SciPhysicsForums.com

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

So NOW they tell me (grin).
I had actually heard of this experiment before, but the way it was presented before did not lead me to understand it. (My bad, okay.)
The article linked above makes it so clear that even I could follow it, and even be mostly persuaded.

So it seems that space itself acts as a sort of perfect fluid, vibrating, forming pilot waves that explain most of the behaviors of photons as computed by QM.

If this holds up to further, rigorous scrutiny, then it seems that there will no longer be any need to explain quantum phenomena in terms of pure randomness, and therefore, there will be no mysterious disconnect between causative factors and spontaneous random quantum events. They will be causatively connected.

What really helped me understand this better was a phenomenon which henceforth I shall now call quantum coffee.
When sliding a styrofoam cup of coffee along a table top, I observed that the friction set up a vibration which in turn formed small spheres of coffee floating above the rest of the coffee.

Had I followed up on this in 1974 when I first noticed it, I could have put QM back on the right track then and there.
Forty years of progress forfeit!

My apologies to physicists everywhere

RArvay wrote:http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
...So it seems that space itself acts as a sort of perfect fluid, vibrating, forming pilot waves that explain most of the behaviors of photons as computed by QM.

If this holds up to further, rigorous scrutiny, then it seems that there will no longer be any need to explain quantum phenomena in terms of pure randomness, and therefore, there will be no mysterious disconnect between causative factors and spontaneous random quantum events. They will be causatively connected...

The Yves Couder et al experiments are for sure fascinating and suggestive, but there is not a 1:1 correspondence with all aspects of true QM. For instance, in a Bell-type Alice-Bob entangled photon experiment involving PDC (parametric down conversion), two brand-new new photons are created and instantly fly apart. There is simply no way such a pair can generate their own 'pilot wave interference pattern' along the oil-drop model lines (which requires considerable time to set up within a reflective boundary environment). Yet they exhibit a statistical linkage normally interpreted as defying locality and/or realism. I'm not getting involved here with the correctness of the usual interpretation, just pointing out oil-drop analogue simply cannot explain the Bell-type experiment statistical results.

Q-reeus wrote:The Yves Couder et al experiments are for sure fascinating and suggestive, but there is not a 1:1 correspondence with all aspects of true QM. For instance, in a Bell-type Alice-Bob entangled photon experiment involving PDC (parametric down conversion), two brand-new new photons are created and instantly fly apart. There is simply no way such a pair can generate their own 'pilot wave interference pattern' along the oil-drop model lines (which requires considerable time to set up within a reflective boundary environment). Yet they exhibit a statistical linkage normally interpreted as defying locality and/or realism. I'm not getting involved here with the correctness of the usual interpretation, just pointing out oil-drop analogue simply cannot explain the Bell-type experiment statistical results.

You understandably do not want to get involved in the correctness of the usual interpretation of the Aspect-type experiments, but I cannot let your comment go without a response: I have systematically reproduced all statistical results of Aspect-type experiments purely local-realistically in this paper (which is published as chapter 8 in the second edition of my book). Further details about my interpretation of such experiments can be found here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

As a sociological aside I should add that instead of appreciating my results some in the Bell community have systematically and relentlessly mistreated me since 2007.

Joy Christian wrote:You understandably do not want to get involved in the correctness of the usual interpretation of the Aspect-type experiments, but I cannot let your comment go without a response: I have systematically reproduced all statistical results of Aspect-type experiments purely local-realistically in this paper (which is published as chapter 8 in the second edition of my book). Further details about my interpretation of such experiments can be found here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

Just knew I should have been more careful to add an 'in' prefix to 'correctness', or added a following '(or incorrectness)' - but too late, I have paid the price!
Joy, i remain a fence-sitter and it largely has to do with your claim that some form of torsion is intimately involved. Just cannot imagine how. As I wrote in another thread, torsion in the space-time sense of the word is traditionally associated with gravitation. Always afaik in such cases there is inhomogeneity involved - finite torsion is equivalent to finite spacetime curvature which in GR is owing to some appreciable non-uniform SET (stress-energy-momentum) distribution. Yet we all know Bell-type Alice-Bob experiments are rightly assumed to hold in arbitrarily flat spacetimes - notionally completely devoid of appreciable SET. Whence the torsion then?

Rightly or wrongly, and I believe the essence of the criticisms of Richard Gill and Florin Moldoveanu are such, you have been accused of having (inadvertently) constructed in essence a very sophisticated version of the old 'think of a number' trick: http://www.instructables.com/id/Mathemagic/

Now noting you claim that quantum reality obeys both locality and determinism, seems to me that you would suddenly win over legions of former sceptics and fence-sitters if you could furnish an all-points-along-the-way visual animation of a Bell-type Alice/Bob experiment. Showing just precisely how torsion enters the picture so as to give the famous sinusoidally modulated correlations of standard QM, and not the linear one normally assumed to be the limit of any realistic and local hidden variables theory.

As a sociological aside I should add that instead of appreciating my results some in the Bell community have systematically and relentlessly mistreated me since 2007.

My own efforts to challenge mainstream physics are via much simpler arguments but nonetheless imho involve sound insights. Here's one example of atavistic bastardry experienced: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=498821
My claim was meant to be evocative and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but never got far enough for even that to come out. (I later much refined the scenario, but nevertheless met with even worse, savage responses elsewhere)
That same thread-locker zealot for orthodoxy later enthusiastically participated in a thread specifically claiming 'perpetual motion' - and wasn't happy to then have his hypocrisy pointed out. And numerous other examples involving other topics presented could be furnished. So you are not alone in feeling victimized.

Q-reeus wrote:Joy, i remain a fence-sitter and it largely has to do with your claim that some form of torsion is intimately involved. Just cannot imagine how.

No need to imagine anything. Just follow my argument delineated here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/. Do consult the references as well.

Q-reeus wrote:Yet we all know Bell-type Alice-Bob experiments are rightly assumed to hold in arbitrarily flat spacetimes... Whence the torsion then?

The parallelized 3-sphere is flat with vanishing Riemann curvature and non-zero torsion tensor. "Flatness" is a property of the connection, not the space itself.

Q-reeus wrote:Rightly or wrongly, and I believe the essence of the criticisms of ******* **** and ****** ********** are such, you have been accused of having (inadvertently) constructed in essence a very sophisticated version of the old 'think of a number' trick: http://www.instructables.com/id/Mathemagic/

I have repeatedly addressed the nonsensical arguments by several incompetent, uninformed, and dogmatic critics of my work. All of the so-called arguments against my counterexample to Bell's theorem are based on an elementary logical fallacy---the Straw-man Fallacy. What the unscrupulous critics do is replace my model X with its grossly distorted misrepresentation Y, and then pretend---by refuting their own distortion Y (by resorting to deliberate dishonesty, wilful deception, or out of sheer incompetence---that they have undermined my actual model X. Such a dishonest strategy is an insult to the scientific process (for more details see this paper).

Q-reeus wrote:Now noting you claim that quantum reality obeys both locality and determinism, seems to me that you would suddenly win over legions of former sceptics and fence-sitters if you could furnish an all-points-along-the-way visual animation of a Bell-type Alice/Bob experiment. Showing just precisely how torsion enters the picture so as to give the famous sinusoidally modulated correlations of standard QM, and not the linear one normally assumed to be the limit of any realistic and local hidden variables theory.

But I have done precisely that many times over! Just have a look at all the visual simulations provided on my website: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

Much of your work is highly technical and specialized maths, that you admit even someone with the credentials of Lucien Hardy has struggled for years to understand properly.
OK lets drop any reference to spacetime curvature. Point is the Aspect type experimental environment is assumed to be one of (normal 4D) spacetime homogeneity and isotropy - featureless, devoid of orientation or location or termporal variation. Which corresponds with e.g. classical optical experiments involving say laser beams/mirrors/polarizers/filters show no odd effects that a spacetime inhomogeneity/isotropy might reveal. Given those restraints and observations, what is the source and nature of any non-zero torsion? Is it a stochastic field or smooth and continuous or what? Where abouts, and how, physically, does it operate on say an entangled photon pair? All the way along the assumed deterministic flight paths, or just at the point(s) of measurement? If these I think reasonable questions can't be reasonably explained in words and/or pictorial illustrations but 'just comes out of the maths' then I fear suspicions will remain.

Q-reeus wrote:Given those restraints and observations, what is the source and nature of any non-zero torsion?

What is the source and nature of gravity? Newton and Einstein gave us mathematical formulas to predict the effects of gravity but neither theory explains the exact mechanism of gravity. Joy's framework predicts that the topology and geometry of space is S^3 (parallelized 3-sphere) not R^3. That means that space has unique spinor properties. The exact mechanism for that still to be discovered if there is some explaining mechanism. Or is it just the way Nature is geometrically?

FrediFizzx wrote:What is the source and nature of gravity? Newton and Einstein gave us mathematical formulas to predict the effects of gravity but neither theory explains the exact mechanism of gravity. Joy's framework predicts that the topology and geometry of space is S^3 (parallelized 3-sphere) not R^3. That means that space has unique spinor properties. The exact mechanism for that still to be discovered if there is some explaining mechanism. Or is it just the way Nature is geometrically?

That is right. Just as Einstein's theory of gravity attempts to explain gravity as a geometrical effect of spacetime, what I have shown is that quantum correlations can be explained as spinorial effects of space (in general in terms of octonionic spinors). This should not be too surprising, because S^3 (plus time) is after all one of the basic solutions of Einstein's field equations (cf. this paper). Moreover, the spinorial properties of the physical space are well explored by people like Weyl and Penrose.

Joy Christian wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:What is the source and nature of gravity? Newton and Einstein gave us mathematical formulas to predict the effects of gravity but neither theory explains the exact mechanism of gravity. Joy's framework predicts that the topology and geometry of space is S^3 (parallelized 3-sphere) not R^3. That means that space has unique spinor properties. The exact mechanism for that still to be discovered if there is some explaining mechanism. Or is it just the way Nature is geometrically?

That is right. Just as Einstein's theory of gravity attempts to explain gravity as a geometrical effect of spacetime, what I have shown is that quantum correlations can be explained as spinorial effects of space (in general in terms of octonionic spinors). This should not be too surprising, because S^3 (plus time) is after all one of the basic solutions of Einstein's field equations (cf. this paper). Moreover, the spinorial properties of the physical space are well explored by people like Weyl and Penrose.

Firstly I should confess to being remiss in not earlier having included the absense of chirality (think e.g. sugar solution), in addition to homogeneity and isotropy, as inate properties of our usual, fapp flat 4D spacetime setting. And anyway even supposing a finite vacuum chirality, it would hardly be able to account for quantum correlations. Being capable of reading between the lines, I conclude that the bottom-line answer to my list of questions is "it just comes out of the maths". In which case: "Council for the prosecution has no further questions, your Honour.".

Q-reeus wrote:... it would hardly be able to account for quantum correlations.

You are in denial: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4259.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf, and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

Joy Christian wrote:

Q-reeus wrote:... it would hardly be able to account for quantum correlations.

You are in denial: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4259.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf, and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

In denial of what exactly? What you excised from that quote was "And anyway even supposing a finite vacuum chirality,", which the finite-chirality material media example was given as (certain types of) sugar solution. Context was the properties of spacetime (the media), not per se the particles propagating within. If an otherwise homogeneous, isotropic, and reciprocal media has a uniform chirality, the physical consequence is afaik purely and simply 'optical' activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_rotation (which might in other situations be extended to include half-integer Fermionic particles such as electrons)
In the case of plane-polarized light it means no more or less than a strictly linear relation between angular rotation of polarization axis and traversed distance. Equivalently, given spin-1 photon helicity, a reduction/increase in effective c in the media, dependent on sign of helicity. Now it's a fact there is zero optical activity in a simple vacuum - c is a photon helicity-independent invariant. Even if there was 'vacuum optical activity', it would necessarily entail periodic distance variation that just does not seem possible to fit with Aspect-type experiments. Am I missing something here?

Q-reeus wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

Q-reeus wrote:... it would hardly be able to account for quantum correlations.

You are in denial: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4259.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf, and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

In denial of what exactly?

You are in denial of actual facts:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4259.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf, and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

All you are missing are the actual facts discussed in these papers.

Joy Christian wrote:You are in denial of actual facts:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0748.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4259.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf, and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.
All you are missing are the actual facts discussed in these papers.

Wishing you the very best Joy as to outcome of proposed acid-test 'exploding balls' physical experiment. Will be one of the first to loudly congratulate if successful. Any firming of likely time-frame?

Q-reeus wrote:Wishing you the very best Joy as to outcome of proposed acid-test 'exploding balls' physical experiment. Will be one of the first to loudly congratulate if successful. Any firming of likely time-frame?

Thanks!

Things are moving in the right direction for a realization of my proposed experiment. The time-frame for it mostly depends on the will of the community.