Thoughts about Bell, Bohm, Christian, et al.

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Jay,

I think I found the source of my confusion. Right before and in eq. (14.11) you drop out the J-sigmas so when you get to eq. (14.13, 14.14) it looks like there is only one J source when they are in fact still expressions for interactions between two J sources.

[Yablon]

Hi Jay,

I think I found the source of my confusion. Right before and in eq. (14.11) you drop out the J-sigmas so when you get to eq. (14.13, 14.14) it looks like there is only one J source when they are in fact still expressions for interactions between two J sources.

Yes, Fred. The J-sigmas which I drop out are fields in spacetime; and the remaining J sources are in momentum space which I treat a few equations later by transforming to the rest frame.

In your earlier posts you commented on the electron self-energy, so let me discuss that for a moment. I want to condition you and anyone else who studies my paper, as well as myself, to keep remembering that we are dealing now with field equations for non-linear quantum field theory. That fact cannot be repeated too often; I want to drum it into my head and everyone else's. So we all need to think about things differently than we do when we are dealing with, e.g., QED which for all the efforts to treat non-linear aspects of nature e.g., Schwinger and the magnetic moment anomaly, is still a linear field theory. So working against the background of a linear field theory, people have had to "add in" non-linear features of nature which we expect need to be accounted for, and that often calls for some clever, heavy lifting.

Electron self-energy is one such example. If we ignore the self-energy, then we have a linear problem, and we can think of an electron moving through an external field without affecting that external field. That is, we neglect the electron's own contribution to the field, and thus neglect some non-linear terms. If we do not ignore the self-energy, then in a linear field environment,the problem is very difficult. But once we have a non-linear quantum field theory which includes accounting for non-linear behaviors in the quantum vacuum, then we have to trust the mathematics of our theory to properly handle various non-linear behaviors including the electron self-energy.

In other words: when we talk about an electron in a linear theory, and if we want to account for everything that goes on, then we must talk about the electron as well as its self energy. When we talk about electrons in a non-linear theory, then we only need to talk about electrons, and we don't worry ourselves about the self-energy. We then trust the non-linear theory to inherently take care of anything non-linear that the electron does including create a self-energy which modifies the external field, and in fact that seems to be exactly what happens.

This is why I continue to think that you may have instinctively hit the nail on the head when you made the recent comment about virtual photons, as regards being able to explain the double slit experiments on a local basis. I believe it impossible to explain the double slit results locally with a linear quantum field theory that uses a Bohmian potential. But I believe that a non-linear quantum theory with a Bohmian guiding potential and field quanta obeying least action principles does provide the tools to do exactly that: achieve a local, least action-based explanation of the double slit results. This should make Einstein and Bohm and Christian very happy.

Jay

[FrediFizzx]

A funny thing about non-linear quantum field theory is that the electron that goes through the slits isn't necessarily the same one that hits the detection screen. It can swap with one from the quantum "vacuum" in a virtual electron-positron pair. But I suppose that doesn't matter much as all electrons are the same.

Anyways, looking forward to your Part II when you get a chance.

[Yablon]

Fred and all, I can put in a few sentences what will be the lengthier outcome of Part II and Part III etc.: There is a one-to-one (i.e. isomorphic) relationship between any given probability density, and a related quantum potential (or the quantum action in the most general case). If you know one, you know the other. When you take the observed probability density for particles to strike the double slit detector and plug it into the quantum field equations (a specific application among an unlimited variety of applications of the non-linear quantum field equation), out pops a uniquely-related potential. That is how the mathematics for the quantum field equation works for any posited probability distribution.

Once you have obtained this potential for the double slit detector example, then you are into interpretation of how this potential works, and that is where questions of the particles themselves affecting the potential (an offshoot of self-energy), least action, and locality versus non-locality, arise. The lengthier materials I intend to write after I finish writing up a large patent I am working on for a client right now, will a) outline the foundations and premises via which one arrives at the underlying non-linear quantum field equation, b) summarizing the five examples, i.e., five probability densities, to which I have applied that equation thus far, c) describe how the lessons from each of these examples helps us to better understand and interpret and apply the non-linear quantum field equation, and d) elaborate the precise reasons why the double slit potential raises the core quantum issues that it does and the challenges of interpretation that this presents.

The quantum field equation I have uncovered does not by itself answer all of the difficulties people have with quantum theory: rather, it simply brings them onto a different stage and views them in a different light and so provides yet another tool for approaching these problems. The advantage this does provide, is that normally people approach explaining double slit and entanglement "seat of the pants," by trying to find any explanation they can without a disciplined, rigorous physical theory for doing so behind them. That leads to idiosyncratic approaches and explanations, which usually does not work for physics. My work provides a broadly-applicable field equation through which these problems can be analyzed, and so enforces a very orderly discipline on how one thinks about these problems. That sort of discipline can make all the difference in the world. Jay

[Yablon]

Fred and all, I can put in a few sentences what will be the lengthier outcome of Part II and Part III etc.: There is a one-to-one (i.e. isomorphic) relationship between any given probability density, and a related quantum potential (or the quantum action in the most general case). If you know one, you know the other. When you take the observed probability density for particles to strike the double slit detector and plug it into the quantum field equations (a specific application among an unlimited variety of applications of the non-linear quantum field equation), out pops a uniquely-related potential. That is how the mathematics for the quantum field equation works for any posited probability distribution.

Once you have obtained this potential for the double slit detector example, then you are into interpretation of how this potential works, and that is where questions of the particles themselves affecting the potential (an offshoot of self-energy), least action, and locality versus non-locality, arise. The lengthier materials I intend to write after I finish writing up a large patent I am working on for a client right now, will a) outline the foundations and premises via which one arrives at the underlying non-linear quantum field equation, b) summarize the five examples, i.e., five probability densities, to which I have applied that equation thus far, c) describe how the lessons from each of these examples helps us to better understand and interpret and apply the non-linear quantum field equation, and d) elaborate the precise reasons why the double slit potential raises the core quantum issues that it does and the challenges of interpretation that this presents.

The quantum field equation I have uncovered does not by itself answer all of the difficulties people have with quantum theory: rather, it simply brings them onto a different stage and views them in a different light and so provides yet another tool for approaching these problems. The advantage this does provide, is that normally people approach explaining double slit and entanglement "seat of the pants," by trying to find any explanation they can without a disciplined, rigorous physical theory for doing so behind them. That leads to idiosyncratic approaches and explanations, which usually does not work for physics. My work provides a broadly-applicable field equation grounded in path integration and acquiring its non-linearity from Yang-Mills, through which these problems can be analyzed, and so enforces a very orderly discipline on how one thinks about these problems. All of the Fourier analysis is already fully baked in to the general case field equation, that is, one does the Fourier transforms once for the general case, and then plugs in the specific cases and gets out direct answers without having to do anything Fourier again. That sort of discipline can make all the difference in the world. Jay

[Schmelzer]

So you believe
1. The "guiding potential" definitely exists as a physical thing (in the real world) rather than just an information manipulation device of your theory.
2. It is impossible to explain (as differentiated from "I cannot explain").

Won't you need to believe both of those in order to believe non-locality is required? Otherwise, maybe the "guiding potential" is not real (1 out the door), and/or maybe somebody else can explain it even if you can't (2 out the door), then your belief is irrational/premature.

First of all, if one follows Popper, then anyway all scientific research is, in a certain sense, premature: It never gives absolute certainty. Theories may be corroborated by observation, but this does not prove them. Moreover, (less well-known, but also Popper) even an experimental falsification cannot be certain, and remains open to criticism.

What would be clearly irrational is the refusal to use some very plausible hypothesis simply because it is not certain, not proved or so. In this case, we would have to reject science completely - because it never gives absolute certainty. Thus, the two possibilities you have listed make the belief only premature - which it is in some sense anyway - but not at all irrational.

What is, instead, rational, is to look the most plausible explanation. For a scientist, this would be an explanation which is compatible with the existing mathematical apparatus. It may contain additional elements (like the dBB guiding equation), but should not contradict the existing apparatus. The existing mathematical apparatus describes the quantum state with a wave function on the configuration space - but the configuration is, from the very start, a global object. One can, of course, look for modifications to get rid of this wave function. But this is something one has, yet, to do. I'm very much in favour of interpreting the wave function, at least in part, as epistemical. But this is something one has yet to realize.

Moreover, there is Bell's theorem, which tells us that a local realistic explanation is not possible. Of course, as everything in science it is open to criticism - and is criticized here. But I don't see yet that this criticism has been successful. Therefore there seems not much hope for others finding local realistic explanations.

[Brad Johnson]

Ilja, isn't this a Hamiltonian function? If so then the space in
consideration is a phase space and not a global object.
So what we have is a wave function associated with a mass
In motion. IOW restraints on degrees of freedom.

[Schmelzer]

Ilja, isn't this a Hamiltonian function? If so then the space in
consideration is a phase space and not a global object.
So what we have is a wave function associated with a mass
In motion. IOW restraints on degrees of freedom.

The wave function is something different from a Hamilton function. There are representations of the Hilbert space on the phase space. But even if one uses this representation, so that the wave function is a function on phase space, it is not yet a Hamilton function, simply the mathematics is yet very different.

Of course, one can think about making the similarity greater, but this is, again, work in progress. And the phase space is, except for a single point particle, also a global object.

[minkwe]

First of all, if one follows Popper, then anyway all scientific research is, in a certain sense, premature: It never gives absolute certainty. Theories may be corroborated by observation, but this does not prove them. Moreover, (less well-known, but also Popper) even an experimental falsification cannot be certain, and remains open to criticism.

And if you don't follow popper? I don't know where you got the idea from my year old post that only certainty is permitted. There comes a point when we can't even begin to have useful discussions because, even the language is babel. For example:

For a scientist, this would be an explanation which is compatible with the existing mathematical apparatus. It may contain additional elements (like the dBB guiding equation), but should not contradict the existing apparatus.

I hope you are not suggesting that what is going on, is an "equation" (see "like the dBB guiding equation"). Because this is precisely the kind of thing that is not even wrong. An equation can only represent one perspective of what is really going on, an abstraction of it at best. The folly comes from thinking that those equations themselves are objects, doing things like guiding other objects.

The existing mathematical apparatus describes the quantum state with a wave function on the configuration space - but the configuration is, from the very start, a global object.

The configuration is not an object. The configuration contains global information about all the objects in the system. It is a description of the system, not the system itself. It is epistemology not ontology. The configuration could not possibly exist, unless the system actually existed by itself. The (x, y, z, t) coordinates of a particle represents a configuration of the particle in one particular space time representation. But those coordinates are information, not objects. I could pick a different set of basis vectors, or a different type of representation and be able to provide a different but complementary perspective about the position of the particle. The only thing that is real, is the fact that the particle really exists, not the configuration I chose to ascribe to it.

One can, of course, look for modifications to get rid of this wave function. But this is something one has, yet, to do. I'm very much in favour of interpreting the wave function, at least in part, as epistemical. But this is something one has yet to realize.

Our problem is not the inability to "get rid of the wave function". Our problem is our inability to understand, or be clear about what exactly the wave function represents. To the extend that we start ascribing ontological status to fictions of our imagination, however useful they are as calculation devices.

Moreover, there is Bell's theorem, which tells us that a local realistic explanation is not possible.

And you believe it? My response to that will be to quote Bell's own statement about von Newmann's own hidden variable no-go theorem. Feel free to search and replace "von Newmann" with "Bell", because Bell proceeded to make a very similar error, and many have been gullible enough to believe it without thorough verification, exactly like Bell himself described in that interview:

Bell:Then in 1932 [mathematician] John von Neumann gave a “rigorous” mathematical proof stating that you couldn’t find a nonstatistical theory that would give the same predictions as quantum
mechanics. That von Neumann proof in itself is one that must someday be the subject of a Ph.D. thesis for a history student. Its reception was quite remarkable. The literature is full of respectable
references to “the brilliant proof of von Neumann;” but I do not believe it could have been read at that time by more than two or three people.
Omni: Why is that?
Bell: The physicists didn’t want to be bothered with the idea that maybe quantum theory is only provisional. A horn of plenty had been spilled before them, and every physicist could find something to apply quantum mechanics to. They were pleased to think that this great mathematician had shown it was so. Yet the Von Neumann proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish.

Bell's error is hidden in plain sight in his very first paper on this subject, for anyone who can read to see.

Therefore there seems not much hope for others finding local realistic explanations.

The is no polite response that is fitting, so I'll leave this one as is.

[Schmelzer]

The is no polite response that is fitting, so I'll leave this one as is.

I think similarly about your response.

[minkwe]

I think similarly about your response.

No problem. But I will repeat my point

Yet the Bell proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of Bell is not merely false but foolish.

That many well-meaning physicists and mathematicians have fallen for it, will be a subject for the history books.

[FrediFizzx]

I think similarly about your response.

No problem. But I will repeat my point

Yet the Bell proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of Bell is not merely false but foolish.

That many well-meaning physicists and mathematicians have fallen for it, will be a subject for the history books.

What is even crazier is that Ilja is quite a proficient etherist. I am still quite astonished that he would buy into the "spooky action at a distance" nonsense when everything must be transmitted through a medium. Thankfully we have Joy's model to help put some sense back into fundamental physics.

[Schmelzer]

Repeating an opinion is something which one can, obviously, be done as often as one likes, but given that the opinion is not supported at all by arguments, such repetitions will hardly impress anybody. You may win elections and opinion polls in democracies in such ways, but not scientific discussions.

If the "spooky action at a distance" is nonsense or not is shown in experiments. If somebody makes the point that all experiments done up to now have loopholes - no problem, I'm not an experimenter to evaluate such claims. AFAIU, it seems that a loophole-free experiment is something which can be reached, thus, we will see.

If the quantum prediction wins, I have a loophole-free observational evidence against fundamental relativism. If not, that means quantum theory will be falsified - I would say this is even more interesting.

Joy's model is, as he has mentioned himself, as relevant for the problem of violations of Bell's inequality as it is for the beliefs of the Pope or the Ayatollah.

[FrediFizzx]

If the "spooky action at a distance" is nonsense or not is shown in experiments. If somebody makes the point that all experiments done up to now have loopholes - no problem, I'm not an experimenter to evaluate such claims. AFAIU, it seems that a loophole-free experiment is something which can be reached, thus, we will see.

If the quantum prediction wins, I have a loophole-free observational evidence against fundamental relativism. If not, that means quantum theory will be falsified - I would say this is even more interesting.

Yep, you are in the same Bell trap that Gill is in. The point that both of you are missing is that Joy's model predicts a successful loophole-free experiment. It is an alternative classical local realistic explanation for quantum correlations. We don't care about any of the loophole-free arguments. We only care that quantum theory is not a complete theory of Nature. It is a good theory that works well for the microscopic realm. The only real question left concerning Joy's model is; does it hold for a proper macroscopic singlet type experiment.

Anyways, I expect that your ether theory is not a complete theory of Nature either since you have non-local action in it. Seems quite contradictory to me.

[Schmelzer]

The point that both of you are missing is that Joy's model predicts a successful loophole-free experiment.
Anyways, I expect that your ether theory is not a complete theory of Nature either since you have non-local action in it. Seems quite contradictory to me.

First, we are not missing some point in Joy's model but our point is that it is wrong.

Then, of course, the ether theories I have presented yet are not complete. The ether theory of gravity, in particular, is only a continous condensed matter theory, but I'm quite sure that the ether has some atomic structure - and my paper for the SM already defines some elements of this structure. This atomic model is not complete too, it does not even have a complete physically plausible Lagrangian.

I see no problem in accepting that my ether theories are not yet complete. To develop complete theories is, certainly, the aim of science, but the way to reach this aim is, of course, through the development and improvement of incomplete theories. Einstein's point about the incompleteness of QM was directed against the Copenhagen gang, which has tried to present QM as complete, and in this way prevented, for a long time, the search for better, more complete theories.

Then, I do not think QM is complete, but I'm sure that Einstein's argument for incompleteness is insufficient. The dBB interpretation shows that realistic causal interpretations are possible, even if they have to violate Einstein causality.

[FrediFizzx]

First, we are not missing some point in Joy's model but our point is that it is wrong.

LOL! It gives the same prediction for EPRB as quantum theory, -a.b. In a classical local realistic way.

[Schmelzer]

First, we are not missing some point in Joy's model but our point is that it is wrong.

LOL! It gives the same prediction for EPRB as quantum theory, -a.b. In a classical local realistic way.

I can write down "and now a miracle happens, and we obtain -a.b". Would you accept this as a rejection of Bell's theorem? So, what it gives, is not decisive.

The question is if it explains, in a local realistic way, the correlations predicted by QM for this experiment, in its loophole-free variant. As far I have seen only two variants: one with a function which excludes some initial values using the information about a and b, thus, the classical detector efficiancy loophole, and functions A(a,l), B(b,l) which are nontrivial in S^3 so that their product gives something differently from +-1, which has nothing to do with the experiment itself and how the results are used to compute the correlations.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, we are sorry that you don't understand how Nature works.

[Schmelzer]

Well, we are sorry that you don't understand how Nature works.

I have not talked about the question how Nature works. I have talked about the question what would be necessary to find a counterexample to Bell's theorem.

A counterexample would be a counterexample even if it would not have any relation to Nature. And the conditions which the counterexample has to fulfill to be a counterexample are defined and fixed forever by Bell's theorem. Pure mathematics, no Nature involved.

[FrediFizzx]

Pure mathematics, no Nature involved.

Well, there you go. We are talking about Nature and how to properly represent Nature using mathematics. When you do that, Bell's theorem falls apart. Bell tried but didn't make the necessary connection all the way to physics. Simple inspection shows that his derivations are wrong.