic, reality is not fully describable by any true mathematical model. The best answer to the original question is then, "neither - reality transcends mathematics." It is argued that some popular attempts to avoid the quantum measurement problem, such as the decoherence interpretation, are flawed. The logical case for DI is flawed by the circular argument at its core. More importantly: some experiments are described, which could falsify the DI. If successful, they would show that we can recover superpositions supposedly lost to decoherence. Hence our finding definitive experimental outcomes instead of superposed results is not due to the effects of decoherence. Those definite, exclusionary results show a genuinely indeterminate character of the universe.

Author Bio

I consider myself a "Renaissance man" because of the variety of studies and work I've been involved in. That includes some consulting at J-Lab using G4Beamline to model muon interactions, teaching at various levels, museum guide, etc. I am lucky that Internet search for "quantum measurement paradox" usually brings up blog posts of mine in top hits. I've published some in physics. The articles are about the relativistic dynamics of extended bodies, a sadly neglected topic. However, I am to be considered "an amateur"

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

Hi dear Neil Bates,

Congratulations,it's a beautiful essay.

Your conclusion is interesting, a dodecahedre, I prefer the sphere of course but all is free of thinking.

Good luck.

Steve

    Hello Neil, I also agree that reality must transcend maths. Have you ever considered the mechanical model of a GRAVITON being represented by an Archimedes screw? This would certainly transcend Newton's famous equation, wouldn't it? Thanks for your essay.

    Kind regards,

    Alan

    • [deleted]

    Steve, the dodecahedron-bird was in a dream I had (for real) in IIRC the late 80s. It is just a poetic metaphor for the enigmatic nature of our universe, not a conceptual model of reality relating to its shape. It does have some relations to other ideas: I had the dream some years before reading about Penrose's "magic dodecahedron" of quantum mystery published in 94. That shape does lend itself to making Penrose's point about quantum entanglement. Note also, when the Platonic solids are used to represent elements:

    cube: earth

    tetrahedron: fire

    octahedron: air

    icosahedron: water

    and the dodecahedron is "quintessence" - the mystical fifth element of the heavens, and sometimes "the universe" as a whole. Since I knew that when I had the dream, I think it really did symbolize that whole issue of fruitlessly chasing after the ultimate nature of reality.

    Some physicists do refer to a special stuff or field they call quintessence. Wikipedia says: "In physics, quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating universe."

    However, my essential point is that the popular and spreading notion that decoherence explains why we don't see macroscopic superpositions, is false. I give logical arguments and propose experiments to test my challenge.

    • [deleted]

    If DI would be inconsistent with certain experiments, this would be an interesting finding. Anyways, i enjoyed your essay and the quantum mechanical depths you explore with rigorousity.

    I too outline an experiment to discriminate between a unitary deterministic evolution of the Schrödinger's wave function and the possibility that this wave function breaks down at some point. If you want, read it here and let me know what you think.

    Hi, Neil

    I agree that natural reality cannot fully be represented by mathematics (or any form of deductive system). I come to this conclusion by an entirely different route, which you might find interesting (my essay "topic/852"). No one has taken me to task (yet) for the core assertion: if nature is real, then it is non-deterministic; and if it is deterministic, then it is not real".

    Best wishes and thanks,

    Dan

    Neil,

    A wonderful essay. Not what I would consider "an amateur". Reading it, I assumed that your logic is valid [nothing stood out to contradict this assumption] and the logic is beautiful.

    In his Appendix A in "Dance of the Photons", Zeilinger has Prof Quantinger explain things in terms of sets of twins, with height, hair and eye colors as the 'properties' found by measurement. He then derives Bell's inequality from the data set and claims that violation of the inequality is grounds for abandoning local realism, and that we must then assume that these properties don't exist until measured, and moreover, that as soon as one twin is measured, the other, possibly 'infinitely' far away, immediately assumes the appropriate state.

    I find it easier to believe that one of the twins stopped at the barber shop and had his hair dyed.

    I show in my essay a plausible reason to suspect this. I'm unsure whether this may be what you are referring to when you state "we have to assume that something can and does generate statistics of some kind from wave amplitudes in the first place."

    So far, yours may be the only other essay to propose an experiment to test your idea.

    So thanks for a great essay, and I hope you get a chance to look at mine. Some of our ideas go quite well together. Good luck in the contest.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      I find this a very thorough discussion regarding the weaknesses of DI in it failing to resolve 'on its own' the measurement problem. However this is not exactly a new revelation, although admittedly an important one needing more exposure to be better understood and would argue particularly within the theoretical community itself. For instance many of the same points have been raised previously by Sheldon Goldstein and Detlef Dürr, proponents of the DeBoglie-Bohm pilot wave picture. The conclusion reached here with which they would concur is quantum mechanics taken as only requiring to be considered explainable as action(s) of the wave function alone as being inadequate, which Goldstein summarizes in his synopsis of Bohmian Mechanic to be found in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as follows:

      "It is widely believed by proponents of orthodox quantum theory that the measurement problem itself is somehow resolved by decoherence. It is not easy to understand this belief. In the first formulation of the measurement problem, nothing prevents us from including in the apparatus all sources of decoherence. But then there is no longer any room for decoherence to be in any way relevant to that argument. Be that as it may, one of the best descriptions of the mechanisms of decoherence, though not the word itself, was given by Bohm (Bohm 1952), who recognized its importance several decades before it became fashionable."

      However, in light of the fact that a completely consistent solution to the measurement problem has existed since Bohm's publishing of his interpretation in 1952, it is then not fair to say that it has not been resolved. Interestingly enough from Bohm's perspective its resolution is not to be found by considering the natural of the world as being digital or analog, to the exclusion of one or the other, yet rather the recognition that the acceptance of the physical reality of both as needed to account for the situation. As J.S. Bell reminded "Now in my opinion... ...The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...system and apparatus. It is not essential to introduce a vague division of the world of this kind. This was indicated already by de Broglie in 1926, when he answered the conumdrum 'wave or particle'? by 'wave and particle'."

      So from this perspective, with the particle to account for the digital nature of the world and the wave as its analog counterpart, there's no need to resign one's self to believe that the attempt to ground reality in terms of physical space and time comprised of ponderable bodies is like "...something we seek and may never catch".

      "Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing's fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. "

      -Albert Einstein, "The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics" in the journal [Science- May 24, 1940]

        • [deleted]

        First, to its enthusiasts in general: I regret not mentioning Bohmian mechanics in my article. Note restriction to 25,000 characters which made the piece shorter than I wanted. I had to ditch some extra discussion about other alternatives etc. I also needed a definite declarative point to grab attention. I also just don't think BM would work out. For example, I still don't see how a deterministic process could make nuclei decay in true random manner. Note that a remaining portion after many trimmings still has to show the same statistical behavior. I don't think any "mechanism" whatsoever can do that.

        Thanks Phil for the consideration and effort you put into essays and comments. Let me say in my defense, as elsewhere: I noted simply that we don't have any answer right now in the sense of knowing the answer, nor do we have a right to *assume* that there *must be* a reasonable answer to the QMP - not that in Nature there really can't be such an answer, and/or that we can never find it, and/or that BM cannot possibly be such an answer. I acknowledge that Bohmian mechanics is an option that avoids either the decoherence fallacy, or the inscrutability of collapse; however I am not otherwise impressed with it. Finally, regarding DI: It is wrong in any case to use fallacious methods and conceptualizations, to attempt to achieve the goal of understanding fundamental quantum reality - whatever is there to be attained. I hope that my experimental proposals will transcend just having to argue over these issues.

        • [deleted]

        Thanks, Edwin. I call myself an "amateur" because of my station in the operational and semantic scheme of things, it need not imply lack of ability (see for example Olympic athletes just for logical illustration.) Also, since there is a prize category for best amateur's essay, I should ID myself as eligible.

        Aside from the experimental refutation of the claim of "mixture" output caused by decoherence, I do mean that something has to generate the statistical events from the wavefunction. It isn't just an intrinsic feature of the states, otherwise there would just be the superposition "photon hit in detector A" plus "... in detector B" forever. I wasn't addressing entanglement in the Bell sense of distant correlations, but the ordinary "entanglement" in DI of photon wave at detector A entangles with clicked state of detector A, etc.

        I will take a look at your essay, and withhold substantial comment until I'm sure I understand in depth. I think you (and other readers) would find other posts at my blog interesting too, find at Paradoxer.

        Dear Neil,

        I note that my reply to your comments on my 'Chip in the brain' essay are headed 'anonymous' - all is not well with my computer at present. The maths theorems I mentioned are available as an attachment to an earlier post to my essay. My email address, when I recover access to it, is michaeltdeans@gmail.com

        Best wishes, Michael T Deans

        Hi, Neil

        Thanks again for your great essay, and your appreciation of mine. In response to your statement (on my own thread), that "arguments can't decisively show what to think about determinism versus true indeterminism", I can offer some general, if somewhat dogmatic, arguments about causality. (This is posted on my thread as well).

        Following Hume, there is no causation in Nature. The appearance of it results from confusing cause with logical implication. This is a 'category mistake', like mixing mental with physical domains. The only truly deterministic systems are deductive systems, for the only 'necessity' is logical necessity. This is always a matter of definition rather than of fact, so that the "mistake" is confusing 'the found' and 'the made'.

        Similarly, randomness pertains only to mathematics, not to physical reality. Whether Nature is random is not a decidable question. The IDEA we have, of random physical processes--lacking, as you say, logically bound outcomes--simply reflects this confusion of the found with the made. We are never in a position to establish logical necessity (cause) in Nature (the found), and only sometimes in mathematics (the made). In other words, 'random' is a mathematical concept, not a physical one. Randomness in Nature, like causality, can only be a metaphysical assertion--that is, independent of decidable physical fact. (Historically, it was religious, since all cause was ultimately traceable to the First Cause.) If so, then experiment would be irrelevant.

        We cannot make meaningful ONTOLOGICAL assertions about events in Nature being either determined (caused) or undetermined (random). But we can make assertions about our own state of knowledge; we can say that something is 'undetermined' in the sense that for us it is undecided or unknown. This is not an assertion about Nature (the found) but about science (the made).

        The term 'determinism' is traditionally ambiguous. It can refer, on the one hand, to what can be determined epistemologically; on the other, it can refer to an ontologically real relationship of causal power existing between things or events. I believe there can be no determinism in this latter sense--and therefore no 'true indeterminism' either. The only determinism is logical implication (provability), and the only deterministic systems are deductive systems. The only indeterminism is logical undecidability.

        I do make statements in my essay to the effect that the apparent randomness of Nature supports its "immanent reality". I do not mean by that, however, to say that Nature is intrinsically random. It is rather the state of our own uncertainty (not Nature's) that requires us to regard Nature as bearing its own full reality--precisely because it cannot be fully accounted for in some deductive system. It is real because it is not a product of our definitions, because WE cannot determine what it is. This is separate from the question of whether it is 'determined' (causally) within itself, which is not a question we can answer. We imagine that it might be so determined, but what we are really thinking of is the logical determination within our own thought systems.

        Hope this is useful.

        Best wishes,

        Dan

        Hi Neil,

        I finally managed to find time to read your essay. Nice job! I have a few comments.

        - It seems to me that, at times, you are "mixing metaphors" a bit when it comes to the wave-particle duality issue, notably on p. 3. This is related to my next comment.

        - You talk about the confuser in relation to particle statistics. If you do this, you need to identify the type of statistics that is being produced by the beam, e.g. Poissonian, sub-Poissonian, or super-Poissonian, because it seems to me that it could make all the difference in the world which type of statistics is being sent into it.

        - I'm still not sure precisely if you are arguing *against* or *for* this interpretation of the wavefunction in terms of statistics. If you are, then you have to ignore the continuous wave interpretation entirely, at least that is my opinion. You have to pick one or the other. It makes no sense to mix interpretations (I am by no means saying you are the only one who does this, by the way - I think it is an inherent problem in how we interpret these things in general).

        Ian

          • [deleted]

          Ian, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure how to respond re mixing of wave particle metaphors. We already know that Nature expresses both traits. The DI interpretation tries to get "mixtures" out of wavefunctions via a sort of circular argument, as I noted. Remember, I am first trying to "get inside" their argument, then criticize it as being inconsistent. The whole point is, their argument is not really "coherent" (pun intended!) As for the statistics: the source is a "photon gun" that shoots one at a time, coherence time

          • [deleted]

          I already logged in and this rubbish shouldn't happen to me. I should not be shown as "anonymous" and where is the rest of my reply? I will try again:

          Ian, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure how to respond re mixing of wave particle metaphors. We already know that Nature expresses both traits. The DI interpretation tries to get "mixtures" out of wavefunctions via a sort of circular argument, as I noted. Remember, I am first trying to "get inside" their argument, then criticize it as being inconsistent. The whole point is, their argument is not really "coherent" (pun intended!) As for the statistics: the source is a "photon gun" that shoots one at a time, coherence time

          • [deleted]

          Hi Dear Neil, sorry for my late answer, I have some difficulties now to answer to all posts on the net.I thank you for this explaination, spiritual, it's a beautiful philosophycal extrapolation.

          Good luck in this contest.

          Regards

          Steve

          • [deleted]

          Neil,

          Great essay. I did read your discussion on this blog too about not getting into Bohm's theory. In my essay I propose a test to see if an electron in flight in a double slit experiment is in fact a wave or remains a particle and rides the pilot wave. If Bohm is correct, the electron could start anywhere on the wave front as it goes through one of the slits - including a spot that is destined for destructive interference. Since the electron wont disappear, it would have to jump to a different location to make it to the detector on the other side. This behavior may produce a different expected distribution of electrons than the distribution produced by a pure wave phenomenon.

          Keep up the good work.

          Chris

            Chris, thanks for your comment. I will study your full essay when I have more time. I do have a first impression of your electron proposal as presented here: It reminds me of the Afshar experiment (easy to look up), which is a modified double-slit experiment. It sets up a way to show that wave interference occurred (fine wires in way of the dark fringes, so they don't intercept many photons) even though we can later use directional sighting to apparently see from which slit a photon came. I think this means that the detector collapses one of the directional waves, and simply makes "an appearance" of having come exclusively from one slit, rather than a retrodiction showing "which way the photon came" all along. Hence we really can have apparent which-way information, and still show the interference, as Afshar claims is being done (even though I'm not aware of him using my framing of the issue.)

            Note: in haste, writing about the density matrix, I referred to if being an example of fallacious thinking. In and of itself, it is not and is useful in practice. However, the DM is sometimes employed in a fallacious way to argue why or how we don't see macroscopic superpositions. This happens when the presenter fails to appreciate the circular argument constituted by the squared modulus rule being already introduced into the mathematical structure, but itself without explanation or justification of when in the course of time, the modulus ("amplitude" in common usage) reduces to statistical results.

            Here again I attempt to resubmit my full (but edited) reply to Member Ian Durham, that got truncated (maybe from use of double less than symbol) and other issues. It includes my attempts at LateX, which did not work there. I'm just leaving that as is, I can't take time to labor over perfecting my handle on this LateX interpreter.

            >

            Ian, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure how to respond re mixing of wave particle metaphors. We already know that Nature expresses both traits. The DI interpretation tries to get "mixtures" out of wavefunctions via a sort of circular argument, as I noted. Remember, I am first trying to "get inside" their argument, then criticize it as being inconsistent. The whole point is, their argument is not really "coherent" (pun intended!)

            As for the statistics: the source is a "photon gun" that shoots one at a time, coherence time much less than shot interval (hence presumably "Fock states.") They do not interact with each other, this is not about bunching/anti-bunching etc. Maybe best said, I expect the type of photons to be used here, that usually are to make such points. Hence the statistics of detector hits should be from the amplitudes squared, basically binomial (for each channel individually, since of course the other channel must be "no" if the first is "yes") (like coin tosses (generalized chance per head or tail of course) with definite clear tries) and not Poisson types.

            I am definitely arguing against the DI in terms of statistics, but more than that (the falsely framed argument, but also that the experiment would show continued full superpositions coming out of BS2 after the decoherence, not "a mixture.") We know what statistics to expect for various phase differences, it's as given by the formula I = A^{2} B^{2} 2AB cos $\theta$, where I is "intensity" equivalent to hit frequency. (I saw the above examples, but I'm putting up old fashioned LateX commands in protest, or what am I missing?) But the key point is the claim about how "amplitudes" turn into any kind of "statistics" at all ...

            BTW, I sure would like to be a FQXi member ...

            • [deleted]

            Dear Neil,

            Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

            Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

            Who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

            Love,

            Sridattadev.

            • [deleted]

            "3A is b2 and at 3B is a2... still a superposition and not a mixture..."

            Your dedication to the subject of many worlds and "DI" is challenging the way we interpret the underlying changes of this exsistance, maybe even the notion of a Sixth sense? Your dream, for me, was a hint to the illusive behaviour of the untouchable realm.

            Thank you.

            Dear Neil,

            I read with great interest your essay, your ideas are very interesting. The fact if decoherence resolves the measurement problem it is something that have not reach a conclusive solution, your ideas clarify some of my doubts. On the other hand I don't agree with your position that we have to admit that our capacity of understanding is limited. The limits are in the models we use to understand reality, particularly the limitation of our models nowadays resides mainly on the fact that our models are based on classical logic. On my essay I try to explain how changing our logic, we can find new explanations to the measurement problem and other phenomena. I would like to hear your comments.

            Regards,

            J. Benavides

            • [deleted]

            The information per the theory of this article was very concise in my opinion. I have studied these theories for many years and I agree with most of the theories of this hypothesis. Yet, the technical applications seem to be incomprehensible to most that may read this. The entire concept seems very feasible. I myself agree with most everything inclusive in this essay.

              • [deleted]

              Dear Neil Bates

              You opened important topic about decoherence. I suggest you that you use also Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". I think that think will be still clearer.

              About computability of quantum randomness - in this contest it is also Zenil's essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/867

              Here is also Zeilinger objective randomness. The both claims similarly as you.

              But in essay from year ago I claimed a little differently:

              http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/571

              I was too late for contest of this year. Here is my essay, which is not published here:

              http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf

              Regards.

              Ben, thanks for commenting. I think some readers will be confused by the idea of theories being part of a hypothesis, but I see that makes sense in this context. The theories I use are the existing elements and original perspectives of quantum mechanics, which inform my hypothesis that decoherence does not produce the effects claimed by adherents of the decoherence interpretation of why collapse "seems to occur" in the macroscopic regime. BTW I note for any readers, I did not introduce novel concepts. I just applied existing ones in a creative way to test an idea that many may have been considered not directly falsifiable (compare to Bell inequalities.)

              Thanks for hat tip on being concise with the theory end. I do admit that the average layman, even an informed one, may have trouble following my description of the workings of the experimental tests. I have to explain how the output statistics follow from the superposed quantum states, and I don't think there's a simple, breezy popularized way to make the exact point. Here's what writers of these Essays face as a challenge: unlike most popularizers, we are presenting (mostly) novel arguments, not just explanations of existing science. Yet we are asked to aim for a wide readership. Fine, I did my best to straddle those conflicting requirements (as well as follow the size limit, and I could well have used a few thousand extra characters.) It does make for some "engineering trade-offs" in the product.

              Feasible: indeed, very easy to do TE2 and not that hard to do TE3. I hope someone will follow through (I don't have wherewithal to do so.)

              • [deleted]

              Dear Sir,

              We have gone through your excellent article. While agreeing with your views, we think that there could be simpler explanations of the phenomenon.

              We agree that: "Attempts at understanding should not be fallacious or driven by desperation to make the world conform to our prejudices or convenience". But unfortunately, there is a rush for recognition that makes increasing number of young talents desperately trying to project "the world conform to our (their) prejudices or convenience".

              You have correctly said: "Consider a graphical simulation, with one state represented as red and the other as green: after decoherence, we imagine a messy and complex pattern with various shades of red, orange, yellow, green - but both colors are always part of the display. Why then wouldn't such a combination be part of our observations as well? Disorder shouldn't make superpositions "inaccessible" in all possible ways." While we agree with your views on decoherence, we have a different explanation for the phenomenon.

              You have said: "Nor should it matter to my experience right now of an event, whether I can recover information such as the phase setting on C. Furthermore, why should phase change that happen in the past or future, affect my current experience of exclusivity in measurement? Is there some "anticipation" of that?" The answer to your question lies in the nature of our measurement system and the nature of superposition. We will give an alternative explanation for these phenomena.

              Superposition of states and Entanglement are grossly misreported phenomena. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. Thus the result of measurement is always a scalar quantity. Measurement processes for particles and fields are different, just like measurement processes for space, time and space-time are different. The result of measurement is the description of the state of the object measured at a designated instant. The state of the object was not the same before nor will be the same after the measurement as it continues to evolve in time independent of our observation or measurement. We freeze the description of the state at a designated instant and call it the result of measurement at subsequent times. All other unknown states before and after the instant of measurement together are called superposition of states.

              It is said that "micro-sized particles millions of miles apart respond to one another or communicate as if they were local to each other, whereby the speed of light does not apply", whereas in reality, it tapers off after a few kilometers. We have shown in different threads in this forum (below the essays of Mr. Weckbach and Mr. Castel, etc.) that it is not a mysterious phenomenon at all and it has macro equivalents. When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states), but not both at the same time in all locations (as is generally described). After measurement, the answer is conclusively known (so-called wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

              We hold the field as the absolute entity and define particles are locally confined fields. The nature of confinement differentiates between particles and fields (field densities) and matter and energy. They are not interchangeable, but are inseparable conjugates, though the proportion of each in a coupling may vary. This variation determines its charge. We do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different explanation for the apparent attraction of opposite charges and the apparent repulsion of similar charges. We explain the double slit experiment and decoherence as follows:

              There is a river at the entrance of our home town, where a bridge was built in ancient times by erecting 19 big stone pillars in the water. This created 18 equidistant channels through which water flowed. Sometimes we went swimming and playfully pushed water through the channels. Sometimes we will push water in one channel. Sometimes standing behind the pillar; we would push water through both channels. At other times we would stand still and watch the waves flowing naturally. We would watch the waves and see the interference pattern. When the water flowed naturally, the waves behaved like the bands in the double slit experiment when unobserved. When we pushed the water through one channel, it showed no interference (the small natural waves were subdued). When we pushed water through both channels (slits), the interference pattern was also absent.

              The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is the periodicity of wave formation and the interference by the retarded wave. When waves flowed naturally, the periodicity of wave generation remained almost constant. The amplitude and wavelength also remained constant. The waves retarded after hitting the shore line in equal time and velocity. Since the waves propagated through different channels generated different but similar waves, the interference pattern was visible. When we pushed water, it injected additional energy. This changed the amplitude, wavelength and periodicity of the waves. Thus, whether we pushed through one channel or both, the energetic wave alone was visible and the weak interference pattern was subdued. In the case of double slit experiment, something similar happens. The detection device directs the photon or electron to a particular slit. This requires additional energy. This changes the amplitude, wavelength and periodicity of the waves. Thus, we see the result differently from the unobserved state. The confuser in your experiment affects in a similar way.

              One reason why the scientists still cling to the theory in spite of such simple explanations is the nature of mathematics for interference experiment. For calculating the probability distribution of detection of the electron or the photon over the surface of the screen, one cannot take the probabilities of the passage through the slits, multiply with the probabilities of detection at the screen conditional on passage through either slit, and sum over the contributions of the two slits. There is an additional so-called interference term in the correct expression for the probability. This term depends on both wave components that pass through the slit. Thus, the experimental result is interpreted to show that the correct description of the electron or the photon in terms of quantum wave-functions is one in which the wave passes through both slits. The quantum state of the electron or the photon is not given by a wave that passes through the upper slit or a wave that passes through the lower slit, not even a probabilistic measure of ignorance. Thus, the scientists are forced to accept the superposition principle and wave-particle duality to explain interference.

              Contrary to popular perception, the general mathematical superposition principle holding for linear differential equations has nothing to do with physical reality, as actual physical states and their evolution is supposed to be uniquely defined by corresponding initial conditions. These initial conditions characterize individual solutions of Schrödinger equation: they correspond to different properties of a physical system, some of them being conserved during the whole evolution. Yet, initial conditions alone cannot fully explain the time evolution of a particle or for that matter, anything. The uncertainty principle has to be brought in here and the other environmental effects are also to be considered. Without this there will be no meaning for evolution as evolution implies change and change is not restricted to redistribution of the same thing over and over again. Such statements like: "quantum mechanics including superposition rules have been experimentally verified" are absolutely wrong. All tests hitherto have concerned only consequences following from the Schrödinger equation and not the stand alone equation.

              Mathematically, we know that the area of a rectangle and a parallelogram on the same base is equal. Since area implies two dimensional field, we have to use second order terms. If the length is a units and breadth is b units, then the area will be a + b squared units, which is a^2 + b^2 + 2ab. This can be geometrically proved. But when the rectangle is shifted to make it a parallelogram, the projection of b along y axis is reduced. Thus, we have to bring in an additional factor of cos θ to bring parity. This shows that b in a rectangle and b in a parallelogram over the same base are different, even though distance-wise both have the same value. In the diffraction experiment, this difference becomes dominant, because traveling time for the waves after the deflection in both ways are different. There is no mystery in this case. The difference in relative path lengths causes the different patterns.

              Regards,

              basudeba

              • [deleted]

              Dear Mr. Bates, Your essay is a most impressive argument about coherence, a must-read for the math, science, and engineering community. The

              dream ending is priceless. It is rare to find classic literary writing in the

              work of a scientist.

              Sincerely, A.C. Braxton

              4 days later
              • [deleted]

              Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

              Sir,

              We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

              "We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

              Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

              Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

              Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

              A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

              Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

              In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

              The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

              The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

              Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

              The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

              Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

              In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

              Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

              Regards,

              Basudeba.

              a month later
              • [deleted]

              Hi.

              I see now first that you have the same topic as me, decoherence and coherence. I will study the essay with interest.

              Have you any idea why the maths are different? I have also some solution to that.

              http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/938

              Ulla.

              Write a Reply...