TLR: true local realism

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

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:16 am

Gordon Watson wrote: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):

So what has your pseudo-realism got to do with the definition of realism I mentioned above. I never said observation must be passive. That is naive realism.

(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.

Why do you choose to call that a new property instead of a pre-existing property that changed "value" after an interaction? Local Realism as I defined it allows for interactions to create new properties, but also for existing properties to change after interaction. Ownership of the property does not change simply because it's value changed. The momentum of a photon that changes after interacting with a mirror belongs to the photon, not the mirror + photon system. The definition I provided allows for such situations perfectly without any absurdity.

(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.

The state of the light of the analyzer is not a new property. It simply changes "value" from OFF to ON after interaction. No absurdity here either.

(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.

I hope you now see where you are erring. My initial claim was that assigning properties from a larger system only to part of it leads to absurdities. Now you've gone to the other extreme classifying changes to existing properties as "new", thus erroneously increasing the scope of the system.

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.

Hopefully you now see why those are non-issues so long as you consistently recognize the "physical system" that is said to "own" the "property", and distinguish between changes in "value" of an "existing property" and creation of "new properties". The definition of local realism I provided is perfectly consistent with intrinsic and extrinsic properties as is. NOTE: The definition I provided is also perfectly consistent with a situation in which the value of an existing property always changes at every attempt to observe it (in other words, if the only method available to observe a property involves an interaction that effectively changes the value of the property in the process). Note that in this case, the fact that the property had a definite "value" independent of observation, remains, even if we may never directly observe such a value. Naive realism does not allow this, hence my claim that you should not call what I defined "naive realism" or "pseudo-realism" as you did.

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.

I think this is most probably wrong (cf thermodynamics), but irrelevant -- better not go down that rabbit trail ATM.

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.

Like I said, I'd better not go down the trail of "intrinsic" vs "extrinsic" because I don't agree with your use of those terms. I think the discussion can proceed without bringing them in. To me there is no difference between Non-objective and subjective. I like ACTUAL vs POTENTIAL but I don't think that needs to be involved in the definition of what Local realism means, since reality and thus "Local Realism" deals ONLY with actualities.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:22 pm

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.


Mikko,
Here’s a better interim answer (interim because I’m time-poor at the moment and things are changing via the discussions here):

The theory is called wholistic mechanics, and was so named in June 1989.
Symbol W@M or w@m (depending on context); pronounced “wham” (for convenience in discussions), written as WM or wm in text.

Its core principle is true local realism (TLR). True locality is Einstein locality. True realism embraces actual and potential properties and values; it focusses on interactions and transformations; it is being defined via interactions (and transformations) here!

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

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:34 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:... ...
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.


Classical mechanics (originally) had no speed limits under Newton. I have the impression that the some nonlocalists are still testing for and believing in "instantaneous" causation (names withheld due possible faulty recall). Bell said "you cannot get away with locality" when digging a hole for his AAD dilemma. I wrap these matters under the heading "naive locality".
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:12 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote: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):

So what has your pseudo-realism got to do with the definition of realism I mentioned above. I never said observation must be passive. That is naive realism.


"Realism" is a philosophy with many brands. What name do you give to your brand of realism? Imho the identifier should not include the word "local" since that is a different subject, requiring its own definition. Further, since [unqualified] "realism" pervades the Bellian world, I think my continued use of pseudo-realism might be necessary/essential.

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:(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.

Why do you choose to call that a new property instead of a pre-existing property that changed "value" after an interaction? Local Realism as I defined it allows for interactions to create new properties, but also for existing properties to change after interaction. Ownership of the property does not change simply because it's value changed. The momentum of a photon that changes after interacting with a mirror belongs to the photon, not the mirror + photon system. The definition I provided allows for such situations perfectly without any absurdity.


In Bell's terms, as I recall, he writes (with his emphasis) --"each particle, considered separately, IS unpolarised here." So, when an unpolarised particle becomes polarised, that for me is a new property. NB: Since my ideas confront Bellians head-on, I try to use Bellian terms when/wherever they are suitable.

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:(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.

The state of the light of the analyzer is not a new property. It simply changes "value" from OFF to ON after interaction. No absurdity here either.

I'm not so sure; the analyser has two values red/green (or 3 if we allow red/ready/green). OFF might indicate a fault; an undesirable property.
minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:(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.

I hope you now see where you are erring. My initial claim was that assigning properties from a larger system only to part of it leads to absurdities. Now you've gone to the other extreme classifying changes to existing properties as "new", thus erroneously increasing the scope of the system.

Again, I'm not so sure. imho. This is not a new property but the revelation of a preexisting extrinsic (relational) property. Since I too dislike "extrinsic" let me propose that we henceforth us the terms 'absolute' and 'relational' properties. What say you?
minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote: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.

Hopefully you now see why those are non-issues so long as you consistently recognize the "physical system" that is said to "own" the "property", and distinguish between changes in "value" of an "existing property" and creation of "new properties". The definition of local realism I provided is perfectly consistent with intrinsic and extrinsic properties as is. NOTE: The definition I provided is also perfectly consistent with a situation in which the value of an existing property always changes at every attempt to observe it (in other words, if the only method available to observe a property involves an interaction that effectively changes the value of the property in the process). Note that in this case, the fact that the property had a definite "value" independent of observation, remains, even if we may never directly observe such a value. Naive realism does not allow this, hence my claim that you should not call what I defined "naive realism" or "pseudo-realism" as you did.

I call it pseudo-realism now; not naive realism. As above, let me have your name for it
minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote: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.

I think this is most probably wrong (cf thermodynamics), but irrelevant -- better not go down that rabbit trail ATM.

Agreed.
minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote: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.

Like I said, I'd better not go down the trail of "intrinsic" vs "extrinsic" because I don't agree with your use of those terms. I think the discussion can proceed without bringing them in. To me there is no difference between Non-objective and subjective. I like ACTUAL vs POTENTIAL but I don't think that needs to be involved in the definition of what Local realism means, since reality and thus "Local Realism" deals ONLY with actualities.

Thus do I believe we arrive at my key point: it is surely somewhat-naive, in reality, to ignore ANY properties. Is that gun loaded (sort of thing)? All of which needs more thought from me.

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

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:04 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:"Realism" is a philosophy with many brands. What name do you give to your brand of realism? Imho the identifier should not include the word "local" since that is a different subject, requiring its own definition.

I call it "Realism". In any case, I defined "Local Realism", with the goal of getting you to show why your approach is so different as to deserve it's own name. There is no need to separate Local from Realism when defining "Local realism". Our interest here was to distinguish "True Local Realism (TLR)" from "Local Realism" which I defined. I don't yet see a difference. If you can demonstrate a deficiency in my definition that makes it less than True, then I will admit a qualifier of your chosing, perhaps even "pseudo". Everyone already knows the deficiency in "Naive realism" that warrants the "naive" qualifier.

Further, since [unqualified] "realism" pervades the Bellian world, I think my continued use of pseudo-realism might be necessary/essential.

The moment you start renaming/relabling concepts that are widely misunderstood, you've gone astray. Instead, present a clear definition of the proper understanding of the concept and then proceed to show the error of the multitude.

In Bell's terms, as I recall, he writes (with his emphasis) --"each particle, considered separately, IS unpolarised here." So, when an unpolarised particle becomes polarised, that for me is a new property. NB: Since my ideas confront Bellians head-on, I try to use Bellian terms when/wherever they are suitable.

What then is mean by "Polarisation" in the context of a particle? You only need to scratch the surface a little to see that we now have another misunderstood concept, or at the very least, inconsistently applied definitions -- and Bell himself is not immune to this problem.

I'm not so sure; the analyser has two values red/green (or 3 if we allow red/ready/green). OFF might indicate a fault; an undesirable property.

It matters not an iota whether your analyser is of the "on"/"off" variety or of the "red/ready/green" variety or any other variety you choose. The point being properly understanding the distinction between a property and it's value, and not erroneously thinking that a change in value is equivalent to a creation of a property.

Again, I'm not so sure. imho. This is not a new property but the revelation of a preexisting extrinsic (relational) property. Since I too dislike "extrinsic" let me propose that we henceforth us the terms 'absolute' and 'relational' properties. What say you?

I dislike 'absolute'/'relational' even more. Better to stay clear of all of them. They are completely unnecessary. The key point is that every physical property ('intrinsic', 'extrinsic', 'absolute' or 'relational' etc ...) can be assigned (or said to belong) to a physical system. The key question regarding any such property then is "to what system does it belong?". So long as this question is answered fully, consistently and correctly, there is no absurdity. So the definition of "Local Realism" I gave applies just as well. Can you think of a counterexample?

I call it pseudo-realism now; not naive realism. As above, let me have your name for it

The name already given is "Local Realism". In what material way is this different from what you call "True Local Realism". That is the remaining question, not what other name you/I would like to call it. Perhaps you don't need a new definition or a new name for your understanding. Perhaps my definition already covers what you mean by TLR, in which case, you can simplify you paper and make life less difficult for your readers by not dwelling on new acronyms/names.

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.

I'm happy my harsh criticism is penetrating. :D

it is surely somewhat-naive, in reality, to ignore ANY properties. Is that gun loaded (sort of thing)?

I don't understand what you mean by that.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:13 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Here’s a better interim answer (interim because I’m time-poor at the moment and things are changing via the discussions here):

The theory is called wholistic mechanics, and was so named in June 1989.
Symbol W@M or w@m (depending on context); pronounced “wham” (for convenience in discussions), written as WM or wm in text.

Its core principle is true local realism (TLR). True locality is Einstein locality. True realism embraces actual and potential properties and values; it focusses on interactions and transformations; it is being defined via interactions (and transformations) here!

Cheers; Gordon

I know this was meant for Mikko, but I couldn't resist giving you a red-card for creating yet another acronym/label. What's with the eagerness to label/name/brand things? We could easily take another detour with W@m as we just did with TLR. My advice is that you stick with describing/defining the core principles and continue from that. Leave the branding/labeling to others. What you've mentioned above is not a definition and nobody, after reading the above, will have the slightest clue what w@m means.

As concerns your use of "actual and potential", do you know of any definition of realism that does not already incorporate the concepts of actual and potential properties?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:55 am

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:"Realism" is a philosophy with many brands. What name do you give to your brand of realism? Imho the identifier should not include the word "local" since that is a different subject, requiring its own definition.

I call it "Realism". In any case, I defined "Local Realism", with the goal of getting you to show why your approach is so different as to deserve it's own name. There is no need to separate Local from Realism when defining "Local realism". Our interest here was to distinguish "True Local Realism (TLR)" from "Local Realism" which I defined. I don't yet see a difference. If you can demonstrate a deficiency in my definition that makes it less than True, then I will admit a qualifier of your chosing, perhaps even "pseudo". Everyone already knows the deficiency in "Naive realism" that warrants the "naive" qualifier.

Further, since [unqualified] "realism" pervades the Bellian world, I think my continued use of pseudo-realism might be necessary/essential.

The moment you start renaming/relabling concepts that are widely misunderstood, you've gone astray. Instead, present a clear definition of the proper understanding of the concept and then proceed to show the error of the multitude.

In Bell's terms, as I recall, he writes (with his emphasis) --"each particle, considered separately, IS unpolarised here." So, when an unpolarised particle becomes polarised, that for me is a new property. NB: Since my ideas confront Bellians head-on, I try to use Bellian terms when/wherever they are suitable.

What then is mean by "Polarisation" in the context of a particle? You only need to scratch the surface a little to see that we now have another misunderstood concept, or at the very least, inconsistently applied definitions -- and Bell himself is not immune to this problem.

I'm not so sure; the analyser has two values red/green (or 3 if we allow red/ready/green). OFF might indicate a fault; an undesirable property.

It matters not an iota whether your analyser is of the "on"/"off" variety or of the "red/ready/green" variety or any other variety you choose. The point being properly understanding the distinction between a property and it's value, and not erroneously thinking that a change in value is equivalent to a creation of a property.

Again, I'm not so sure. imho. This is not a new property but the revelation of a preexisting extrinsic (relational) property. Since I too dislike "extrinsic" let me propose that we henceforth us the terms 'absolute' and 'relational' properties. What say you?

I dislike 'absolute'/'relational' even more. Better to stay clear of all of them. They are completely unnecessary. The key point is that every physical property ('intrinsic', 'extrinsic', 'absolute' or 'relational' etc ...) can be assigned (or said to belong) to a physical system. The key question regarding any such property then is "to what system does it belong?". So long as this question is answered fully, consistently and correctly, there is no absurdity. So the definition of "Local Realism" I gave applies just as well. Can you think of a counterexample?

I call it pseudo-realism now; not naive realism. As above, let me have your name for it

The name already given is "Local Realism". In what material way is this different from what you call "True Local Realism". That is the remaining question, not what other name you/I would like to call it. Perhaps you don't need a new definition or a new name for your understanding. Perhaps my definition already covers what you mean by TLR, in which case, you can simplify you paper and make life less difficult for your readers by not dwelling on new acronyms/names.

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.

I'm happy my harsh criticism is penetrating. :D

it is surely somewhat-naive, in reality, to ignore ANY properties. Is that gun loaded (sort of thing)?

I don't understand what you mean by that.


Naive realism is the idea that a non-disturbing act of observation passively reveals what existed prior to observation; e.g., we look at the moon.

In my terms, pseudo-realism is the idea that physical systems have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions; i.e., interactions reveal preexisting properties. This idea, known simply as realism, is understood and accepted by many working physicists. Typical definitions include:

(i) Realism is the assumption that a particle must objectively have a preexisting value (i.e. a real value) for any possible measurement, i.e. a value existing before that measurement is made (after Apple Dictionary, v. 2.2.1.194; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality).

(ii) The Delft experiment first "entangled" two electrons trapped inside two different diamond crystals, and then measured the electrons' orientations. Realism attempts to explain the same phenomena with less mystery, saying that the particles must be pointing somewhere, we just don't know their directions until we measure them (after https://phys.org/news/2015-10-historic- ... e.html#jCp ).

(iii) Realism is the idea that properties of objects have a definite value even if we don’t measure them (after http://live.iop-pp01.agh.sleek.net/2017 ... l-realism/ ).

(Iv) Bell endorses d’Espagnat’s well-known inferences to preexisting properties.

To the contrary, in our terms: True realism allows that interaction-based observations my perturb the observed system, to thereby produce new properties and values; e.g., under EPRB, TLR allows that the observed spin components are extrinsic properties of each particle, which do not have values until the appropriate interaction. To claim otherwise is to revert to the classical notion of intrinsic properties, (after Kochen 2015).

Since, under TLR, we are interested in properties that change significantly during interactions, we define our physical systems in the context of the relevant interaction and the consequent transformation. Thus if D(a) is the testing device, q(λ) the physical system (a Bell beable), q(a) the transformed system (a new beable? *), we write: D(a)q(λ) —> q(a); etc.

* Or the old beable with new properties, minkwe?

PS: It follows that those who disagree with (i)-(iv) — as we do — must define their own idea of realism (as we do). And with this in mind:

Based on Clauser & Shimony (1978:1883) [with our additions] and some hopefully agreeable amendments: ‘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 — see (i)-(iv) above — that many scientists and philosophers have sought to devise conceptual foundations for QM that are clearly consistent with it.’

TLR takes the opposite approach: we reject such “realism” — with interesting consequences.

PS: Here’s why I am personally against the [raw] word realism: (i) it is almost never clear what a user means by the term, i.e., which of several possible (and very different) senses of realism is being used; (ii) none of these uses resolve Bell’s AAD dilemma. For me, any variant of realism that does not resolve Bell’s dilemma is pseudo-realism.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:00 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:... ...
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.


Classical mechanics (originally) had no speed limits under Newton. I have the impression that the some nonlocalists are still testing for and believing in "instantaneous" causation (names withheld due possible faulty recall). Bell said "you cannot get away with locality" when digging a hole for his AAD dilemma. I wrap these matters under the heading "naive locality".


Newton recognized fully well that his gravitational theory violated the principle of locality. That is something completely different that saying "classical Locality had no speed limit". Had Newton insisted that his theory was local, you would be forgiven for that nomenclature but he didn't.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:12 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Naive realism is the idea that a non-disturbing act of observation passively reveals what existed prior to observation; e.g., we look at the moon.

This is wrong. Naive realism is that idea that ALL observation passively reveals what existed prior to observation. You start with an error, everything else becomes based on a faulty premise. Naive realism cannot be a subset of Local Realism as I defined it. It contradicts it. A single counter example showing that SOME observations do not obey that assumption is enough to contradict it.

In my terms, pseudo-realism is the idea that physical systems have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions; i.e., interactions reveal preexisting properties.This idea, known simply as realism, is understood and accepted by many working physicists. Typical definitions include:

(i) Realism is the assumption that a particle must objectively have a preexisting value (i.e. a real value) for any possible measurement, i.e. a value existing before that measurement is made (after Apple Dictionary, v. 2.2.1.194; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality).

(ii) The Delft experiment first "entangled" two electrons trapped inside two different diamond crystals, and then measured the electrons' orientations. Realism attempts to explain the same phenomena with less mystery, saying that the particles must be pointing somewhere, we just don't know their directions until we measure them (after https://phys.org/news/2015-10-historic- ... e.html#jCp ).

(iii) Realism is the idea that properties of objects have a definite value even if we don’t measure them (after http://live.iop-pp01.agh.sleek.net/2017 ... l-realism/ ).

(Iv) Bell endorses d’Espagnat’s well-known inferences to preexisting properties.

There are so many problems with the above I don't even know where to start. I would just say the underlined statements are FALSE! Just because physical systems have objective properties does not mean interactions simply reveal the pre-existing properties. Practicing physicists understand and accept this!
(i) You confuse the meaning of "real" (aka "actual") with "possible". The outcome of a measurement does not necessarily exist prior to the measurement being performed. Light hits a photographic plate and produces a black spot. The outcome "black spot" does not "exist" (is not "real") until that interaction (measurement) happens. The 'black spot" at (x,y) position does not exist, before the measurement is made. Practicing physicists have known and accepted this since at least 1850.
(ii) It is true that realism implies that we just don't know the pre-existing directions. But it is wrong to imply via "until we measure them" that we can measure them (see my definition again wrt "observability"). It may not be possible to measure them, as the very act of measurement may involve an interaction that changes their direction such that we may never directly measure whatever direction they had prior to the measurement.

To the contrary, in our terms: True realism allows that interaction-based observations my perturb the observed system, to thereby produce new properties and values; e.g.

I defined "Local Realism" and I asked you to tell me in what way your "TLR" was different from it. But you ignored my question, created a new "pseudo-realism" (a straw-man) completely different from what I defined, and then presented your "TLR", which is indistinguishable from my definition of Local Realism. Do you see anything wrong with that approach? Do you want me to take you seriously?

Local realism as I defined it, is the standard meaning as understood by most practicing physicists not your "pseudo-realism". I still do not see how your TLR is different from what I defined as "Local Realism". Furthermore, I'm puzzled why this distinction from "local realism" (which IMHO is a non-distinction) is so important to you?

I will repeat my advice:

minkwe wrote:The moment you start renaming/relabling concepts that are widely misunderstood, you've gone astray. Instead, present a clear definition of the proper understanding of the concept and then proceed to show the error of the multitude.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:34 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
In Bell's terms, as I recall, he writes (with his emphasis) --"each particle, considered separately, IS unpolarised here." So, when an unpolarised particle becomes polarised, that for me is a new property. NB: Since my ideas confront Bellians head-on, I try to use Bellian terms when/wherever they are suitable.

What then is mean by "Polarisation" in the context of a particle? You only need to scratch the surface a little to see that we now have another misunderstood concept, or at the very least, inconsistently applied definitions -- and Bell himself is not immune to this problem.


Welcoming your technical comments on the above, I've started a new narrowly-focussed thread:
Bell (2014:82): each particle, considered separately, IS unpolarised.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:05 pm

minkwe wrote:The moment you start renaming/relabling concepts that are widely misunderstood, you've gone astray. Instead, present a clear definition of the proper understanding of the concept and then proceed to show the error of the multitude.

Based on a mathematically-defined concept of true local realism due to Bell, a new theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma, demystifies QM, etc.

Under WM, true local realism is the union of true locality and true realism. True locality (taken to be Einstein locality) is the widely-accepted view that no causal influence propagates superluminally. True realism is the widely-accepted idea that beables (Bell’s convenient term for physical systems, elements of physical reality, things that exist, existents) have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions: with no requirement that interactions simply reveal preexisting properties.

Henceforth our use of the raw terms locality and realism will denote the true terms defined above, with this warning: in the Bellian literature, it is often difficult to understand what a user means by the term realism; e.g., see Norsen (2006). Under WM (seeking to focus true realism on the truly real), any variant of realism that cannot resolve Bell’s dilemma in favour of locality (no action-at-a-distance) is pseudo-realism and — favouring clarity — may be tagged accordingly.

Norsen (2006) -- Against 'realism' -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0607057.pdf

To, perhaps, be continued. :D
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:21 am

EDITED to fix that phrase I had to think about; the new phrase is underlined

Based on a mathematically-defined concept of true local realism due to Bell, a new theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma, demystifies QM, etc.

Under WM, true local realism is the union of true locality and true realism. True locality (taken to be Einstein locality) is the widely-accepted view that no causal influence propagates superluminally. True realism is the widely-accepted idea that beables (Bell’s convenient term for physical systems, elements of physical reality, things that exist, existents) have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions: and interactions do not in general simply reveal objectively preexisting properties.

Henceforth our use of the raw terms locality and realism will denote the true terms defined above, with this warning: in the Bellian literature, it is often difficult to understand what a user means by the term realism; e.g., see Norsen (2006). Under WM (seeking to focus true realism on the truly real), any variant of realism that cannot resolve Bell’s dilemma in favour of locality (no action-at-a-distance) is pseudo-realism and — favouring clarity — may be tagged accordingly.

Norsen (2006) -- Against 'realism' -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0607057.pdf
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:59 pm

Further, still seeking the best/clearest completion: True realism is the widely-accepted idea that beables (Bell’s convenient term for physical systems, elements of physical reality, things that exist, existents) have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions: and interactions do not in general simply reveal objectively preexisting properties. [As above.] ...

However, a class of interactions -- called tests, not measurements -- may confirm objective properties or [under WM] make hidden properties concrete; i.e., objective (and hence specific) or simply specific (and thus now known; no longer hidden) potentials (in the form of equivalence relations).

PS: Which (at the moment) is easier to understand when you follow the diagrams and the math: so this still needs work, possible with examples!?

Gotta run; more later.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:24 am

Here's my latest offering, me now satisfied that the qualifying clause -- interactions do not necessarily reveal objectively preexisting properties -- fixes my concerns. Critical comments and suggested improvements/corrections are welcome.

True local realism resolves Bell's dilemma, demystifies QM, etc.

Based on Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism, a new theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma, demystifies QM, etc.

Under WM, true local realism is the union of true locality and true realism. True locality (taken to be Einstein locality) is the widely-accepted view that no causal influence propagates superluminally. True realism is the idea that beables have objective properties at all times, independent of interactions: and interactions do not necessarily reveal objectively preexisting properties. (Beables is Bell’s convenient term for existents -- things that exist, physical systems, elements of physical reality, switch settings, instrument displays -- whose existence does not depend upon observation: instead, 'observables' are made out of beables.)

NB: in the Bellian literature, it is often difficult to understand what a user means by the term realism; e.g., see Norsen (2006). Thus, since Bellian works are central to our studies, we will henceforth use the terms true locality and true realism to denote the true terms defined above. Under WM (seeking to focus true realism on the truly real), any variant of realism that cannot resolve Bell’s dilemma in favour of true locality (no action-at-a-distance) is pseudo-realism and — favouring clarity — may be tagged accordingly.

Norsen (2006) -- Against 'realism' -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0607057.pdf
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:29 pm

True local realism resolves Bell's dilemma, demystifies QM, etc.

Proposed improvements in the form of a proposed Abstract (as an interim fix to "Clear local realism advances Bell's ideas, demystifies QM, etc."

Based on Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism, our theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true locality (no action-at-a-distance) and demystifies QM (no classical/quantum divide). Under WM, true local realism is the union of true locality and true realism. True locality (taken to be Einstein locality) is the widely-accepted view that no causal influence propagates superluminally. True realism is the idea that beables have objective properties at all times (independent of interactions), and interactions do not necessarily reveal objectively preexisting properties. Note: (i) beables is Bell’s convenient term for existents—things that exist, physical systems, elements of physical reality, switch settings, instrument displays—whose existence does not depend upon observation: instead, ‘observables' are made out of beables; (ii) it is often difficult to understand what a user means by the term realism; see Norsen (2006) for examples, though we reject his analysis and conclusions.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby minkwe » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:58 pm

Unfortunately I don't think we are making progress. You are still pushing the unnecessary "True Realism" angle.I give up.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:39 pm

minkwe wrote:Unfortunately I don't think we are making progress. You are still pushing the unnecessary "True Realism" angle.I give up.


Ok, MANY THANKS, and no problem: for from my point of view, you've been a big help. That's much appreciated, so my thanks again for that!

PS, to be clear, also from my point of view: Given so much "FAKE REALISM" in the marketplace -- someone needs to step up and show that true realism is still the best product: resolving Bell's dilemma, ++, imho. (For I can't, at the moment, recall a generic brand that does that.)
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:56 am

It doesn't make much sense to introduce new terms and definitions and then to not use them for anything. As long as the new concepts and definitions are not used there is no demonstration that they could be useful. A simple example to get started could be the toy theory by Bell in section III "Illustration" of http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf , with equation (9) as its main postulate; and the variants of this theory discussed in the same section. Which of the definitions do these theories satisfy, or how close they come?
Mikko
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:59 pm

Mikko wrote:It doesn't make much sense to introduce new terms and definitions and then to not use them for anything. As long as the new concepts and definitions are not used there is no demonstration that they could be useful. A simple example to get started could be the toy theory by Bell in section III "Illustration" of http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf , with equation (9) as its main postulate; and the variants of this theory discussed in the same section. Which of the definitions do these theories satisfy, or how close they come?


Do you mean something like this, in my terms? (9) satisfies true local realism. (10) is a valid conclusion from the interactions/projections in (9). An experiment based on (9) will confirm (10). QED. (EPRB-style experiments are not represented by (9), so (10) does not hold in such.)
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:14 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
Mikko wrote:It doesn't make much sense to introduce new terms and definitions and then to not use them for anything. As long as the new concepts and definitions are not used there is no demonstration that they could be useful. A simple example to get started could be the toy theory by Bell in section III "Illustration" of http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf , with equation (9) as its main postulate; and the variants of this theory discussed in the same section. Which of the definitions do these theories satisfy, or how close they come?


Do you mean something like this, in my terms? (9) satisfies true local realism.

Basically yes, though if there is something else in the theory that does not satisfy it, that would be significant, too. But in this theory there is not much more. How about the variant presented in the last paragraph of the section?
However, I didn't limit my question to "true local realism". You have also used the name "pseudo-realism". Does the equation (9) and the theory using it satisfy that, too?
(10) is a valid conclusion from the interactions/projections in (9).

Equation (9) does not represent interactions. They may be called projections in some mathematical sense that hardly is useful for physics.
An experiment based on (9) will confirm (10). QED.

What do you mean by "based"? Equation (9) is an assumption about the relation of the hidden variable and the result of a measurement. How can an experiment be based on a particular assumption about that?
Whether an experiment confirms (10) or not is not part of a theory. The theory predicts that no experiment, whether "based on (9)" or not, will refute (9) but an experiment might refute it anyway. But the usual meaning of "realism" and its variants is that it is an intrinsic property of theory that does not depend on any experiments or results of experiments.
(EPRB-style experiments are not represented by (9), so (10) does not hold in such.)

This doesn't really make sense but somehow seems to contradict what you already said. In what sense EPRB-style experiments are not represented by (9) are not represented? Are some other experiments represented? Equation of (9) is a statement about measurement of spin, so it applies equally to all experiments where a spin is measured. Equation (10) is a consequence of equation (9), so it is true at least whenever (9) is.
Mikko
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 80 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library