SciPhysicsForums.com

As I mentioned a few days ago, over the years I have viewed the debates in this forum about Bell and locality and Joy Christian's theory etc. with some bemusement. But I have stayed largely out of the discussion because I do not like to intervene unless I think I can contribute something new, and because there were too many "weeds" in the discussion which is almost always fatal to clear thinking. Now, my own results in section 20 of http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... mplete.pdf (still under review at a top journal) have forced me to think about these questions, and I believe I have thought about them to the degree that I may actually be able to contribute something. So let me try. And I will use Joy Christian's work as my starting point.

Let me try to put Joy's work as I perceive it into a nutshell in the broadest terms possible, without getting into the perspective-deadening weeds. Joy seems to me to be essentially saying that the "non-locality" which many people (now including me) believe is required to explain certain quantum phenomena can be understood strictly on a local basis if one makes clever use of higher dimensional geometric spaces and also makes clever utilization of parallel transport together with torsion. The rest is detail. Am I correct in this broad takeaway? Assuming I am, now let me say the following:

Joy faces a twofold challenge in getting his work accepted: First, he has Bell's theorem to contend with. If Joy is correct that Bell is erroneous, then the physics community needs to unlearn Bell, and unlearning is always harder than learning. That is because unlearning also means divesting, and once somebody -- including (and especially) communities of people -- become invested in an idea, it is very hard to get them to divest. This is not a scientific issue per se, it is a human behavior issue. Second, as they say in politics, you cannot run somebody against nobody. Joy has to demonstrate that if Bell is wrong, he also has something to replace Bell. This he seeks to do using tele-parallel gravitation, see http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/, which as I recall from my own work a few years ago, involves dealing with fermions in curved spacetime and comparing separated fermions via the vierbein substructure of the metric tensor and careful development of distant parallelism. Joy looks to also be mixing in some torsion. But even that is more weeds than we need to discuss this.

As to Joy's disproof of Bell, for the present discussion I will not take a position one way or the other. But I will note that very often disproving what someone says in a paper involves detecting some subtle flaw buried deep inside the paper. Christian, on the other hand, contends that the very first equation of Bell has a fatal flaw. So it seems to me that the contestants in this discussion should focus very heavily on the fact that Bell starts with the subset S^0 of a line where Joy says he needs to start with a three sphere S^3. To the extent that any of the contestants in these discussions does not start there, I take that as a signal that they are generating noise and distraction, and / or trying to keep people invested where they should divest, and not trying to illuminate the scientific problem. This is once again, more an observation about human behavior than about the science per se. That concludes my preliminary statements.

Now, let me assume for sake of discussion -- without taking a position as to whether Joy is right or wrong about Bell being in error -- that Joy is right that Bell is wrong. If that is the case, then we need to forget about Bell as quickly as possible, and focus on the second question as to what replaces Bell. Yes, as physicists, we want to know what is wrong. But even more so, we want to know what is right. So let's try to understand what would be the follow-on to Bell. I will start with discussing physics theories which use more than four spacetime dimensions, because this is the crux of how Joy seeks to go beyond the "negative" of "Bell is wrong" to the "positive" of a replacement theory.

All of us have our own approaches to physics, and none of us is free from certain biases. Given that, it becomes important to work as hard as we can at being self-aware of those biases, and intellectually honest with others about those biases. I start my thinking about any puzzle in physics from the recognition that we ourselves -- the observers of what we seek to describe in a measurable fashion -- live and carry out all of our observations of nature in a D=4 four-dimensional spacetime. Three space dimensions, one time dimension. Now, it may very well be that certain things we measure within spacetime, can be formally described in an elegant and unified fashion by reference to more than four spacetime dimensions, and by showing how what we observe and measure within R^4 is part and parcel of some larger-dimensioned D>4 space and time continuum. And, we may well be able to also show how those inherent attributes of the D>4 manifold "project" or "compact" or whatever other word you want to use, into what we measure and observe in R^4. Finally, it is not just enough to show how some natural phenomena we observe in D=4 can formally be specified in D>4 dimensions and then projected or compacted into what we observe in D=4. Physics is more than mathematics; it must correspond to reality. So we also have to be able to take the view that these extra dimensions over D=4 have some physical reality and are not only a mathematical formalism.

A very good example of this is Kaluza-Klein, which I wrote about in some detail a few years ago at http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ics-60.pdf. What garnered attention for Kaluza-Klein theories is the fact that Maxwell's equations and the Maxwell Energy Tensor -- both observed in the spacetime of R^4 -- are part and parcel of and emerge naturally from the five dimensional Kaluza Klein geometry. And what gives it further attractiveness is the ability to be able to create the matter that we observe in four dimensional spacetime from the 5 Kaluza-Klein dimensions without matter sources, see the 5D Space-Time-Matter Consortium at http://5dstm.org/. I am personally very much an adherent of this viewpoint, but I also recognize that many people do not adhere to this viewpoint because they want to "see" and "experience" the fifth dimension just like they do the three plus one dimension of space and time. And while I and other adherents of this view would maintain that matter itself is how we experience this fifth dimension, there are still many in our community who are not prepared to accept this viewpoint.

I say this, because even if Joy is correct that Bell is flawed, and even if Joy convinces the whole community of that, he will still have a "Kaluza-Klein" type problem. Joy may further be able to show that the non-local correlations which many believe are needed to properly understand quantum reality in four spacetime dimensions can be given a strictly local explanation in a higher dimensional space, which is highly plausible because lots of things can be done in higher dimensional spaces that cannot be done in lower-dimensional ones. But he will still have a Kaluza-Klein problem. Because as in Kaluza Klein, there will be some portion of the physics community who will say "show me those extra dimensions, directly." Again, I personally accept Kaluza-Klein because of how it embeds Maxwell and how matter in four dimensions can spring forth from a vacuum in five dimensions, and I fully view matter as the direct manifestation of that fifth dimension and I also tie this to the gamma-5 Dirac generator which I regard via chirality and axiality as a direct manifestation of this fifth dimension. But if I was someone who did not accept Klauza Klein for wanting to touch and feel the fifth dimension, then no matter how much Joy's formalism nails 4-D non-locality in terms of higher dimensional locality, I would make the same objection to Joy's theory but even more loudly, because it does not have the weight of Maxwell and matter from a vacuum and chirality which Kaluza-Klein does have.

So, it seems to me -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that the statement that non-locality in four spacetime dimensions can be explained by a local theory in eight dimensions (which is what I understand Joy uses in total) is perfectly analogous the the statement that matter in four dimensions can be explained by having no matter in five dimensions.

Now as I mentioned at the start and have detailed in some other recent posts, my own results in section 20 of http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... mplete.pdf have led me to gain a comfort with non-locality in four spacetime dimensions based on a Bohm-like guiding potential which causes field quanta to propagate according to least action principles but which also encodes non-local information about the slits which information is received via ordinary signal propagation consistent with the light speed limit of special relativity. This is because I have come to the view that this type of encoding of non-local information is the most elemental, rudimentary form of "knowledge" or "information" that exists in nature, and evidences that regarding physics as a discipline that deals strictly with inanimate local action and reaction becomes contradicted by the double slit experiment and requires us to recognize that physics itself exhibits these rudimentary characteristics of animately reacting to knowledge of a non-local circumstances which knowledge was acquired at ordinary (not superluminal) signalling speeds. And this is because we certainly know that the universe does contain natural entities which act based information about non-local circumstances: namely, human beings, and any other biological systems capable of acting based on either conscious or reflexive knowledge about something non-local. The only "leap" that we really have to make to take this view, is to recognize that even without some chemical elements such as carbon within which to embody these behaviors, nature as described by physics already exhibits the most rudimentary form of these behaviors in the disembodied quantum vacuum, with the slit experiments being the most elemental evidence of this. It is in the quantum slit experiments wherein light -- which is comprised of particles -- strikes detectors in wavelike patterns because of the least action pathways which are laid out in the vacuum in response to the particles traveling through the vacuum as well as the vacuum's non-local knowledge of the slits which knowledge is obtained by ordinary signalling, that we are witnessing consciousness in its most elemental natural form.

So now I ask myself whether what I am doing is compatible with what Joy is doing by trying to explain non-locality in spacetime using locality with parallel transport and torsion in higher dimensions, or is contradictory. I actually believe that these are fully compatible. Specifically, if in fact Joy is correct that 4-D non-locality with ordinary signalling can be obtained from higher-dimensional locality via parallel transport and torsion, and if I am correct that 4-D non-locality with ordinary signalling is nature's most rudimentary evidence and building block of reaction to knowledge of non-local situations a.k.a. elemental consciousness, then the combination of what Joy is suggesting and what I am suggesting leads to the view that elemental consciousness can be understood on a strictly local basis by resort to higher dimensionality.

Of course, any use of higher dimensionality introduces the "Kaluza-Klein" problem of those who will say "show me the higher dimensions", not just mathematically and formally, but physically in what I touch and see. And the degree of difficulty convincing people of eight actual physics dimensions based on Christian may well be an even heavier lift than convincing them of five actual physics dimensions based on Kaluza-Klein, which has been on the table for almost a century. Nonetheless, these are discussions worth having, and they lead in my view to a topic that I really never thought I would be entertaining as a physicist when I first started working on my Yang-Mills paper, namely, the physical foundations of the reactions to non-local data that we associate with the rudiments of consciousness and intelligence.

Hi Jay,

I think extra dimensions is probably an easier "sell" than trying to get people over Bell's theorem. Look how many physicists got sold on and bought into super string theory. And Joy talks alot about the four normed division algebras. Now, did humans create that or did Nature actually create these algebras and we just noticed / discovered them? I believe Nature did and their creation is actually backward from how we discovered them. It goes something like this; in the "beginning" there were no math rules for Nature, then came sedenions, then octonions, then quaternions, complex number and finally the real numbers with all the basic math rules that there can be. Well... this will most likely need some more explanation as we might go along here but it is tied to point-like entities that I believe are all the same physically and make everything.

Hi Jay,

Nice discussion---very scholarly and civilized, which is quite refreshing from my perspective.

There is much I agree with in how you have summarized my position. You seem to have understood my position better than most. I would, however, distinguish between the purely logical question of "Is Nature fundamentally local or non-local?" and the all important physical question of "How does Nature "conspire" to be local in the face of the apparent non-locality of quantum theory." I would also disentangle the thorny issues of "extra" dimensions, Kaluza-Klein, and teleparallel gravity from the logical questions about locality. Don't get me wrong. Deep down I do believe that our sum total of physical experience can be better understood within an eight dimensional manifold, related to the division algebras mentioned by Fred (t + S^7). I should add that I am not particularly committed to eight dimensions, but let me not digress.

The point I am trying to make is that---as a researcher in foundations of quantum mechanics---I would like to disentangle much of physics you have discussed from the purely logical question of locality versus non-locality. In particular, as a first step I would like to sidestep the whole issue of extra dimensions.

This makes more sense from the historical perspective of how the whole Bell debate came about. It started with Einstein and the EPR paper, and we must not loose sight of that paper.

So how can we disentangle logic from physics? Well, by simply noting that the emblematic quantum correlation, the so-called EPR-Bohm correlation or the singlet correlation, can be explained locally without needing to use extra dimensions or teleparallel gravity. It can be explained by noting that the physical space we experience immediately respects the geometry and topology of S^3, not R^3, where S^3 is dimensionally no different from R^3. It is simply a three dimensional space, but with spinorial or fermionic topology. Just as the surface of a ball, S^2, is as two-dimensional as the plane R^2, S^3 is as three-dimensional as R^3. This, then, immediately sidesteps all the thorny issues of extra dimensions you mention in your discussion.

This is not a futile or idle exercise. As I mention, the question that interests a foundations person like me is a logical one. Following Bell it is usually claimed that no quantum correlation can be explained purely locally. This claim can be refuted by simply demonstrating that in fact the emblematic quantum correlation, i.e., the EPR-Bohm or singlet correlation, can be explained purely locally (http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415), and without needing extra dimensions. This is the reason why I and others in this forum have been spending so much time and energy on this one issue.

The next steps are more ambitious, and I do have more concrete and more general results about ALL quantum correlations. But let us take one step at a time.

So how can we disentangle logic from physics? Well, by simply noting that the emblematic quantum correlation, the so-called EPR-Bohm correlation or the singlet correlation, can be explained locally without needing to use extra dimensions or teleparallel gravity. It can be explained by noting that the physical space we experience immediately respects the geometry and topology of S^3, not R^3, where S^3 is dimensionally no different from R^3. It is simply a three dimensional space, but with spinorial or fermionic topology. Just as the surface of a ball, S^2, is as two-dimensional as the plane R^2, S^3 is as three-dimensional as R^3. This, then, immediately sidesteps all the thorny issues of extra dimensions you mention in your discussion. . . . Following Bell it is usually claimed that no quantum correlation can be explained purely locally. This claim can be refuted by simply demonstrating that in fact the emblematic quantum correlation, i.e., the EPR-Bohm or singlet correlation, can be explained purely locally (http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415), and without needing extra dimensions.

So are you saying, Joy, that by putting our three space dimensions on a sphere not unlike what Freidmann did in his cosmological model, and by recognizing the fashion in which a three-dimensional Pythagorean space can be spinorially deconstructed (about which I will have much more to say in the next few days), we are able to locally explain apparent non-locality?

Jay

Hello Jay,
Without taking distracting from your main point, I would kindly like to point out that you are missing an important component of the Bell discussion. Let me frame the issues the way I see it and you can do with it what you like but I won't bring this up again in this thread unless you are interested.

1) Firstly we have a series of inequalities derived by Bell and his followers using assumptions which they claim apply to all LHV
2) Secondly, we have strong correlations, predicted by QM, observed in experiments which Bell and his followers claim demonstrate violation of the inequalities
3) Thirdly, we have Bell's theorem which on the basis of the previous two claims, claims LHV theories are untenable.

To be a believer that "LHV theories are untenable", you must believe all three. You can't simply brush off parts of the discussion as "distraction". To have a complete discussion about Bell, you need all three. However, Bell can be disproved by disproving any one of the three.

Specifically, you can disprove Bell by using producing a manifestly local model that generates the strong correlations as Joy has done. But note that if a LHV can reproduce the strong correlations (2), it immediately points to serious problems with (1) ie, the inequalities. We dissected and detailed all the problems with the inequalities in multiple threads on this forum, so it shouldn't be difficult to be convinced that the inequalities are wrong. (Some people have a hard time understanding why anyone might say 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong, but in physics as opposed to mathematics, when we are discussing specific physical scenarios where each term has specific meanings attached, 1 + 1 = 2 is not a universal truth.)

Once either (1) or (2) have been shown to be false, Bell's theorem simply crumbles. We believe we have shown that clearly here. Joy's reproduction of the strong correlations, plus the errors of the inequalities. The problem is that many people involved in this discussion on the other side, simply take things for granted and have not clearly laid out the logical chain of claims they followed to arrive at their conclusion. Without the chain of claims clearly identified, they do not see when one of those chains has been broken. Instead, you have arguments like: "So you have strong correlations? But that is impossible because you have to contend with the inequality". Or "So you think the inequality is incorrect? Prove it by using all it's assumptions and only it's assumptions to violate it."

Maybe as a start to clear thinking, I would suggest you clearly lay out, even if only for your own evaluation, why you believe non-locality is required to explain quantum correlations:

Yablon wrote:the "non-locality" which many people (now including me) believe is required to explain certain quantum phenomena

Why do you believe non-locality is required?

BTW, I do not share your view that Bell needs to be replaced. It is QM that needs replacing with a "more complete theory" (ala EPR).

Hi Minkwe:

Maybe as a start to clear thinking, I would suggest you clearly lay out, even if only for your own evaluation, why you believe non-locality is required to explain quantum correlations:

Yablon wrote:the "non-locality" which many people (now including me) believe is required to explain certain quantum phenomena

Why do you believe non-locality is required?

Because I cannot explain how the guiding potential in my Figure 30 in section 20 of at http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... mplete.pdf "knows" about the slit configuration unless the vacuum has some form of non-local information, albeit derived via ordinary special relativistic signalling. Which anticipates my next question: if somebody can use what Joy is doing (or any other insights) to help me figure out how to explain the way in which the guiding potential "knows" about the slits without resort to non-locality, I would drop my present view that non-locality is required in a heartbeat.

Jay

There is an old adage, "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics". Not saying Bell supporters are liars, just that they use the same mechanism referred to in the adage. The statistical analysis must account for all dependencies for the result to be definitive. The rub is that they rarely are.

On the two slit experiment with electrons, have you thought that maybe, just maybe each electron actually goes through both slits and the result is actually self-interference? Can you think of an experiment that rules this out?

On minkwe's "Specifically, you can disprove Bell by using producing a manifestly local model that generates the strong correlations as Joy has done.", could someone explain how what was demonstrated was manifestly local when one could hold Alice's orientation fixed and vary Bob's and see a difference in Alice's observations with Bob's orientation change? It is all there in Joy's own programs. While you are there, might I suggest you seriously think about the manifestly discontinuous function sign(x) and its impact on the computer simulation of Joy's continuous measure space? But then it might be more realistic than +1/-1 being created by what would be an all seeing all knowing God-like sensor in the presentation within chapter one of Joy's book.

I always get a chuckle out of the characterization "extra" dimensions, as though any more than 4 are somehow unnecessary. Once was a time when 3 to 4 was considered by some as preposterous. History repeats itself. Jay, our senses have nothing to do with the problem. They were developed by the process of evolution which rewarded those with the ability to best survive to the event of procreation. If an early man sat and pondered the need for more than what he can see in his immediate surroundings, he probably got eaten.

Fred, the sedenions are not a division algebra because you can only define 8 of 15 octonion subalgebras with consistent quaternion subalgebras, of which there are 35. Octonion Algebra is the mother of mathematical physics. Not just IMO it has the correct number of dimensions, but more importantly the algebra and specifically the possible variations within the rule of algebraic element multiplication. I called my 2012 FQXi essay The Algebra of Everything for good reason.

Yablon wrote:So are you saying, Joy, that by putting our three space dimensions on a sphere not unlike what Freidmann did in his cosmological model, and by recognizing the fashion in which a three-dimensional Pythagorean space can be spinorially deconstructed (about which I will have much more to say in the next few days), we are able to locally explain apparent non-locality?

Exactly, Jay. Please see my latest paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (I know you are not too keen on simulations, but this one supports the claim in my paper).

Rick Lockyer wrote:On minkwe's "Specifically, you can disprove Bell by using producing a manifestly local model that generates the strong correlations as Joy has done.", could someone explain how what was demonstrated was manifestly local when one could hold Alice's orientation fixed and vary Bob's and see a difference in Alice's observations with Bob's orientation change?

The answer to your question has already been provided here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=69#p3225. It requires some understanding of what exactly quantum mechanics predicts. A local hidden variable model is not obliged to predict anything beyond what quantum mechanics predicts.

Yablon wrote:

Why do you believe non-locality is required?

Because I cannot explain how the guiding potential in my Figure 30 in section 20 of at http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... mplete.pdf "knows" about the slit configuration unless the vacuum has some form of non-local information, albeit derived via ordinary special relativistic signalling.

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

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

Just trying to get some clear thinking. (Wrt to double-slit, maybe a different approach not using "guiding potential" is waranted? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51. What we need is mechanics).

Yablon wrote: Which anticipates my next question: if somebody can use what Joy is doing (or any other insights) to help me figure out how to explain the way in which the guiding potential "knows" about the slits without resort to non-locality, I would drop my present view that non-locality is required in a heartbeat.

I haven't studied your theory in detail but my initial evaluation is that you will run into problems because I don't think you clearly separate ontology from epistemology. You will have to rework your theory so that it clearly distinguishes between things that exist in the real world (ontology), and tools that we use in our minds/on paper to manipulate information about the ontology (epistemology). "Guiding potential" is one of those things in my opinion that are merely devices for manipulating information (epistemology). Talking about what it can know or not know will just lead to confusion IMHO.

To give you an example from the path integral formalism:

Example of confusion:
- The particle takes all possible paths between X and Y simultaneously, each with a different amplitude.

Clear thinking:
- We can calculate the correct probability for the particle to go from X to Y by considering all the possible paths, and their probability amplitudes.

In the first case, we unwisely impart ontology to our mathematical calculations. In the second case we simply recognize our calculations for what they are. Manipulating information about the particle in order to obtain more information about the particles, without any suggestion that nature is subject to our calculations.

Joy,

Your referenced post is non-responsive unless you claim quantum mechanics predicts Alice's observations are predicated on Bob's settings. Not thinking you will get a lot of support for that. Relative vs. fixed is neither here nor there in my request. Your referenced post even mentions holding one fixed as being all that is required. That is all I am asking also. Were you meaning to say (but failed in referenced post) that Alice and Bob are part of a single system anyway and not independent? Would that not make the locality issue a red herring?

Joy Christian wrote:

Yablon wrote:So are you saying, Joy, that by putting our three space dimensions on a sphere not unlike what Freidmann did in his cosmological model, and by recognizing the fashion in which a three-dimensional Pythagorean space can be spinorially deconstructed (about which I will have much more to say in the next few days), we are able to locally explain apparent non-locality?

Exactly, Jay. Please see my latest paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (I know you are not too keen on simulations, but this one supports the claim in my paper).

OK, Joy, then let me zero in on the spinor deconstruction of the Phythgorean space. I just posted a brief paper to http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -roots.pdf. I extracted this from a longer paper I started about a year ago and then put on the shelf to pursue my Yang-Mills paper.

Please tell me how this interconnects, as I am certain it must, with your use of the spinors which are an intrinsic feature of Pythagorean spaces.

Thanks,

Jay

Rick Lockyer wrote:On the two slit experiment with electrons, have you thought that maybe, just maybe each electron actually goes through both slits and the result is actually self-interference? Can you think of an experiment that rules this out?

Very unlikely. The electron and atomic scattering cross-sections have bee experimentally determined and are well bellow the size/separation of your slits (~ 10^-15 cm^2).

Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy,

Your referenced post is non-responsive unless you claim quantum mechanics predicts Alice's observations are predicated on Bob's settings. Not thinking you will get a lot of support for that. Relative vs. fixed is neither here nor there in my request. Your referenced post even mentions holding one fixed as being all that is required. That is all I am asking also. Were you meaning to say (but failed in referenced post) that Alice and Bob are part of a single system anyway and not independent? Would that not make the locality issue a red herring?

Rick,

As I have urged you before, I urge you again that you first try to understand what is meant by local and what is not within Bell's local-realistic framework before raising your questions. I have explained the precise definition of locality (as conceived by Einstein and quantified by Bell) many times before, in great detail, so I am not going to do that again. You will have to do some background reading yourself. I recommend chapter 16 of Bell's book.

minkwe wrote:

Rick Lockyer wrote:On the two slit experiment with electrons, have you thought that maybe, just maybe each electron actually goes through both slits and the result is actually self-interference? Can you think of an experiment that rules this out?

Very unlikely. The electron and atomic scattering cross-sections have bee experimentally determined and are well bellow the size/separation of your slits (~ 10^-15 cm^2).

The cross section measurement does not imply there is nothing outside its dimension. Not saying it is responsible, but what do you think about the scope of the electric field for an isolated electron?

Joy Christian wrote:

Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy,

Your referenced post is non-responsive unless you claim quantum mechanics predicts Alice's observations are predicated on Bob's settings. Not thinking you will get a lot of support for that. Relative vs. fixed is neither here nor there in my request. Your referenced post even mentions holding one fixed as being all that is required. That is all I am asking also. Were you meaning to say (but failed in referenced post) that Alice and Bob are part of a single system anyway and not independent? Would that not make the locality issue a red herring?

Rick,

As I have urged you before, I urge you again that you first try to understand what is meant by local and what is not within Bell's local-realistic framework before raising your questions. I have explained the precise definition of locality (as conceived by Einstein and quantified by Bell) many times before, in great detail, so I am not going to do that again. You will have to do some background reading yourself. I recommend chapter 16 of Bell's book.

You are ducking. Does Bell address unit spheres like you? Clearly no so do not fall back on Bell. We are talking about your positions. This is a simple question that should have a simple answer worthy of your time to explain. Are Alice's observations to be independent of Bob's settings? Yes or no. If yes, why are they not in your simulation?

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

Yes, I believe 1). As to 2), No, all I am saying is "I cannot explain." If someone can help me explain, or explain for me, that would be excellent.

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

IMHO the guiding potential is real. Path integrals produce an action / amplitude W(J) to which we ascribe real physicality. Then, when we consider the time-independent case via W=ExT W(J) this output from the path integral becomes a potential E. That is what I have done in my paper, then I apply that to the slit experiments after also applying it to confinement, and showing its correspondence with the classical Coulomb potential which certainly is taken to be real and not just some information manipulation device.

But I am perfectly prepared as to non-locality to declare my belief "premature" if someone can help me see why it is such. And in fact, that is what I am hoping can happen.

Yablon wrote: Which anticipates my next question: if somebody can use what Joy is doing (or any other insights) to help me figure out how to explain the way in which the guiding potential "knows" about the slits without resort to non-locality, I would drop my present view that non-locality is required in a heartbeat.

I haven't studied your theory in detail but my initial evaluation is that you will run into problems because I don't think you clearly separate ontology from epistemology. You will have to rework your theory so that it clearly distinguishes between things that exist in the real world (ontology), and tools that we use in our minds/on paper to manipulate information about the ontology (epistemology). "Guiding potential" is one of those things in my opinion that are merely devices for manipulating information (epistemology). Talking about what it can know or not know will just lead to confusion IMHO.

I disagree. I believe the guiding potential is real. Not only that, as I start to develop in section 20 of http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... mplete.pdf with specific voltage drops, I believe that it can be directly detected by measuring the photovoltaic activity at a slit experiment detector as the individual photons strike the detector. I elaborated this in one of my posts here, a few days ago. And this is likely to be the precise topic of my next paper.

Bottom line: I propose to establish that the guiding potential is very real, by having it be directly observed to be what I have predicted it to be, on the detectors used in slit experiments.

To give you an example from the path integral formalism:

Example of confusion:
- The particle takes all possible paths between X and Y simultaneously, each with a different amplitude.

I agree. That is a confusing and wrong way to talk about this.

Clear thinking:
- We can calculate the correct probability for the particle to go from X to Y by considering all the possible paths, and their probability amplitudes.

Maybe. I would say it this way:

Each particle does take a definitive path from its emission by a known source at X to its observed detection at Y on a detector. But we do not know what that path is without interrupting that path by making the particle strike a detector and thus "sinking" that particle somewhere between X and Y. The path integral tells us all possible paths, as well as the probability for each. But -- and this is central to my theory -- this probability amplitude is tied on a one-to-one basis with a definitive guiding potential which guiding potential a) is caused by the probability amplitude of the source, b) causes the probability amplitude of the sink, c) is a function of, not independent of, the particles which are propagating as well as the slit configuration, and d) provides the underlying least-action basis for explaining why individual particles strike detectors with the observed wavelike probabilities that they do.

This then leads to my view that another example of confusion is: "light is both a wave and a particle -- duality." And clear thinking: "light is a particle which strikes detectors in wavelike patterns due to least action propagation through a guiding potential in the quantum vacuum." The one question I then see in play, is whether the configuration of this very real and directly-measurable guiding potential can be explained based on strict locality, or requires some non-local explanation. I very much hope the answer is the former, but so far I have not been able to find that answer and so am provisionally entertaining the latter.

Jay

Rick Lockyer wrote:You are ducking.

I am ducking nothing. I am simply trying to point out to you---as politely as I possibly can---that you do not know what you are talking about.

Rick Lockyer wrote:Are Alice's observations to be independent of Bob's settings? Yes or no. If yes, why are they not in your simulation?

Alice's observations are independent of Bob's settings in my simulation, as anyone knowledgeable can see for themselves: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415.

Rick Lockyer wrote:Are Alice's observations to be independent of Bob's settings? Yes or no. If yes, why are they not in your simulation?

Alice's observations are independent of Bob's settings in my simulation, as anyone knowledgeable can see for themselves: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415.

A 35+ year career in software development makes me abundantly knowledgeable to analyse your referenced program. Quantum mechanics as you have said, demonstrates the cosine function is relative to the difference in Alice's and Bob's orientation angles. What this means is it really does not matter what the two absolute angles are. You could move both keeping the same relative difference and expect the results not to change. This is not the case in your simulation. You take a single slice of the x-y plot you have put out in other programs and state (incorrectly for your simulation) that it does not matter if you fix beta at an angle of zero, any will do. Take any two separate angles with a fixed separation and compare the +1/-1 observations. They will be different. This is not predicted by quantum mechanics, which you state is the fundamental requirement. Anybody with a modicum of programming skills should be able to demonstrate this.

Rick Lockyer wrote:Quantum mechanics as you have said, demonstrates the cosine function is relative to the difference in Alice's and Bob's orientation angles. What this means is it really does not matter what the two absolute angles are. You could move both keeping the same relative difference and expect the results not to change.

What good would that do? If say you kept the relative difference at 60 degrees, you will only get results for just 60 degrees in the final plot. That will not tell us anything. And... QM results are always about averages. Will those average results be nearly the same? I would think so and the simulations show that they are.

Rick Lockyer wrote:A 35+ year career in software development makes me abundantly knowledgeable to analyse your referenced program. Quantum mechanics as you have said, demonstrates the cosine function is relative to the difference in Alice's and Bob's orientation angles. What this means is it really does not matter what the two absolute angles are. You could move both keeping the same relative difference and expect the results not to change. This is not the case in your simulation. You take a single slice of the x-y plot you have put out in other programs and state (incorrectly for your simulation) that it does not matter if you fix beta at an angle of zero, any will do. Take any two separate angles with a fixed separation and compare the +1/-1 observations. They will be different. This is not predicted by quantum mechanics, which you state is the fundamental requirement. Anybody with a modicum of programming skills should be able to demonstrate this.

A 35+ year career in the foundations of quantum mechanics makes me abundantly knowledgeable to know that you do not know what you are talking about.

Alice's observations are independent of Bob's settings in my simulation, as anyone knowledgeable in the subject can see for themselves: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415.