Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:40 am

Yablon wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Thanks, Jay. The triumph of truth has been bittersweet, but let us now hope that there is someone courageous enough to actually realize the proposed experiment.

Joy,
I would be interested in your comments on my recent paper at http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0552v1.pdf, because it takes the view that FQHE is a direct experimental validation of fermion entanglement, and because your own work and proposed experiment is very much also entangled with entanglement. :-)
Jay

Hi Jay,

Thank you for the link. I just read your paper. I very much like your derivation of the FQHE from the orientation/entanglement relation. It is a yet another (and a very nice) example of the fundamental significance of that subtle relation. Just to clarify for other readers, this entanglement with environment has nothing to do with the quantum entanglement, or quantum mechanics. It is simply a not-so-obvious property of the physical space itself. In other words, there is nothing mysterious about it.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:46 am

Joy Christian wrote:I am glad you brought this up. In the published paper I have added two new paragraphs (reproduced below) concerning this issue, as a response to a referee's query:

Image

Interesting observations. Your proposed experiment is based on spin measurements. The more one thinks about it, the more issues there are to deal with. As that passage reveals - there would be lots of finely timed measurements required for any run. And much post-processing to extract pertinent data. Given Alice-Bob Bell inequalities can manifest for either spin or linear polarized particle pairs, may there not be an analogous experiment involving purely linear polarization? If so, seems to me a considerably cleaner and simpler regimen might result. For instance it's easy to arrange for two arbitrarily rigid bars to fly apart with equal and opposite linear momenta. And for the bar axes to be precisely orthogonal to the velocity vectors. Not sure whether some form of randomization would be best at the bar or detector end of things, but all-in-all looks to have considerably fewer complications. Just some random ramblings.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:07 am

Q-reeus wrote:Interesting observations. Your proposed experiment is based on spin measurements. The more one thinks about it, the more issues there are to deal with. As that passage reveals - there would be lots of finely timed measurements required for any run. And much post-processing to extract pertinent data. Given Alice-Bob Bell inequalities can manifest for either spin or linear polarized particle pairs, may there not be an analogous experiment involving purely linear polarization? If so, seems to me a considerably cleaner and simpler regimen might result. For instance it's easy to arrange for two arbitrarily rigid bars to fly apart with equal and opposite linear momenta. And for the bar axes to be precisely orthogonal to the velocity vectors. Not sure whether some form of randomization would be best at the bar or detector end of things, but all-in-all looks to have considerably fewer complications. Just some random ramblings.

No, two rigid bars flying apart with equal and opposite linear momenta will not do. There has to be relative rotation between the two constituents. Otherwise the difference between the topological properties of the rotation groups SU(2) and SO(3) will not manifest in the experiment (cf. the theoretical discussion in the paper).

That, however, does not mean that what I have argued theoretically is not applicable to the case of linearly polarized pairs of particles, such as photons. It just means that the theoretical analysis in the linear polarization case is somewhat different and more involved, as discussed in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:52 am

Joy Christian wrote:No, two rigid bars flying apart with equal and opposite linear momenta will not do. There has to be relative rotation between the two constituents. Otherwise the difference between the topological properties of the rotation groups SU(2) and SO(3) will not manifest in the experiment (cf. the theoretical discussion in the paper).

That, however, does not mean that what I have argued theoretically is not applicable to the case of linearly polarized pairs of particles, such as photons. It just means that the theoretical analysis in the linear polarization case is somewhat different and more involved, as discussed in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf.

OK well it's your theory after all so are therfore best placed to judge on such things. Let's hope as you remarked earlier the experiment can be performed adequately sooner rather than decades later.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Yablon » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:46 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Jay,

Thank you for the link. I just read your paper. I very much like your derivation of the FQHE from the orientation/entanglement relation. It is a yet another (and a very nice) example of the fundamental significance of that subtle relation. Just to clarify for other readers, this entanglement with environment has nothing to do with the quantum entanglement, or quantum mechanics. It is simply a not-so-obvious property of the physical space itself. In other words, there is nothing mysterious about it.

Joy et al.:

Please take a look at what I just posted at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=113#p3779. I would like to get some second opinions as I decide upon my next moves. Thanks, Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:09 am

LOL, the naysayers are continuing to play their broken record. Here is one of my replies: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... 9248505130
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:48 am

Both Richard Gill and Scott Aaronson have used all sorts of dirty political tactics to hurt me academically and financially. I therefore call upon the scientific community to have their professorships revoked when my proposed experiment finally vindicates my refutation of Bell’s theorem.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:09 am

Joy Christian wrote:Both Richard Gill and Scott Aaronson have used all sorts of dirty political tactics to hurt me academically and financially. I therefore call upon the scientific community to have their professorships revoked when my proposed experiment finally vindicates my refutation of Bell’s theorem.

Joy, could you provide details here of precisely how the mechanics of exploding ball scenario would be realised in practice? That is:
1: The exact geometry envisaged.
2: Method of joining of the two hemispheres.
3: Method of pre-stressing them - i.e. a third entity such as internal coil spring or compressed air, or somehow just internal stresses in hemispheres.
4: What the pre-stressing is exactly - i.e. Purely compressive load (internal spring or compressed air), combination of compression and torsion (internal spring), or 'warping' of hemispheres in some way etc (no internal spring or compressed air).
5: Method of (presumably thermally) triggering the separation.
6: Will the method yield an expected constant ratio of linear to angular momentum for each run? My guess is no, assuming the planned random 'spot' weighting of hemispheres, coupling to initially linear separation impulses, is the sole method of generating angular momentum.
7: How your alternate 'squishy balls' arrangement would differ from above in each point mentioned.

Seems to me whatever method is applied, there will be complications in addition to what I previously mentioned, and a prudent detailed analysis before actual testing may prove to be much more complex than initially thought. There may be a considerably cleaner alternative. Would like your feedback on above first please.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:40 pm

Q-reeus wrote:Joy, could you provide details here of precisely how the mechanics of exploding ball scenario would be realised in practice? That is:
1: The exact geometry envisaged.
2: Method of joining of the two hemispheres.
3: Method of pre-stressing them - i.e. a third entity such as internal coil spring or compressed air, or somehow just internal stresses in hemispheres.
4: What the pre-stressing is exactly - i.e. Purely compressive load (internal spring or compressed air), combination of compression and torsion (internal spring), or 'warping' of hemispheres in some way etc (no internal spring or compressed air).
5: Method of (presumably thermally) triggering the separation.
6: Will the method yield an expected constant ratio of linear to angular momentum for each run? My guess is no, assuming the planned random 'spot' weighting of hemispheres, coupling to initially linear separation impulses, is the sole method of generating angular momentum.
7: How your alternate 'squishy balls' arrangement would differ from above in each point mentioned.

These are all very good questions. I don't have answers to them at the moment, because the answers will very much depend on the actual singlet system used in the experiment. As we speak, various alternatives are being considered and discarded by experienced experimentalists for one reason or another. As you say (and unlike the ignorant claims made by Richard Gill elsewhere), although doable according to David Weinland this is not going to be an easy experiment to realize in practice.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:03 am

Joy Christian wrote:These are all very good questions. I don't have answers to them at the moment, because the answers will very much depend on the actual singlet system used in the experiment. As we speak, various alternatives are being considered and discarded by experienced experimentalists for one reason or another. As you say (and unlike the ignorant claims made by Richard Gill elsewhere), although doable according to David Weinland this is not going to be an easy experiment to realize in practice.

Agreed. It would obviously be desirable to mimick as closely as possible the quantum singlet situation, for which there would presumably be a fixed ratio of linear to angular momentum amplitudes for each particle for every run. Minimizing any extraneous factors like friction (whether aerodynamic or 'stiction' that may add an erratic component to say half-shell partings) and vibrational modes are also desired.

Given such, my own thoughts on that suggested an arrangement using permanently magnetized balls ('neo' or ferrite), each magnetized parallel to a small diameter hole running through the center of each. Mount the balls on lubricated pins projecting coaxially, with anti-parallel magnetization orientations applying, and probably a compression spring or springs between them. Fast acting, symmetrically mounted securing pins can be timed to release simultaneously, so the pair fly apart with equal and opposite linear momentum.

Then inducing equal and opposite angular momentum would be done via carefully arranged magnetized 'tunnels' (blocks with bored circular holes through which the balls can freely travel). Having mostly (apart from unavoidable end-fringing) uniform magnetizations transverse to the bore-hole axes. Such that the B fields induced within the hole regions are essentially uniform - so as to avoid ball erratic transverse deflections. End-fringing should only appreciably add longitudinal not transverse forces there. Depending on the combination of initial velocities and 'tunnel' magnetizations and lengths, one should be able to reliably produce on-demand a wide range of equal and opposite angular momenta. Just rotate the magnetic axes of 'tunnels' between runs to get the desired 'quasi-randomness'. Two stages of 'tunnels' would be required in order to induce angular momentum components parallel/anti-parallel to the velocities. And to eliminate any possible 'stiction' etc. issues owing to gravity arcing trajectories, adopt the cyclic free-fall regime suggested before.

Finally there is the matter of reliably detecting the spin components of each ball, which I'm fairly confident could be achieved via induced voltages in three mutually orthogonal sensing coils. Whether that would be easier and better than optical method not sure but likely imo.
Yes much easier said than done, and lots of detail to work through, but it does seem to avoid problematic issues other approaches may have inherent within them. Something to maybe 'add to the mix'.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:24 pm

Here's a modification to concept in last post, that results in just one stage of transversely magnetized tunnels yet still allows arbitrary orientation of angular momentum wrt velocity axis:
Compression spring or springs between balls can also act as torsion spring(s) - providing both initial linear + axial angular momentum. To avoid inducing reaction forces between balls and mounting pins, such coil springs should be double helix construction. Conical friction cups attached to spring ends could provide the necessary coupling to transfer torque to balls during acceleration phase, yet allow ready detachment at end of such phase.
Subsequent induction of transverse angular momentum when moving through 'tunnels' will follow. Of course gyroscopic precessional effects would need accounting for but that should not be too difficult.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:42 pm

Hi everyone,

I have finally got around to refuting Richard Gill's latest misguided arguments against my proposed macroscopic experiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

While reading this it is worth remembering that this man calls himself a "mathematician." He often complains that I call him "algebraically challenged." But even after I have repeatedly made him aware, for over 40 days, that his latest preprint contains schoolboy howlers, he has not been able to spot them himself and correct them.

Happy reading!
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:55 am

For those not familiar with my work (or not wanting to read my arXiv reply to Gill), let me summarize the elementary conceptual mistake Gill and other Bell devotees have been making for the past 50 years.

Let the four numbers A, A’, B, and B’ take binary values +1 or -1, and consider the four averages, <AB>, <AB’>, <A’B>, and <A’B’>.

These four averages happen to be of physical interest in the actual EPR-Bohm type experiments.

Now in 1964 Bell noticed a century old observation by Boole that the absolute value of the average

<AB + AB’ + A’B – A’B’> = <A(B + B’) + A’(B – B’)>

cannot exceed the value 2, simply because if B + B’ = 2 then B – B’ = 0, and vice versa.

From this Bell jumped to the conclusion that, therefore, the absolute value of the string of averages,

| <AB> + <AB’> + <A’B> - <A’B’> |

also cannot exceed the value 2.

But any schoolboy can see that within the context of the EPR-Bohm type experiments the single average

<AB + AB’ + A’B – A’B’>

is not the same as the string of four averages

<AB> + <AB’> + <A’B> - <A’B’> .

To be sure, average of sum = sum of averages assumption is fine when all A, A', B, and B' are on equal footing (or are standardized variables), but not at all fine within the context of the EPR-Bohm type experiments involving spin measurements about different directions in the physical space. This is essentially the point brought out is some detail in the above reply to Gill. He and other Bell devotees have simply failed to understand the physics and 3D geometry involved in any such experiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf.

Moreover, it so happens that in almost every single physical experiment Bell has been proven wrong. The absolute value of the above string of averages has been shown in many experiments to exceed the value 2. But the Bell devotees like Gill do not take this experimental verdict on face value and accept that Bell has been proven wrong. Rather, they see the experimental refutation of Bell as a vindication of their belief that there is voodoo in the world, whereby our actions here may have instantaneous reactions at the remote parts of the universe. Well, the proposed macroscopic experiment discussed above aims to rectify this sad state of affairs.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:44 am

*
Here is a very nice blog-post about my work on Bell by Paul Snively: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.

It is good to know that there are knowledgeable people out there who are able to follow my logic: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/ ... 1814232555.

It is also interesting to note that those who claim not to follow my logic, or find faults with my work, are invariably people with substantive vested interests.

:)
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:10 am

What continues to worry me is that your overthrowing of Bell is ultimately bound to viewing 3D physical reality as an 'illusion' subsumed into the 'real' world of a 7-sphere. And that the consequence in our 3D world is that an intrinsic spacetime torsion exists. From a previous exchange I took it such torsion manifests as an in-vacuo chirality of spacetime. Which torsion is somehow the physical basis for classical correlations being also able to beat the Bell inequality to the same degree as in QM. I just looked at a YouTube vid of a 2005 lecture by Bill Unruh:
Is Quantum Mechanics Non-Local
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOT38L1utw8&app=desktop
Unfortunately bits of it are of poor audio-visual quality, but sufficient to get across Unruh's main argument. That QM is local despite violating the inequality as predicted by QM. That classical physics strictly obeys the Bell inequality (as opposed to Joy Christian's take on it), and the non-locality and/or non-realism assumptions stemming from Bell's theorem fails not because of any exotic 7-sphere physics, or weird non-locality, but because of a glaring failure to properly interpret the basic math of the theorem. He strongly ties it to superposition and measurement uncertainty - commuting vs non-commuting variables.
An earlier arXiv paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9710032

I have no horse in this race and certainly have not studied it enough to have any definite conclusion of my own. Maybe though the experts here would care to comment on Unruh's approach. He seems to have gone quiet on the topic since that lecture, and in fact has links to pro non-locality articles on his UBC website - but that may not mean much.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:27 am

Hi Q-reeus,

Thanks for your comments.

The Unruh lecture you mention has already been discussed elsewhere in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82#p3493.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:02 am

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Q-reeus,

Thanks for your comments.

The Unruh lecture you mention has already been discussed elsewhere in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82#p3493.

Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts! :oops:
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?

Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:24 am

Q-reeus wrote:Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts! :oops:
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?

Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?

I wouldn't say quantum mechanics is "wrong" (and I don't think you meant to say that either). Quantum mechanics makes all the right statistical predictions, but as an intrinsically non-local theory, provided we accept it to be a "complete" theory of nature. This was essentially the point Einstein fought for most of his life. Einstein was right about this and Unruh is wrong. Bell, by the way, was on Einstein's side on this point. He too agreed that quantum mechanics is an intrinsically non-local theory of nature (provided we accept...). But unlike Einstein Bell thought that no local theory can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. And on this point I disagree with Bell and with most of the mainstream physics community: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/.

So, yes, I agree with your observation about the significance of torsion in the physical space for the existence of strong (i.e., quantum) correlations in nature.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Q-reeus » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:23 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Q-reeus wrote:Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts! :oops:
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?

Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?

I wouldn't say quantum mechanics is "wrong" (and I don't think you meant to say that either). Quantum mechanics makes all the right statistical predictions, but as an intrinsically non-local theory, provided we accept it to be a "complete" theory of nature. This was essentially the point Einstein fought for most of his life. Einstein was right about this and Unruh is wrong. Bell, by the way, was on Einstein's side on this point. He too agreed that quantum mechanics is an intrinsically non-local theory of nature (provided we accept...). But unlike Einstein Bell thought that no local theory can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. And on this point I disagree with Bell and with most of the mainstream physics community: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/.

So, yes, I agree with your observation about the significance of torsion in the physical space for the existence of strong (i.e., quantum) correlations in nature.

Allright so agreed QM makes the correct predictions - despite it's presumably wrong inherent non-local formulation. I'm feeling slightly dizzy at this point and obviously have never grasped the subtleties of ontological vs epistemic..... :? Well hopefully the acid test is not far off. How is the experimentalist team coming along? Converging rapidly to a final physical experimental regime? I like to think my own input this thread has helped in some small way. :D
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:37 am

Q-reeus wrote:Allright so agreed QM makes the correct predictions - despite it's presumably wrong inherent non-local formulation. I'm feeling slightly dizzy at this point and obviously have never grasped the subtleties of ontological vs epistemic..... :? Well hopefully the acid test is not far off. How is the experimentalist team coming along? Converging rapidly to a final physical experimental regime? I like to think my own input this thread has helped in some small way. :D

Yes, your input was helpful. The progress is slow, however, because of the complexities of the problem (as we discussed before). We just have to hope for the best.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 85 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library