TLR: true local realism

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

TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:25 am

I'm now branding my version of local realism under "true local realism" (TLR). It may be summarised thus.

True local realism (TLR): true via Bohr's insight, local via Einstein locality, real via Bell beables.

Believing that most members here will endorse TLR, critical comments, etc, are welcome.

PS: In my attempts to bypass generic and "naive" realism, past unsatisfactories (on my part) include: commonsense LR, Bohr's LR, clear LR.

Thanks; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:44 am

You did not define what you mean by it (TLR).

Realism means particles have objective properties at all times, independent of measurement or measurability. Locality means all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

The two sentences above encapsulate the meaning of Local realism. Why do you need a different ('your') definition that needs it's own acronym (TLR). What is wrong with the one above?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:00 pm

minkwe wrote:You did not define what you mean by it (TLR).


Sorry for that: time-poor at the moment, I should have linked to viewtopic.php?f=6&t=310

There I used the phrase "clear local realism" (CLR). However, having gotten that soliloquy -- the as yet unamended essay linked there, and now here http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0511v1.pdf -- off my desk, I checked out other definitions (other brands) and saw a gap in the market (so to speak).

That is, in these days of "fake news" and "fake brands", I decided it was time to launch my own old brand for new market testing (so to speak). After all, the product has been around since 1989 when I attempted to gift the world-rights to David Mermin (ca 4 June 1989); then to John Bell ... ....

[That's why, in the other place -- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=310 -- I am especially keen to learn how it tests against Joy's work.]

NB: The "fake news" (that my ideas address) goes like this: "our world is nonlocal". The "fake brands" [mostly endorsed by so-called QM and NL superstars] are based on (what I call) "naive local realism". The generic brands seem to be the same!

Thus, continuing the marketing analogy, here's the NEW slogan (or whatever it's called): "If it's not TLR [true-local-realism] then it's not true local realism!" So I think it goes like this:

Brand: TLR.
Brand name: True-local-realism.
Catchphrase: "If it's not TLR [true-local-realism] then it's not true local realism!"
Brought to you by the holy trinity: Bohr, Einstein, Bell.

minkwe wrote:Realism means particles have objective properties at all times, independent of measurement or measurability. Locality means all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

The two sentences above encapsulate the meaning of Local realism. Why do you need a different ('your') definition that needs it's own acronym (TLR). What is wrong with the one above?


In a nutshell (for now) for me, it goes like this in mostly your terms:

Einstein locality: means all effects and interactions between particles (+++) propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light. We seem to agree.

Realism is a philosophical term wherein external reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed by someone. Such wording (correctly, imho) eliminates the further loaded terms associated with "measurement". We appear to disagree.

Thus, to make "realism" a technical term, I use the term "Bell beables" to introduce readers to the vast associated technical literature, including re QFT.

THEN -- unless I'm missing it -- we come to the missing-link in your "Local realism." And its a big one: PERTURBATION, Bohr's insight! Again a vast literature is called into play.

HTH us come to further (and other) clarifications; I can flush out more if you wish. Is this enough on TLR for now?

Please continue to be highly critical!

Thanks for raising my oversight; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:16 pm

Addendum, re the matter of PERTURBATION in TLR:

IMHO, "Bohr's insight" helps move naive-realism toward true-realism! Then "Einstein locality" eliminates any naive-realism associated with the fact that any influence with a speed that is superluminal but less than infinity is [strictly speaking, naively] naively-local.

In other words, some of humanities naivest/earliest beliefs were modified in the light of experimental evidence. A fact yet to be accepted by non-localists; the latter a fact equivalent to the modern denial of greenhouse-warming.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:19 pm

So what is the definition? You still did not provide it. :?: At least not in a clear way that can be discussed.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:37 pm

minkwe wrote:So what is the definition? You still did not provide it. :?:


Do you mean like this?

TLR (true-local-realism) is the union of Bohr's insight, Einstein locality and Bell beables.

Bohr's insight brings truth to the union by ...

Einstein locality is ...

Bell beables are existents (elements of physical reality) which ...
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:03 pm

minkwe wrote:So what is the definition? You still did not provide it. :?: At least not in a clear way that can be discussed.


Responding to your edit:

OK, you mean add words to the undergrad maths so we can discuss the words??

1. Or am I mistaken? Aren't the three phrases that are united under TLR to form the trinity already well-known? Note that I give many related online resources under References.*

2. I ask because TLR (even in its rudimentary form) can hardly be discussed without its undergrad-level math!

3. That's why I thought we could cut to the chase via the math? And certainly in the context of Joy Christian's work (because it is so widely accepted here -- i.e., on this site?

* In no way wishing to be rude, but to be concrete and clear my head about this issue: We can surely discuss Pythagoras' Theorem without requiring him to invoke Euclid and define a straight-line (sort of thing)?
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:10 pm

TLR (true-local-realism) is the union of Bohr's insight, Einstein locality and Bell beables.

That is not a definition.

Something like:

Realism means particles have objective properties at all times, independent of measurement or measurability. Locality means all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

Without clear words, the maths is useless.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:15 pm

I say "what is a triangle?". You say a triangle is the geometric object which Pythagoras worked with. I ask again what is a triangle. And you say "it is one of the objects studied by Euclid", etc etc.

I want you to simply tell me that "A triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices".
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:51 am

Typically a definition contains following elements:
- the new term to be defined
- a more general concept that the new term denotes a special case
- a feature that distinguishes those instances of the general concept that are covered by the new term from those that are not.

So far it is not even clear whether TLR is meant to be a name of a particular theory or a family of theories or a feature that each theory either has or has not; and that is the first thing a definition would tell.
Mikko
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:59 am

Mikko wrote:Typically a definition contains following elements:
- the new term to be defined
- a more general concept that the new term denotes a special case
- a feature that distinguishes those instances of the general concept that are covered by the new term from those that are not.

So far it is not even clear whether TLR is meant to be a name of a particular theory or a family of theories or a feature that each theory either has or has not; and that is the first thing a definition would tell.


Many thanks, Mikko and minkwe; your engagement is much appreciated! This is a quick draft. I trust it's enough to get us started on necessary clarifications -- which I will write-up -- so that we can move to the math and the notation:

TLR (true-local-realism) is an experimentally-validated quantum-compatible theory based on the combination of true-locality and true-realism. So let’s first distinguish true locality and true realism from naive locality and naive realism.

Under naive locality, some causal influences may propagate superluminally. Under Einstein locality (our true locality), a theoretically and experimentally validated restriction is imposed: i.e., no causal influence propagates superluminally; thus local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions.

Under naive realism, physical reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed by someone: i.e., regularities in observed phenomena are caused by some physical reality whose existence is independent of human observers. Under true realism, via Bohr’s insight, a theoretically and experimentally validated extension is EXPLICITLY allowed: some physical realities (with definite properties, by definition) may be transformed to new physical realities (with definite properties, by definition) under an interaction.

Now one might expect that our theoretically and experimentally validated amendments would be uncontroversial; especially as Bell (by his own admissions) was on the horns of a dilemma re AAD (action-at-a-distance) -- to the point that he abandoned locality! But:


Based on Clauser & Shimony (1978:1883) [with our additions] and some hopefully agreeable amendments: ‘[Naive] realism is a philosophical view, according to which external reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed by someone. So entrenched is this viewpoint in modern thinking that many scientists and philosophers have sought to devise conceptual foundations for QM that are clearly consistent with it. One possibility was to reinterpret QM in terms of a statistical account of an underlying hidden-variables theory in order to bring it within the general framed work of classical physics. However, Bell’s theorem shows that this cannot be done. The theorem proves that all [naively] realistic theories satisfying Einstein locality must fail. It can consequently be asserted with reasonable confidence that either the thesis of [naive] realism or that or Einstein locality must be abandoned.’

Based on Gröblacher et al. (2007) [with our additions] and some hopefully agreeable amendments: ‘Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of [naive] ‘realism’—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell’s theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of [naive] realism and Einstein locality is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering [naive] local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining [naive] realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of ‘spooky’ actions that defy Einstein locality. … Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local [naively] realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of Einstein locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of [naive] realism are abandoned.’


Given the dominant place of naive realism in the thinking of modern physicists (including in the definitions helpfully provided by minkwe), TLR sets things up this way: The unique feature of TLR is that the principles of Einstein locality and naive realism are maintained verbatim by adding a third principle; a move akin to allowing light to pass through crossed polarisers by inserting a non-crossed polariser between them. The third principle, consistent with Einstein locality and naive realism, is Bohr’s insight; thus: an external reality E may exist independent of observation and a new external reality F may exist (having come into being) after observation: via dE = F; where d denotes any disturbing/transforming interaction associated with the observation. As a result, the framework of classical physics is brought within the general framework of QM.

Thus, under naive realism -- and honouring Bell -- we work with Bell beables (existents, elements of physical reality). Under special relativity we invoke Einstein locality. To allow for disturbing/transforming interactions, we invoke Bohr's insight. The result is TLR (true-local realism).

PS: In this way Bell's theorem holds true (as a math theorem) -- but unphysical -- under the implicit restriction associated with his unextended naive realism.

With my thanks again; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:13 pm

Local Realism is the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability, and all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

I do not see anything in your descriptions and explanations above that add anything to the above. I wish you would just state in a concise statement of a few sentences what TLR means. Why is my definition of Local realism above not sufficient to describe what you are talking about?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:38 pm

Just to illustrate my frustration with your answers:

Gordon Watson wrote:TLR (true-local-realism) is an experimentally-validated quantum-compatible theory based on the combination of true-locality and true-realism. So let’s first distinguish true locality and true realism from naive locality and naive realism.

What has experimental validation got to do with the meaning of TLR? You appear to be answering questions that have not been asked at the most unfortunate moments, and distracting from the issue at focus, which is the meaning of TLR.

Under naive locality, some causal influences may propagate superluminally
.
This is news to me. I have never heard of a definition of locality that admits superluminal causation. Please back this up.

Under Einstein locality (our true locality), a theoretically and experimentally validated restriction is imposed: i.e., no causal influence propagates superluminally; thus local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions.

This statement is meaningless given the unsubstantiated claim about "naive locality". Besides, here again you are talking about "a theoretically and experimentally validated restriction" which is just unwarranted verbal gymnastics when your goal is to define things clearly! You earn a red-card for that.

Under naive realism, physical reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed by someone: i.e., regularities in observed phenomena are caused by some physical reality whose existence is independent of human observers.

The "i.e" is inconsistent with the statement it is elaborating. The fact that physical properties exist independent of observation does not mean the act of observation can not change properties. While it may be naive to say "all observation is passive". It definitely is not naive to say "physical reality is assumed to exists and have definite properties independent of observation". Therefore I take issue with your understanding of the distinction between naive realism and realism.

Under true realism, via Bohr’s insight, a theoretically and experimentally validated extension is EXPLICITLY allowed: some physical realities (with definite properties, by definition) may be transformed to new physical realities (with definite properties, by definition) under an interaction.

You have my permission to be named "Gordon". I EXPLICITLY allow it! In other words, what you now claim to be allowing, was already an integral part of the definition of "Local realism" which I provided. Another red-card for injecting unwaranted boasts instead of trying to be clear.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:41 pm

minkwe wrote:Local Realism is the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability, and all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

I do not see anything in your descriptions and explanations above that add anything to the above. I wish you would just state in a concise statement of a few sentences what TLR means. Why is my definition of Local realism above not sufficient to describe what you are talking about?

True local realism (TLR) is the union of true locality and true realism.

True locality is defined by Einstein locality: no causal influence propagates superluminally; thus local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions.

True realism is defined by the union of naive realism and Bohr's insight.

Under naive realism (typically associated with classical physics), physical reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed; regularities in observed phenomena are caused by some physical reality whose existence is independent of observation. The naivety in naive realism thus arises from the failure to specifically allow that definite properties may be disturbed via interactions. TLR remedies this defect by explicitly embracing Bohr's insight: some physical realities (with definite properties, by definition) may be transformed to new physical realities (with definite properties, by definition) under an interaction. [nb: observations typically require interactions ...]

PS: Naive realism is retained as a subset of true realism because it is such a widespread concept in the Bellian literature!
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:49 pm

Naive realism is the idea that the act of observation simply passively reveals what existed prior to observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

So what part of my definition of local realism do you think is naive? I'm trying to understand the novelty in your TLR and I'm not seeing it. I don't think it adds anything to the definition of Local Realism I already provided. It just muddies the waters.

It seems all you are saying is that "some interactions result in changes in properties" or "some interactions produce new properties which did not previously exist", which is already given not anything new that needs to be explicitly permitted.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:45 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:True realism is defined by the union of naive realism and Bohr's insight.

Under naive realism (typically associated with classical physics), ....

BTW, I disagree with your characterisation of "Bohr's insight". See http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:17 pm

minkwe wrote:Naive realism is the idea that the act of observation simply passively reveals what existed prior to observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

So what part of my definition of local realism do you think is naive? I'm trying to understand the novelty in your TLR and I'm not seeing it. I don't think it adds anything to the definition of Local Realism I already provided. It just muddies the waters.

It seems all you are saying is that "some interactions result in changes in properties" or "some interactions produce new properties which did not previously exist", which is already given not anything new that needs to be explicitly permitted.


minkwe wrote:Naive realism is the idea that the act of observation simply passively reveals what existed prior to observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

So what part of my definition of local realism do you think is naive? I'm trying to understand the novelty in your TLR and I'm not seeing it. I don't think it adds anything to the definition of Local Realism I already provided. It just muddies the waters.


Minkwe's Local Realism For Particles (MLRFP) is the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability, and all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

Please:

A. What is the significance/effect of the qualifying phrase “independent of observation/observability”?

B. Example: Is Minkwe's Realism For Particles (MRFP) the idea that particles have objective properties at all times?

C. Example: Is Minkwe's Realism For Particles (MRFP) the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability.; with the implication that particles have objective properties at other times dependent on observation/observability?

D: What happens if we replace “observation” by interaction?

Tks; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:23 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:True realism is defined by the union of naive realism and Bohr's insight.

Under naive realism (typically associated with classical physics), ....

BTW, I disagree with your characterisation of "Bohr's insight". See http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf


"Bohr's insight" is Bell's term; that why I use it. I'm familiar with Jaynes (and mostly a fan), but I have no recollection of him addressing "Bohr's insight".
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:48 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Minkwe's Local Realism For Particles (MLRFP) is the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability, and all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

There is no such thing as MLRFP. It is simply "Local Realism". This is the meaning of Local Realism as understood by all practicing physicists, no qualifier necessary. It is not not restricted to particles, although I use particles to illustrate it.

Gordon Watson wrote:Please:

A. What is the significance/effect of the qualifying phrase “independent of observation/observability”?

The significance is that (1) a reality exists independent of observation, ie, and (2) it admits the possibility that some of the existing reality is unobservable.

Gordon Watson wrote:B. Example: Is Minkwe's Realism For Particles (MRFP) the idea that particles have objective properties at all times?

Again it is not Minkwe's Realism. But Local Realism and that is precisely what I stated in the definition:

is the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability, and all effects and interactions propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light. And it is not limited to particles although I use particles as an example to illustrate. Substitute "physical system" if you will.

Local Realism is the idea that physical systems have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability, and all effects and interactions between particles propagate at slower than or equal to the speed of light.

Gordon Watson wrote:C. Example: Is Minkwe's Realism For Particles (MRFP) the idea that particles have objective properties at all times, independent of observation/observability.; with the implication that particles have objective properties at other times dependent on observation/observability?

No. It means the properties are objective, belong to the system and are not created by observation of the properties. And if they are objective and independent of observation or observability then they can't at the same time be dependent of observation/observability. I can see how one could be misled by changing the scope of "physical system" midway in any analysis. If a particle interacts with an observer in such a way that a new property is created, that new property, does not belong to the particle. It is an objective property of the "observer + particle" system. This new system can be observed by a third observer. Independent of observation in this case refers to this third observer, separate of the system. The new property, is objective and independent of a third observer who may or may not chose to observe it.

Gordon Watson wrote:D: What happens if we replace “observation” by interaction?

Nothing, so long as you do not change the the scope of "physical system". For example, 2 rocks flying through the air "observe" each other by colliding mid-air, producing a sound. Is the sound a property of rock A, or rock B? Is it a property that exists at all times independent of observation/observability? In this case you can change the "observe" between the rocks to "interaction", and the observation/observability in the definition refers to a third observer who may or may not be around to hear the sound produced. Local realism means that the sound produced by the "physical system" -- ie Rocks A, B and intervening air molecules, exists objectively independently of whether anyone heard the sound or not.

Call Rock A the system and Rock B the observer and you create a paradox. Local Realism, as I defined above is fully consistent with the idea that interactions can create new properties that did not exist prior to the interaction. Local Realism is also consistent with the idea that interactions could also result in changes in properties.

What is needed is consistency in definitions. If you are interested in a property that changes significantly during an interaction, then do not define your physical system to exclude one of the major contributors to the effects you are interested in.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:04 am

Thanks minkwe, very helpful. I trust the following ideas will be helpful too.

In my [new] terms, pseudo-realism is the idea (understood and accepted by many working physicists) that physical systems have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions. This idea (akin to naive realism; the idea that an act of observation passively reveals what existed prior to observation) leads to the following strange conclusions under EPRB where Alice (Bob) is the mechanic maintaining polarizer-analyzer a-A (b-B):

(i) If a particle interacts with a polarizer-analyzer b-B (an observer) in such a way that a new property is created (e.g., the now-intrinsic property of being polarised UP in a specific direction, before the particle is absorbed in analyzer B), then the new property did not belong to the particle. Rather, it was an objective property of the “observer + particle” system.

(ii) In the same way, since analyzer B also had a new intrinsic property (a red light was on): the red light was also a property of the “observer + particle” system.

(iii) We can remove analyzer B (in another run of the EPRB test) and know that a second particle (exiting polariser b) has the now-intrinsic property of being polarized UP. So this new property is an objective property of the “two particles + two polarizers + one analyzer” system.

(iv) Modifying (iii), we can remove polariser b in another run and know that a third particle has this extrinsic property: if it is tested by polarizer-analyzer bB, a red light will go on. This extrinsic property is a property of the particle.

Seeking to resolve such issues, TLR uses Bell’s convenient term “beable” (an existent, an element of physical reality). Thus, under TLR, true realism recognises that beables have both intrinsic and extrinsic properties. Thus an electron has intrinsic properties like charge e, spin s =1/2; extrinsic properties like position, momentum; depending on the state preparation, intrinsic or extrinsic properties like polarization.

To be clear about the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties: all measured properties are taken to be intrinsic in classical mechanics whereas (under TLR and EPRB) some properties are extrinsic.


NB: Since ‘subjective’ as the generally accepted antonym of ‘objective’ can be misleading here: we might best use the antonym “nonobjective” to discuss what I believe is missing from your definition of “local realism”. Extrinsic properties are nonobjective (becoming objective via interactions). They are nonetheless real properties; like the property that particle q(λ) will spin UP when tested by polarizer b. Perhaps clearer if we use ACTUAL and POTENTIAL.

PS: Thanks again; this needs more work but I'm beginning to see more clearly what you mean about working on the definitions. My excuse (until now) being that it's all done for me via my notation and math.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 96 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library