SciPhysicsForums.com

by **gill1109** » Tue May 27, 2014 10:27 pm

gris wrote:Further more I just came up with a point that may (or may not) be relevant: the no test when a photon in effect hits the Polaroid of Alice or Bob and the no test that ensues when it isn't in ad random (sufficiently) correct alignment to get through. Does the crystal always produce two photons? Or is it that inaccurate working sometimes no photon at all or just one polarized one comes through? and can the degree of accuracy vary the degree of no tests? Say spraying a light mist that polarizes the photon before hitting the crystal. If the latter is so then that would provide evidence in support of local realism. If it is not so it remains irrelevant.

You are now talking about the loopholes issue. A sufficiently "sharp" experiment hasn't been done yet. But it is expected within five years.

This fact does not make the mother of all quantum challenges irrelevant. It means that a number of logical possibilities are still open. Most plausible is however that the definitive experiment will get done, and we'll be forced to reject realism, locality, or no-conspiracy.

by **menoma** » Tue May 27, 2014 11:59 am

This is the original typescript with a cartoon of Reinhold Bertlmann by Bell himself.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf

by **gill1109** » Tue May 27, 2014 9:29 am

Irrelevant. Read Bertlman's socks.

by **gris** » Tue May 27, 2014 3:51 am

Further more I just came up with a point that may (or may not) be relevant: the no test when a photon in effect hits the Polaroid of Alice or Bob and the no test that ensues when it isn't in ad random (sufficiently) correct alignment to get through. Does the crystal always produce two photons? Or is it that inaccurate working sometimes no photon at all or just one polarized one comes through? and can the degree of accuracy vary the degree of no tests? Say spraying a light mist that polarizes the photon before hitting the crystal. If the latter is so then that would provide evidence in support of local realism. If it is not so it remains irrelevant.

And in further reference to the "Speakable and unspeakable" excerpt John Bell doesn't abide by what current neuro-psychology teaches us with his sleeper. I explain this more in full in my Youtube films: with DSM 6 in which everyone is mad and genius and stupid except less than 1% of the populace who are normal such as someone in deep coma. In this I have the Big Four: the goal orientated creative chimp, the relationship orientated Bonobo, the authority orientated large ego of Bokito (gorilla) and the humble baboon. The latter two form 80% and are inherently religiously orientated even as a scientist towards science. Because it is sub-consciously Mother of human Nature also via these 80% scientists creates the illusion of being goal orientated. And a large majority of scientists seriously believing they are creatively goal orientated whereas they are below average creative and extremely apt in guessing what their authoritative peers will think is true on any issue. Yet remember everyone is more or less all four of these apes yet always under pressure one is most prominent. (Bokito towards subordinates, baboon to the boss, and bonobo towards the partner and the funny chimp towards the kids. Mind, the chimp is the fighter.)

This is not right or wrong as such, it is so because it best fits survival of the species. All even a chimp is prone to tunnel-vision. That isn't bad as such either. because one shouldn't give up on an idea easily and keep at it for best group performance.

by **gris** » Tue May 27, 2014 1:52 am

Well, I found this excerpt: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vl ... k/Bell.pdf: yet I'll get me a copy of the book as well.

Anyway based on the excerpt I don't see what I don't understand: Bell assumes say a photon spinning of which you can never be certain what state it is in, then it hits a crystal and splits in two complete photons whereby if the one photon is detected having a horizontal polarization the other one will have a vertical polarization. This is totally random yet always if a + then a - and if a - then a +. after detection then this symmetry is broken. What is there not to understand?

However what you don't understand is that you made a prior assumption that you refuse to inspect properly. Yes you can via hidden variables provide a testable alternate. You BTW don't have a testable alternate. You say it is inherently unsolvable. Well then support the probable falsification of your position. For only then can you provide more and more substance for your in effect probatio diabolica.

by **gill1109** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:32 pm

You understand it wrong.

I suggest you get yourself a copy of "Speakable and unspeakable" by John Bell and read especially chapters 13 and 16. Chapter 16 is about Bertlman's socks. You can find copies on internet. It is a masterpiece.

by **gris** » Mon May 26, 2014 6:17 am

gill1109 wrote:Gris, you have your eyes tight shut. Your theory is a classical mechanistic "local realistic" theory according to which the "singlet correlations" are impossible. Yet those correlations have been observed in the quantum optics lab.

Your theory has been tested (Aspect, Weihs, ...) and it has been proven a failure.

Talk about manic oversight ...

As I understand it Einstein thought this possible assuming hidden variables in play. Bit difficult i.e. even impossible claiming something impossible when allowing for hidden variables isn't it? So the impossibility you refer to assumes no hidden variable. How do you prove that? Al the more so because one of which as you know after I had already made my concept has now materialized: the Higgs Boson. Even though Higgs assumed that no interaction between that field and photons occur. Which only shows he wisely didn't claim that, for the Higgs mechanism even in my concept doesn't apply for photons. Yet it makes them bounce i.e. wave, and creates the curved space. This is a field that is omnipresent everywhere we can assume that particles of the SM can exist in our visible universe. Well my concept model needs also the graviton as a hidden variable, so nowhere is disproven that it can work the way I predict.

The Stockholm position is one based on absence of these sorts of fields (Higgs & Garviton) at play. No way has my concept (I don't call it a theory because that would breach the correct way of defining the correct method). Correct definitions: idea => concept at different probative levels => full blown theory fitting everything we observe and mathematical predictions/ yet testable hypothesis, and ultimately a law of everything without known or assumed boundaries that nearly everyone agrees on covers it all with no known exception or expected exception or thinkable way to test any further.

I.e. GR & QM should be defined not as theories but as laws that apply within boundaries one of which we know: namely between GR and QM. This logically prohibits claiming any proof or stronger position based on mathematical extrapolations leaving everything as in within QM and or GR and still believing that the barrier is breached in effect marrying the two.

Come to think of it my concept could also be seen as exploding balls. The spiraling strings can also be seen as balls if you travel with them. They spin rotate. Split and reform due to the used crystal of the experiment in the opposite polarization. The only thing that - as yet - can not be predetermined is the moment at which the laser creates the photon. After measurement of the polarization you - as yet - break the symmetry. Only if / when we could work accurately enough could we maybe be able to produce a predictable photon at the source or keep the symmetry of polarization.

Central in my concept of a model is thus order and disorder and not energy. The energy in the cosmos stays absolutely the same in my concept. Create more disorder will create more order elsewhere I predict. For there will only be a slight resonance between the two opposing fields possible. It must remain constant to an extreme degree. Yet how to work that in a practical way I don't yet have an idea. It is thus not yet part of any proposed test. Yet only then could you hope to get predictable results in the fired photon and/ or not breaking of symmetry after measurement. It might prove simply impossible even if we strike on the correct formula's and constants. To slippery to handle then, or maybe not?

Oh BTW I saw the story of Faraday the other day, he didn't have mathematics and even though he had already made a name for himself was ridiculed by his peers until Maxwell got the equations. Today it is in one way much more simple than what they had to contend with, for getting overview. So you don't need to be as cleaver as a Faraday or Einstein. Yet much more difficult to get a workable test for the depressing pounce on the problem.

No manic oversight thus.

by **gill1109** » Sun May 25, 2014 11:56 pm

Gris, you have your eyes tight shut. Your theory is a classical mechanistic "local realistic" theory according to which the "singlet correlations" are impossible. Yet those correlations have been observed in the quantum optics lab.

Your theory has been tested (Aspect, Weihs, ...) and it has been proven a failure.

Talk about manic oversight ...

by **gris** » Sun May 25, 2014 3:14 am

Concluding simply impossible on a probable illusion is what you've just done. Mathematics is a tool, used the way you proposed it is circular. Garbage in is a serious mathematical word game that needs to be played correctly before use of mathematics: a mathematical dictate. Everyone is prone to tunnel-vision: once you think you see ears of the rabbit it is bloody hard to see the duck as a seriously to be investigated option, all the more so when you intuitively (and as God knows correctly) feel it to be a mammal => you don't search for wings and find the dark bat in the cave of Plato. This elegant simple bat like formula akin E = mc2 is very probably there for grabs. Correct team-like use of the human instruments between the ears will, as has been the case in the past win the day. Work it like Einstein did via creative thought experiments.

In the manic oversight out of the box upswing use verbal and picture intuitive basic logic on the essence of all observations and fill in the entire picture, then pounce the problem in super focused depressing detail. The latter will very probably require a whole range of new mathematics on rheology and dynamic crystal forming. You mix up the intuitive creative integral oversight faze with the pounce faze. In the latter you use mathematics.

What keeps QM divided from GR is very probably the mass-less particles they both have. They are evident - never observed! galloping unicorn dissonants with nature. And create a boundary between GR & QM. On the gameboard of reason you now can only play the LAW of GR by leaving the white LAW of QM pieces in the box, and vice versa. A TOE per definition has no boundaries. Take away the boundaries by adding massive Higgs = Gluon and massive graviton and bingo you can play the game with all observations of science. No conflict all intuitively Newton again. AND TESTABLE well then test it. Basic logical educated creative guess. Using the correct basic procedure that also solves - in the real world - crimes of criminal illusionists such as Mother Nature IMO is.

by **gill1109** » Sun May 25, 2014 1:18 am

gris wrote:Yet when mathematics gets into the conundrum Richard shows, you need to check your prior odds. That too follows mathematical reasoning. There's the evident problem.

There is no mathematics conundrum. There is a simple mathematical puzzle whose solution is simple: the mother of all quantum challenges is impossible to win. There is a conflict between experimental reality and our human physical intuition. I think this is an interesting phenomenon. I think that the reason we are so far not making much progress in marrying quantum theory and relativity is because we are barking up a wrong tree. We are trying to align concepts from different worlds which however do not make sense in the other world. Or rather, they do no match up in a simple one-to-one way.

Gravity is the distribution of mass in space. In the past there is mass distributed in space. But in the future there are only waves of possibilities. The marriage of quantum theory and relativity theory has failed because people haven't got sorted out what is real and what is imaginary. The wave function is not real. It's not part of reality. Since it turns out that real reality defies our imagination, just doesn't fit in our little mammal brains, there is not much hope of coming up with the good theory of everything by playing word games. We had better take the mathematics more seriously and follow where it takes us.

by **gris** » Sat May 24, 2014 11:53 pm

Agree, yet the collective wealth of book-wisdom i.e. knowledge (right and wrong on our stated probandum) and what is of as yet unknown influence on solving that probandum (= the topic) doesn't wash away the knowledge we do have that there are different instruments between the ears that should be organized in a way to best solve the probandum. I.e. put our most open-minded who are to a sufficient degree conscientious (relatively easy to find, yet taboo) to give a thus - needed - authoritative advice where to start looking/ testing. And let them come to consensus with the conscientious current holders of the paradigm. Then it is in balance. As a method where to spend your limited resources on testing idea's. In effect an idea filter taking into account the different instruments between the ears. Making these work together as a team is applied basic current psychology, that history also proves that this works: differentiate between R&D types (9%/ 49%), production types (80%/ 50%) and sales types (10%/50%) (unsafe/ safe environment) on the probandum. Indeed in effect Bayes in the brain is mathematics in all our different sorts of reptile brains. The Bayes logic is subconsciously (thus difficult to spot if you don’t know where to look) on different goals. Hence the historic truth that what is forward will become backward.

Again the problem of the topic is about a garbage in problem. The tool or language of mathematics inherently can't solve that. R&D intuition by the creative ( even: not so) knowledgeable minds most probably can in interaction with the non-creative knowledgeable conscientious mind. See Hubble spotting an expanding universe in limited data getting it wrong in having earth older than the universe. After correction everyone agrees on the observation.

by **menoma** » Sat May 24, 2014 4:46 pm

I meant to say "the arithmetic of natural numbers" not real numbers. Although there may have been ad hoc numerical reasoning in which the concept of "nothing" played a role even if it was never formalized. And what is indebtedness if not negative wealth? The vast majority of what people have ever thought and done was either never recorded or the record has been lost.

by **gris** » Sat May 24, 2014 4:26 pm

gris wrote:
menoma wrote:I don't agree that we survived without mathematics if you include the arithmetic of real numbers as part of mathematics. That probably goes as far back as language.

There's no fundamental disagreement between Richard and me. He emphasized the negative aspects -- the intuitional limitations -- of our embodied cognition whereas I additionally pointed up its more positive features. For example, living creatures have dealt with randomness since back when the first unicellular animals coped intimately and regularly with Brownian motion. We should be proud of skills like that. Still, we'll never live in a quantum world. We're born and we die naïve classical realists. But we don't need to be so naïve as to believe that's mandatorily all there is. At least not all of us need to be like that -- classical chauvinists -- at any rate.

So, we then are not that divided Richard, you and me only then I guess on the definitions. You in effect say that mathematics was there in our reasoning 100,000 years ago. Well, on certain definitions I agree. Yet in the more formal sense it hasn't existed before someone came up with the abstract notion of something to be called "mathematics". Let's say 5000 years ago i.e. we don't exactly know. The intuitive limitations are there indeed. Yet dividing the good guessers from the bad takes proper account of the instrument between the ears. Above average guessers exist as do the below average.Important is that we still need both in order to enhance our chances for survival. Even above you need to accept a high error rate in the trial and error. Today we - predictably - accept less and less errors. Richard knows this but doesn't apply it to QM. And important is also to notice that you don't need mathematics to do thought experiment a la Einstein as long as that it leads to testable predictions that do not have to be accurate. I.e. an apple is observed to fall upwards on down, with what exact acceleration is irrelevant for the sought after paradigm shift.

Yet when mathematics get into the conundrum Richard shows, you need to check your prior odds. That too follows mathematical reasoning. There's the evident problem.

by **gris** » Sat May 24, 2014 2:21 pm

menoma wrote:I don't agree that we survived without mathematics if you include the arithmetic of real numbers as part of mathematics. That probably goes as far back as language.

There's no fundamental disagreement between Richard and me. He emphasized the negative aspects -- the intuitional limitations -- of our embodied cognition whereas I additionally pointed up its more positive features. For example, living creatures have dealt with randomness since back when the first unicellular animals coped intimately and regularly with Brownian motion. We should be proud of skills like that. Still, we'll never live in a quantum world. We're born and we die naïve classical realists. But we don't need to be so naïve as to believe that's mandatorily all there is. At least not all of us need to be like that -- classical chauvinists -- at any rate.

So, we then are not that divided Richard, you and me only then I guess on the definitions. You in effect say that mathematics was there in our reasoning 100,000 years ago. Well, on certain definitions I agree. Yet in the more formal sense it hasn't existed before someone came up with the abstract notion of something to be called "mathematics". Let's say 5000 years ago i.e. we don't exactly know. The intuitive limitations are there indeed. Yet dividing the good guessers from the bad takes proper account of the instrument between the ears. Above average guessers exist as do the below average.Important is that we still need both in order to enhance our chances for survival. Even above you need to accept a high error rate in the trial and error. Today we - predictably - accept less and less errors. Richard knows this but doesn't apply it to QM. And important is also to notice that you don't need mathematics to do thought experiment a la Einstein as long as that it leads to testable predictions that do not have to be accurate. I.e. an apple is observed to fall upwards on down, with what exact acceleration is irrelevant for the sought after paradigm shift.

Yet when mathematics gets into the conundrum Richard shows, you need to check your prior odds. That too follows mathematical reasoning. There's the evident problem.

by **menoma** » Sat May 24, 2014 1:12 pm

I don't agree that we survived without mathematics if you include the arithmetic of real numbers as part of mathematics. That probably goes as far back as language.

There's no fundamental disagreement between Richard and me. He emphasized the negative aspects -- the intuitional limitations -- of our embodied cognition whereas I additionally pointed up its more positive features. For example, living creatures have dealt with randomness since back when the first unicellular animals coped intimately and regularly with Brownian motion. We should be proud of skills like that. Still, we'll never live in a quantum world. We're born and we die naïve classical realists. But we don't need to be so naïve as to believe that's mandatorily all there is. At least not all of us need to be like that -- classical chauvinists -- at any rate.

by **gris** » Sat May 24, 2014 11:48 am

Well Richard I will look into what you point towards, yet I agree more with menoma, yet not entirely. We humans have intuitively survived without mathematics in a changing environment for over 100,000 yeras. Mathematics though a magnificent and essential tool is but a tool. When you encounter a conundrum you must suspect an illusion and in this case Mother Nature as an illusionist. Like all illusionists it is the garbage in or prior odds problem that probably needs creative non garbage solution by intuitive guess. More relevant evidence probably makes for a simpler problem. And like with all illusionists when you spot it, it becomes laughably simple. That requires creative intelligent guesswork based on a presentation to such brains of the essence of all of the evidence in an at best safe for fear of loss of face environment. And testing these idea's instead of in effect throwing in the towel deeming our brain-s-! to petty. You haven't even tried properly according to the Just Proof criteria you agree on should apply in courts of law. I see no difference. First rigorously do that and actually never ever give up trying via trial and error to get there. You are measuring with an accuracy of nano meters with a deviation in trillions of light years: i.e. is the universe infinite or not? Well guess and test! Mathematics can't help with that guess. It can only via extrapolation ever more slowly show some slow progress in acquiring more relevant evidence in need of creative integrating guesswork and testing.

by **menoma** » Sat May 24, 2014 9:41 am

Our species evolved adaptively in a macroworld in which all of its physical intuitions are in fact entirely correct. Otherwise we would never have survived. The problems arise when we enquire into underlying domains of reality which we never encountered in our evolutionary journey and therefore have never needed to adapt to and are unequipped to adapt to. And which, as a result, we are unlikely ever to apprehend intuitively.

by **gill1109** » Sat May 24, 2014 12:17 am

I do not say that our brain is too petty to solve the mathematical conundrum. It is easy to solve the mathematical conundrum. I believe that the problem is that our brain's "embodied cognition" (aka "systems of core knowledge") has got built-in physical intuition (built-in by millenia of evolution) which unfortunately is wrong. It worked fine for amoeba, worms, lizards, mammals ... they went forth and multiplied, again and again ... but it breaks down in the quantum optics lab.

Please study chapters 13 and 16 of Bell's "Speakable and unspeakable", and please study the metaphysical sections of my paper on causality and Bell's theorem. Also study my Schrödinger cat paper. You'll need to learn a bit of mathematics (but not much). Come back when you are done.

by **gris** » Fri May 23, 2014 1:04 pm

gill1109 wrote:I don't read any forum contributions longer than 100 words. Life is too short ...

Less is more.

Oh it's step by step Richard. For you start at point 5 under 50 words:

5. Now you agree that a paradigm shift is in order and conclude our brain is to petty to solve the mathematical conundrum. Your paradigm dictates that you use mathematics to solve it right? Could that be a wrong assumption? Let us investigate this question:

Edit: simple if you disagree: say why. Maybe a good idea to first then go 1 through 4.

by **gill1109** » Fri May 23, 2014 9:28 am

I don't read any forum contributions longer than 100 words. Life is too short ...

Less is more.

SciPhysicsForums.com

The mother of all quantum challenges

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges

Re: The mother of all quantum challenges