Joy Christian wrote:***
I have some sympathy for Richard Gill's struggle with the arXiv moderation, even though I do not think his current paper criticizing my work is a serious paper with sound arguments. In the past, I too had difficulties with the arXiv moderation because of their blanket policy of rejecting any paper that criticizes Bell's theorem. For example, the preprint of my RSOS paper was not accepted by the arXiv moderators. They had asked me to first publish the paper in a respectable journal before submitting to the arXiv. Fortunately, my paper was accepted by RSOS and then the moderators had no choice but to accept the preprint version of it. Their policies, however, have become more coherent lately after they conducted a major survey of their readers and systematized their moderation procedures.
***
Joy Christian wrote:***
No, I will not give my opinion on your questions regarding this. I will not help you out. Publish your paper in a peer-reviewed journal. I will then respond accordingly.
***
gill1109 wrote:Here's an exciting new development, very relevant to Jay Yablon's project. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.042115 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12229
My emphasis added to the abstract below
A representation of the wave function on the three-dimensional space
Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica
(Submitted on 28 Jun 2019 (v1), last revised 21 Oct 2019 (this version, v2))
One of the major concerns of Schrödinger, Lorentz, Einstein, and many others about the wave function is that it is defined on the 3N-dimensional configuration space, rather than on the 3-dimensional physical space. This gives the impression that quantum mechanics cannot have a three-dimensional space or spacetime ontology, even in the absence of quantum measurements. In particular, this seems to affect interpretations which take the wave function as a physical entity, in particular the many worlds and the spontaneous collapse interpretations, and some versions of the pilot wave theory.
Here, a representation of the many-particle states is given, as multi-layered fields defined on the 3-dimensional physical space. This representation is equivalent to the usual representation on the configuration space, but it makes it explicit that it is possible to interpret the wave functions as defined on the physical space. As long as only unitary evolution is involved, the interactions are local [Emphasis RDG]. I intended this representation to capture and formalize the non-explicit and informal intuition of many working quantum physicists, who, by considering the wave function sometimes to be defined on the configuration space, and sometimes on the physical space, may seem to researchers in the foundations of quantum theory as adopting an inconsistent view about its ontology. This representation does not aim to solve the measurement problem, and it allows for Schrödinger cats just like the usual one. But it may help various interpretations to solve these problems, through inclusion of the wave function as (part of) their primitive ontology.
In an appendix, it is shown how the multi-layered field representation can be extended to quantum field theory.
Yablon wrote:Well, I am in fact using U(1) unitary measurement functions which evolve as a result of the act of measuring the angular momentum packets from each singlet split to the observed readings while maintaining the singlet correlation with locality. The math in the paper Richard cites seems more complicated and I have yet to take a detailed look at it, but it is possible this approach is not inconsistent with my own. Jay
PS: I am starting to write up my approach into a paper which in contrast to the 50+ page work I have been preparing since February, could end up well under 10 pages with only the absolute essentials. I will spend a few hours working on this during my flight home later today.
FrediFizzx wrote:
Bell's junk physics theory is not a mathematical theorem!
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
Bell's junk physics theory is not a mathematical theorem!
Bell's theorem is a dream which evaporates in the cold light of day!
It is a poetry that falls flat on the deaf ears of cold reality!
(cf. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf)
***
minkwe wrote:
Bell's interview in Omni magazine from 1988 is interesting.
http://www.housevampyr.com/training/lib ... 988_05.pdf
See page 38.
Joy Christian wrote:minkwe wrote:
Bell's interview in Omni magazine from 1988 is interesting.
http://www.housevampyr.com/training/lib ... 988_05.pdf
See page 38.
I have printed it out and reading it.
FrediFizzx wrote:
Nice! Perhaps you should have studied mainline particle physics as you might have obtained a job working with Bell in the theory division at CERN?
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests