The mother of all quantum challenges

[gris]

Apparently not then. For what do you mean by: quote: "Win the computer challenge. Then you have explained how entanglement works.

Trouble is, it's logically impossible to do."?

You've solved it by in effect stating that it is impossible to explain how entanglement works yet maintain that you can understand how quantum correlation works? Please elaborate then. For that I indeed don't get.

[menoma]

It's Richard's idiomatic-cum-ironic deployment of English. Try something along these lines: "Win the computer challenge. Then you have explained how entanglement works -- which of course you won't be able to do."

[gill1109]

Yes. Try to win the computer challenge. Understand that it cannot be done. Now at last you know what the problem is which you're up against. The problem of understanding how the challenge can be won in the quantum optics lab, cannot be solved using the conceptual apparatus our little brains come equipped with. A paradigm shift is needed but unfortunately it won't sit comfortably, ever.

[Joy Christian]

The problem of understanding how the challenge can be won in the quantum optics lab, cannot be solved using the conceptual apparatus our little brains come equipped with.

You don't need a quantum optics lab. Just explode some colourful balls and learn about the topology of S^3. Our brains are just fine to understand the mystery.

[gris]

Yes. Try to win the computer challenge. Understand that it cannot be done. Now at last you know what the problem is which you're up against. The problem of understanding how the challenge can be won in the quantum optics lab, cannot be solved using the conceptual apparatus our little brains come equipped with. A paradigm shift is needed but unfortunately it won't sit comfortably, ever.

[gris]

Yes. Try to win the computer challenge. Understand that it cannot be done. Now at last you know what the problem is which you're up against. The problem of understanding how the challenge can be won in the quantum optics lab, cannot be solved using the conceptual apparatus our little brains come equipped with. A paradigm shift is needed but unfortunately it won't sit comfortably, ever.

Something clearly went wrong with my last posting. Again then: indeed the problem concerns the forgotten instrument between the ears. Now then you state that the problem is unsolvable for this instrument I guess you also then mean instruments?

Let us take this step by step shall we?

1. What is a paradigm (shift)? In effect it is in its purist form a "duck rabbit" affair: i.e. seeing at least one new way of looking at the same data without infringing on these data.

2. A paradigm leads to a confirmation bias as a Bayesian inversion with 81% of the populace including the same degree of fast thinkers physicists/ scientists in an unsafe and 50% in a safe environment (Kuhn, current (neuro-) psychology, and history: our ape DNA how to catch a baboon. We close the barn door after the horse has bolted. Bayes logic in the brain because that logic is only in 9% of the cases goal orientated on the stated goal (fear on the goal fighters). Only in a safe situation when the peers agree does that rise to at best 50% being - subconsciously! - logic on authority driven (flawless freezers). It is a fear driven affair of our reptile & meerkat (little mammal) brain.

3. To beat this problem you must thus rigorously go back to basics. First of all you need to be brutally honest to yourself: are you under pressure a: freezer (80%) or a male / female flirter (10%) or a male / female fighter (9%) or a fearless (1%)? For only the fighters can make a above average correct Yin & Yang guess on what the answer of an inherent complicated problem with a lot of missing evidence could be. I.e. the creative on the stated goal. (versus creative on the relationship by flirters requiring more than just Yin & Yang yet clouding up the latter.) Edit: taking the fast thinkers to have a normal distribution and 10% of the fastest thinkers we only get 0.9 % of the populaces including baby's and those with no knowledge or experience. The duck rabbit inherent tunnel-vision shows that knowledge and experience is also a drawback. A priori sub-consciously seeing ears concluding rabbit in stead of duck and fail to check for wings. And in so doing missing the dark bat hanging upside down in the cave of Plato. And can short-trackers speed-skaters do long track? I'm BTW a professional highly experienced verbal 3D picturing short tracker.

4. Is science a safe environment for authority? No: see the Arp affair in astronomy or the goings on on most internet sites. => statistics of point 3 apply.

5. Now you agree that a paradigm shift is in order and conclude our brain is to petty to solve the mathematical conundrum. Your paradigm dictates that you use mathematics to solve it right? Could that be a wrong assumption? Let us investigate this question:

6. In mathematics we know that if you a priori have a garbage in problem that this can lead to an unsolvable conundrum, that can only be solved by checking and remedying the prior odds (oh dear => Bayes). You claim an unsolvable conundrum & a petty brain.

7. Here you already run into a problem of what the bet with Joy is about. Is the bet within the boundaries of the current paradigm or out of the current paradigm? If within then I guess Joy probably looses, if out of the paradigm he might win.

8. Your scientific paradigm in mathematics as in physics dictates that you use the paradigm method. You assume this to be correct. Let us check this. If we don’t want to go about this like a baboon clinging on to his paradigm banana i.e. go at it with the creative intelligence of a six year old Einstein, then we need to rigorously go back to basics: what is the essence of science? Your thick book on methodology? Or basic logic and basic – childishly naive – observation? Indeed the latter. Now let us combine this with an adult creative guess as Mother Nature has equipped us with in order to find ways out of complicated situations that are totally new to us, as a survival trait. And we already know that some are better at that then others even though taboo.

9. So we already know we need to check our prior odds for a garbage in problem. To do this we need to place the question in the right context. What is the - correct! -context of Bell? Indeed TOE. What are the boundaries of TOE? Current paradigm has them and assumes that correct. Yet is that correct? TOE is per definition on everything thus per definition without boundaries. => a whopping shortage of evidence => oh dear oh dear Bayes. Freezers will conclude: we can't conclude anything so don't go there. To scary. Fighters say: nah, lets make a creative educated adult Yin & Yang guess and see if we can test that.

10. The last hundred years we've got more and more relevant evidence on the TOE question. Does that as an educated guess make toe problem more complicated or more simple? Well, if we bar Magic like Krauss et all having something from nothing, being far less probable than having a God then it is scientifically best bet that it has gotten more simple. Like any crime scene by the way.

11. What is the next question? => What is the most simple way of looking at the purest essence of all the observational evidence available in an boundless context? What boundless context do you mean? Well as a guess is the universe infinite or not infinite? My brain as a guess comes up with I take it to be infinite.

12. The next question then is, what would be then the most simple way to explain everything we observe? My brain as a intuitive guess comes up with one atom like particle. Like Dio...., what's his name came up with his atom. I fill my infinite universe with an infinite amount of the moving un-split-able stuff, lets call it moving mass. Keeping reasoning towards what I intuitively know I can create a simple testable model. In which we have two particles creating two fields the Graviton field as an Euclidean space that can spin a Higgs particle to become a Gluon that arcs in the Graviton field creating the observed by us non-Euclidean space. All nicely Newton by the way. We observe more order than can be explained: my brain comes up with a dynamic crystal creating holographic illusions. Putting our Gluons in strings with a surface tension scenario (looking at this without pressure in the system is a lame Yin or lame Yang paradigm conclusion) bouncing through the fields = waves. Different amounts of spin-rotation per Gluonn creates 8 colours of Gluons. By adding mass out of the Higgs field to the strings you create an under-pressure = gravity.

The mass-less absolutely straight flying gravity exerting photon has never been observed it is a mathematical extrapolation i.e. a galloping unicorn as is my Graviton acting a bit different. These mass-less photons prevent marrying GR to QM. Both GR and QM are laws of physics the best we ever had, yet within BOUNDARIES between GR & QM => check your prior odds!. TOE has per definition no boundaries. This paradigm photon is a clear dissonant with what we otherwise observe in nature. My accelerating massive and arcing photon is also a galloping unicorn (like all the rest of the SM used to be) but not at odds with anything. It marries the whole lot even to the SM.

The crystal in the entanglement experiment helps the double crystal of the Graviton and Higgs field to keep the order in forming two new strings for our split photon. Taking the building of the photon as random after that it is a predetermined affair. The normal crystal splits it in either way polarized photons most times. Edit: my two interlocked strings are like two rings that are interlocked of say a key hanger. One horizontal one vertical = no polarization. Flicking them in a plane is polarization I show this on Youtube.

The energy packet of the photon in my verbal and picture model concept by the way consists of two counter rotating strings that spiral > c yet as string hold c in a curve => get un-wounded = red-shifted arcing in at twice the Newton value. They also arc outside gravitational fields => CMB. Nicely fits SR, GR and QM.

Magnetism BTW is when two strings break each other surface tension => Gluons spin rotate out like tops. Matter anti matter: head on Collin of two strings. Nice elegant verbal concept. I build you a multiverse and an endless cyclic event. Higgs particles are hardly spun and deform-able not compressible mass that on average act like a perfect sphere. Like hale is made. Yet in chaos like a golf-ball quickly even seemingly instantaneously brought in and out of spin by Gravitons. Yin and yang order and disorder in the both opposing fields for too many Higgs per volume of space to keep order. => all possible scenarios are played out deterministic-ally excluding all impossible scenarios. A bit of inherent chaos prevents it - luckily - from ever excluding life. It repeats itself in nearly the same way all the time in the cosmos. yet it makes a difference for us our future is uncertain. namely which of the possible scenarios will ensue. Will Joy win his bet?

Atom-clocks slow down if you speed them up in stead of time. length contraction is a Doppler effect.

Testable in several ways each knocking the current paradigm for six when indeed they get a positive result.

13. You already see that I've nowhere infringed on logic or on any observation. And I've not ended up in a conundrum and I've not used mathematics either. So before concluding that our brains are to petty or that the conundrum is inherently unsolvable I strongly urge to rigorously go back to basics. I've done that and have results that are testable. In short, you can't prove them wrong. Yet if they are correct then your claim is incorrect. And that also already proves you wrong. As a good even excellent statistician you are you need to check your prior odds before concluding that it is all unsolvable or in effect magic. common sense really.

14. When can I collect my € 10,000,= BTW?

[gill1109]

I don't read any forum contributions longer than 100 words. Life is too short ...

Less is more.

[gris]

I don't read any forum contributions longer than 100 words. Life is too short ...

Less is more.

Oh it's step by step Richard. For you start at point 5 under 50 words:

5. Now you agree that a paradigm shift is in order and conclude our brain is to petty to solve the mathematical conundrum. Your paradigm dictates that you use mathematics to solve it right? Could that be a wrong assumption? Let us investigate this question:

Edit: simple if you disagree: say why. Maybe a good idea to first then go 1 through 4.

[gill1109]

I do not say that our brain is too petty to solve the mathematical conundrum. It is easy to solve the mathematical conundrum. I believe that the problem is that our brain's "embodied cognition" (aka "systems of core knowledge") has got built-in physical intuition (built-in by millenia of evolution) which unfortunately is wrong. It worked fine for amoeba, worms, lizards, mammals ... they went forth and multiplied, again and again ... but it breaks down in the quantum optics lab.

Please study chapters 13 and 16 of Bell's "Speakable and unspeakable", and please study the metaphysical sections of my paper on causality and Bell's theorem. Also study my Schrödinger cat paper. You'll need to learn a bit of mathematics (but not much). Come back when you are done.

[menoma]

Our species evolved adaptively in a macroworld in which all of its physical intuitions are in fact entirely correct. Otherwise we would never have survived. The problems arise when we enquire into underlying domains of reality which we never encountered in our evolutionary journey and therefore have never needed to adapt to and are unequipped to adapt to. And which, as a result, we are unlikely ever to apprehend intuitively.

[gris]

Well Richard I will look into what you point towards, yet I agree more with menoma, yet not entirely. We humans have intuitively survived without mathematics in a changing environment for over 100,000 yeras. Mathematics though a magnificent and essential tool is but a tool. When you encounter a conundrum you must suspect an illusion and in this case Mother Nature as an illusionist. Like all illusionists it is the garbage in or prior odds problem that probably needs creative non garbage solution by intuitive guess. More relevant evidence probably makes for a simpler problem. And like with all illusionists when you spot it, it becomes laughably simple. That requires creative intelligent guesswork based on a presentation to such brains of the essence of all of the evidence in an at best safe for fear of loss of face environment. And testing these idea's instead of in effect throwing in the towel deeming our brain-s-! to petty. You haven't even tried properly according to the Just Proof criteria you agree on should apply in courts of law. I see no difference. First rigorously do that and actually never ever give up trying via trial and error to get there. You are measuring with an accuracy of nano meters with a deviation in trillions of light years: i.e. is the universe infinite or not? Well guess and test! Mathematics can't help with that guess. It can only via extrapolation ever more slowly show some slow progress in acquiring more relevant evidence in need of creative integrating guesswork and testing.

[menoma]

I don't agree that we survived without mathematics if you include the arithmetic of real numbers as part of mathematics. That probably goes as far back as language.

There's no fundamental disagreement between Richard and me. He emphasized the negative aspects -- the intuitional limitations -- of our embodied cognition whereas I additionally pointed up its more positive features. For example, living creatures have dealt with randomness since back when the first unicellular animals coped intimately and regularly with Brownian motion. We should be proud of skills like that. Still, we'll never live in a quantum world. We're born and we die naïve classical realists. But we don't need to be so naïve as to believe that's mandatorily all there is. At least not all of us need to be like that -- classical chauvinists -- at any rate.

[gris]

I don't agree that we survived without mathematics if you include the arithmetic of real numbers as part of mathematics. That probably goes as far back as language.

There's no fundamental disagreement between Richard and me. He emphasized the negative aspects -- the intuitional limitations -- of our embodied cognition whereas I additionally pointed up its more positive features. For example, living creatures have dealt with randomness since back when the first unicellular animals coped intimately and regularly with Brownian motion. We should be proud of skills like that. Still, we'll never live in a quantum world. We're born and we die naïve classical realists. But we don't need to be so naïve as to believe that's mandatorily all there is. At least not all of us need to be like that -- classical chauvinists -- at any rate.

So, we then are not that divided Richard, you and me only then I guess on the definitions. You in effect say that mathematics was there in our reasoning 100,000 years ago. Well, on certain definitions I agree. Yet in the more formal sense it hasn't existed before someone came up with the abstract notion of something to be called "mathematics". Let's say 5000 years ago i.e. we don't exactly know. The intuitive limitations are there indeed. Yet dividing the good guessers from the bad takes proper account of the instrument between the ears. Above average guessers exist as do the below average.Important is that we still need both in order to enhance our chances for survival. Even above you need to accept a high error rate in the trial and error. Today we - predictably - accept less and less errors. Richard knows this but doesn't apply it to QM. And important is also to notice that you don't need mathematics to do thought experiment a la Einstein as long as that it leads to testable predictions that do not have to be accurate. I.e. an apple is observed to fall upwards on down, with what exact acceleration is irrelevant for the sought after paradigm shift.

Yet when mathematics gets into the conundrum Richard shows, you need to check your prior odds. That too follows mathematical reasoning. There's the evident problem.

[gris]

I don't agree that we survived without mathematics if you include the arithmetic of real numbers as part of mathematics. That probably goes as far back as language.

There's no fundamental disagreement between Richard and me. He emphasized the negative aspects -- the intuitional limitations -- of our embodied cognition whereas I additionally pointed up its more positive features. For example, living creatures have dealt with randomness since back when the first unicellular animals coped intimately and regularly with Brownian motion. We should be proud of skills like that. Still, we'll never live in a quantum world. We're born and we die naïve classical realists. But we don't need to be so naïve as to believe that's mandatorily all there is. At least not all of us need to be like that -- classical chauvinists -- at any rate.

So, we then are not that divided Richard, you and me only then I guess on the definitions. You in effect say that mathematics was there in our reasoning 100,000 years ago. Well, on certain definitions I agree. Yet in the more formal sense it hasn't existed before someone came up with the abstract notion of something to be called "mathematics". Let's say 5000 years ago i.e. we don't exactly know. The intuitive limitations are there indeed. Yet dividing the good guessers from the bad takes proper account of the instrument between the ears. Above average guessers exist as do the below average.Important is that we still need both in order to enhance our chances for survival. Even above you need to accept a high error rate in the trial and error. Today we - predictably - accept less and less errors. Richard knows this but doesn't apply it to QM. And important is also to notice that you don't need mathematics to do thought experiment a la Einstein as long as that it leads to testable predictions that do not have to be accurate. I.e. an apple is observed to fall upwards on down, with what exact acceleration is irrelevant for the sought after paradigm shift.

Yet when mathematics get into the conundrum Richard shows, you need to check your prior odds. That too follows mathematical reasoning. There's the evident problem.

[menoma]

I meant to say "the arithmetic of natural numbers" not real numbers. Although there may have been ad hoc numerical reasoning in which the concept of "nothing" played a role even if it was never formalized. And what is indebtedness if not negative wealth? The vast majority of what people have ever thought and done was either never recorded or the record has been lost.

[gris]

Agree, yet the collective wealth of book-wisdom i.e. knowledge (right and wrong on our stated probandum) and what is of as yet unknown influence on solving that probandum (= the topic) doesn't wash away the knowledge we do have that there are different instruments between the ears that should be organized in a way to best solve the probandum. I.e. put our most open-minded who are to a sufficient degree conscientious (relatively easy to find, yet taboo) to give a thus - needed - authoritative advice where to start looking/ testing. And let them come to consensus with the conscientious current holders of the paradigm. Then it is in balance. As a method where to spend your limited resources on testing idea's. In effect an idea filter taking into account the different instruments between the ears. Making these work together as a team is applied basic current psychology, that history also proves that this works: differentiate between R&D types (9%/ 49%), production types (80%/ 50%) and sales types (10%/50%) (unsafe/ safe environment) on the probandum. Indeed in effect Bayes in the brain is mathematics in all our different sorts of reptile brains. The Bayes logic is subconsciously (thus difficult to spot if you don’t know where to look) on different goals. Hence the historic truth that what is forward will become backward.

Again the problem of the topic is about a garbage in problem. The tool or language of mathematics inherently can't solve that. R&D intuition by the creative ( even: not so) knowledgeable minds most probably can in interaction with the non-creative knowledgeable conscientious mind. See Hubble spotting an expanding universe in limited data getting it wrong in having earth older than the universe. After correction everyone agrees on the observation.

[gill1109]

Yet when mathematics gets into the conundrum Richard shows, you need to check your prior odds. That too follows mathematical reasoning. There's the evident problem.

There is no mathematics conundrum. There is a simple mathematical puzzle whose solution is simple: the mother of all quantum challenges is impossible to win. There is a conflict between experimental reality and our human physical intuition. I think this is an interesting phenomenon. I think that the reason we are so far not making much progress in marrying quantum theory and relativity is because we are barking up a wrong tree. We are trying to align concepts from different worlds which however do not make sense in the other world. Or rather, they do no match up in a simple one-to-one way.

Gravity is the distribution of mass in space. In the past there is mass distributed in space. But in the future there are only waves of possibilities. The marriage of quantum theory and relativity theory has failed because people haven't got sorted out what is real and what is imaginary. The wave function is not real. It's not part of reality. Since it turns out that real reality defies our imagination, just doesn't fit in our little mammal brains, there is not much hope of coming up with the good theory of everything by playing word games. We had better take the mathematics more seriously and follow where it takes us.

[gris]

Concluding simply impossible on a probable illusion is what you've just done. Mathematics is a tool, used the way you proposed it is circular. Garbage in is a serious mathematical word game that needs to be played correctly before use of mathematics: a mathematical dictate. Everyone is prone to tunnel-vision: once you think you see ears of the rabbit it is bloody hard to see the duck as a seriously to be investigated option, all the more so when you intuitively (and as God knows correctly) feel it to be a mammal => you don't search for wings and find the dark bat in the cave of Plato. This elegant simple bat like formula akin E = mc2 is very probably there for grabs. Correct team-like use of the human instruments between the ears will, as has been the case in the past win the day. Work it like Einstein did via creative thought experiments.

In the manic oversight out of the box upswing use verbal and picture intuitive basic logic on the essence of all observations and fill in the entire picture, then pounce the problem in super focused depressing detail. The latter will very probably require a whole range of new mathematics on rheology and dynamic crystal forming. You mix up the intuitive creative integral oversight faze with the pounce faze. In the latter you use mathematics.

What keeps QM divided from GR is very probably the mass-less particles they both have. They are evident - never observed! galloping unicorn dissonants with nature. And create a boundary between GR & QM. On the gameboard of reason you now can only play the LAW of GR by leaving the white LAW of QM pieces in the box, and vice versa. A TOE per definition has no boundaries. Take away the boundaries by adding massive Higgs = Gluon and massive graviton and bingo you can play the game with all observations of science. No conflict all intuitively Newton again. AND TESTABLE well then test it. Basic logical educated creative guess. Using the correct basic procedure that also solves - in the real world - crimes of criminal illusionists such as Mother Nature IMO is.

[gill1109]

Gris, you have your eyes tight shut. Your theory is a classical mechanistic "local realistic" theory according to which the "singlet correlations" are impossible. Yet those correlations have been observed in the quantum optics lab.

Your theory has been tested (Aspect, Weihs, ...) and it has been proven a failure.

Talk about manic oversight ...

[gris]

Gris, you have your eyes tight shut. Your theory is a classical mechanistic "local realistic" theory according to which the "singlet correlations" are impossible. Yet those correlations have been observed in the quantum optics lab.

Your theory has been tested (Aspect, Weihs, ...) and it has been proven a failure.

Talk about manic oversight ...

As I understand it Einstein thought this possible assuming hidden variables in play. Bit difficult i.e. even impossible claiming something impossible when allowing for hidden variables isn't it? So the impossibility you refer to assumes no hidden variable. How do you prove that? Al the more so because one of which as you know after I had already made my concept has now materialized: the Higgs Boson. Even though Higgs assumed that no interaction between that field and photons occur. Which only shows he wisely didn't claim that, for the Higgs mechanism even in my concept doesn't apply for photons. Yet it makes them bounce i.e. wave, and creates the curved space. This is a field that is omnipresent everywhere we can assume that particles of the SM can exist in our visible universe. Well my concept model needs also the graviton as a hidden variable, so nowhere is disproven that it can work the way I predict.

The Stockholm position is one based on absence of these sorts of fields (Higgs & Garviton) at play. No way has my concept (I don't call it a theory because that would breach the correct way of defining the correct method). Correct definitions: idea => concept at different probative levels => full blown theory fitting everything we observe and mathematical predictions/ yet testable hypothesis, and ultimately a law of everything without known or assumed boundaries that nearly everyone agrees on covers it all with no known exception or expected exception or thinkable way to test any further.

I.e. GR & QM should be defined not as theories but as laws that apply within boundaries one of which we know: namely between GR and QM. This logically prohibits claiming any proof or stronger position based on mathematical extrapolations leaving everything as in within QM and or GR and still believing that the barrier is breached in effect marrying the two.

Come to think of it my concept could also be seen as exploding balls. The spiraling strings can also be seen as balls if you travel with them. They spin rotate. Split and reform due to the used crystal of the experiment in the opposite polarization. The only thing that - as yet - can not be predetermined is the moment at which the laser creates the photon. After measurement of the polarization you - as yet - break the symmetry. Only if / when we could work accurately enough could we maybe be able to produce a predictable photon at the source or keep the symmetry of polarization.

Central in my concept of a model is thus order and disorder and not energy. The energy in the cosmos stays absolutely the same in my concept. Create more disorder will create more order elsewhere I predict. For there will only be a slight resonance between the two opposing fields possible. It must remain constant to an extreme degree. Yet how to work that in a practical way I don't yet have an idea. It is thus not yet part of any proposed test. Yet only then could you hope to get predictable results in the fired photon and/ or not breaking of symmetry after measurement. It might prove simply impossible even if we strike on the correct formula's and constants. To slippery to handle then, or maybe not?

Oh BTW I saw the story of Faraday the other day, he didn't have mathematics and even though he had already made a name for himself was ridiculed by his peers until Maxwell got the equations. Today it is in one way much more simple than what they had to contend with, for getting overview. So you don't need to be as cleaver as a Faraday or Einstein. Yet much more difficult to get a workable test for the depressing pounce on the problem.

No manic oversight thus.