Indeterminancy in physics

If you accept Bells theorem not only do you have to reject hidden variables you have to accept particles can travel faster than light or even instantaneously.

This isn't true. If you accept Bell's theorem you have to reject local hidden variables. You don't have to reject hidden variables, as long as they're non-local, and you don't have to reject locality, as long as you reject hidden variables. You have to reject one or the other, but not necessarily both.

Well you had better tell others that. So the decay of radioactive atoms could be determined if we knew the hidden variable?

The decay of radioactive atoms cannot be explained using a "local hidden variable" explanation, if we accept Bell's theorem. It might be possible using a hidden variable explanation that's non-local (e.g. perhaps David Bohm's).

So do we actualy state that the decay of radioactive atoms are random?

No, they follow a pattern, otherwise we couldn't talk of a half-life, which is not random, it's quite particular, even though statistical. And we can observe the pattern, the clicks of a Geiger counter e.g. It’s a fact. What Bell's theorem shows, if we accept it is that underlying local hidden-variables cannot account for the pattern. The question then, is how do we account for them? There are various possibilities, such as non-local hidden-variables (Bohm), or locality without hidden-variables (Many-worlds). I think in some ways I agree with you in that all these “underlyings” are nonsensical; either we use them as imaginative inspiration to derive new experiments to make whatever is underlying – overt; and perhaps thus discover something not described by QM (which to my mind is doing science). Or we discard the “underlyings”, stick with what we have – the strong correlations of Bell’s theorem – and think again why we have what we have (which to my mind is doing philosophy). Whatever we choose though, we have to understand Bell and QM don’t deny both locality and hidden-variables.

Concerning Gaede.That was my immediate response but you need to look past that. I have tried to find a valid opposition to his claims apart from academic snobbery.Considering his claims no one has actually questioned him in depth.I have my reservations but I am not educated to really investigate them critically. His theory certainly needs enquiry. It's strange but without the aggressive manner you to are questioning the very same accepted science. Concentrate on his theory of ropes, please, and give me your opinion, if you could. I would appreciate your effort.

-- Updated Fri May 25, 2012 8:09 am to add the following --

If you accept Bells theorem not only do you have to reject hidden variables you have to accept particles can travel faster than light or even instantaneously.

This isn't true. If you accept Bell's theorem you have to reject local hidden variables. You don't have to reject hidden variables, as long as they're non-local, and you don't have to reject locality, as long as you reject hidden variables. You have to reject one or the other, but not necessarily both.

Well you had better tell others that. So the decay of radioactive atoms could be determined if we knew the hidden variable?

The decay of radioactive atoms cannot be explained using a "local hidden variable" explanation, if we accept Bell's theorem. It might be possible using a hidden variable explanation that's non-local (e.g. perhaps David Bohm's).

So do we actualy state that the decay of radioactive atoms are random?

No, they follow a pattern, otherwise we couldn't talk of a half-life, which is not random, it's quite particular, even though statistical. And we can observe the pattern, the clicks of a Geiger counter e.g. It’s a fact. What Bell's theorem shows, if we accept it is that underlying local hidden-variables cannot account for the pattern. The question then, is how do we account for them? There are various possibilities, such as non-local hidden-variables (Bohm), or locality without hidden-variables (Many-worlds). I think in some ways I agree with you in that all these “underlyings” are nonsensical; either we use them as imaginative inspiration to derive new experiments to make whatever is underlying – overt; and perhaps thus discover something not described by QM (which to my mind is doing science). Or we discard the “underlyings”, stick with what we have – the strong correlations of Bell’s theorem – and think again why we have what we have (which to my mind is doing philosophy). Whatever we choose though, we have to understand Bell and QM don’t deny both locality and hidden-variables.

Sorry but my last post was not exactly directed at you, half six. If it does not discount local hidden variables why exactly is QM used so extensively to rule out a determined universe? thanks xris.

Sorry but my last post was not exactly directed at you, half six. If it does not discount local hidden variables why exactly is QM used so extensively to rule out a determined universe? thanks xris.

It does deny local hidden variables, but it doesn't deny locality, and it doesn't hidden variables, when they're taken separately (sorry, my last post was a bit ambiguous on that) we just can't have them together. QM doesn't rule out a determined universe - the Many-Worlds interpretation is, or at least claims to be, deterministic; some interpretations aren't, but it doesn't necessarily follow from QM that the universe is not deterministic.

Intuitively I suspect you are very incorrect. Newton, Maxwell and Einstein would almost certainly have no way at all to model the "subquantum" domain of existence that empirical proof of hidden variables would imply, given that the physical existence of hidden variables implies the non-objectivity of space-time, almost by definition. I concede that neither would QM be able to model it, but then I don't expect it is the purview of any of these models to explain such a novel discovery.

and then you finally agree with me as that would prove that they were incomplete theorys as they do not fully and correctly describe nature. Leave the dark side of QM "Poster" and join me in the light... LOL

Intuitively I suspect you are very incorrect.

Okay, good now we are on an even playing field you have a feeling not based in scientific fact that my opinion is incorrect. You don't know for sure. As for the rest of your statement I agree to a degree except for the last sentence. Yes they could not model this using traditional methods used by scientist's of their time or even in this time. Why so? I believe that who ever does this would have to be able to visualize it first then put that visualization to formulae where we could then propose an experiment to help prove it to be correct. This is the point I keep trying to make. The standardized scientific method is no longer working because they are trying to solve the foundational issues by pure intellect and math. It won't work! In order to see at the foundations of reality we are going to have to take a leap of faith. We have to intuitively or psychically probe this realm for the purpose of actually seeing what is there. Our instrumentation and math can't reveal what exists there? Then seeing what is there we can acquire a deep understanding, create a physical model and then apply the math as the final step.

such a novel discovery

The final part of the last statement is a gross misjudgement of the importance of this discovery. If we were to discover in fact, that everything is connected and that there is no such thing as non-locality. Well that in my opinion would be a huge discovery. It's definitely not a novel one. I believe from that kind of deep discovery we touch the foundation of existance. That is the kind of knowledge we need to build a model that explains everything. We discover not a relative truth, not your version or my version of the truth, not a contextual truth. A truth made of stone that comes from the source. The subjective truth most likely exists not in this physical dimension but in the afterlife where there is only spiritual consciousness, but that concept is for another conversation entirely.

Sorry but my last post was not exactly directed at you, half six. If it does not discount local hidden variables why exactly is QM used so extensively to rule out a determined universe? thanks xris.

It does deny local hidden variables, but it doesn't deny locality, and it doesn't hidden variables, when they're taken separately (sorry, my last post was a bit ambiguous on that) we just can't have them together. QM doesn't rule out a determined universe - the Many-Worlds interpretation is, or at least claims to be, deterministic; some interpretations aren't, but it doesn't necessarily follow from QM that the universe is not deterministic.

Well all those debates where QM was used as proof makes me wonder how many actually know that much about QM.

Xris: KWYM:) ISTM there are three aspects to the quantum world. The macro world that we can see, in principle, which displays Bell's strong correlations; QM itself which provides a mostly mathematical description of that world, and allows us to predict what we will see in given circumstances; and interpretations of these two as to what might be going on behind the scenes that might explain why we see Bell's correlations and why QM works so well. These interpretations do sometimes provide counter-intuitive pictures, such as an electron being in two places at once, implying (to put it kindly) that QM says this is how the world is. But the only thing QM actually stipulates is that a local hidden-variable interpretation won't work - anything else is possible. It is easy unfortunately to posit a conjecture as a fact, and one needs to be on guard for that.

Mmfiore said,

Please define what you mean by "undemonstrated assumptions" give me an example using the EPR experiment. I don't want to make an assumption about what you are saying.

Results of the EPR experiment demonstrate Bell's limit on coincidental correlation of space-like separated quanta is violated, as Bell predicted it would be if QM is correct. To preserve a locally real explanation for this requires resorting to either hidden variables, or otherwise "connecting" the space-like separated quanta in a manner that is not demonstrable. So, whether via hidden variables or local connections, these are what I mean by undemonstrated assumptions.

Yes they could not model this [subquantum realm] using traditional methods used by scientist's of their time or even in this time. Why so? I believe that who ever does this would have to be able to visualize it first then put that visualization to formulae where we could then propose an experiment to help prove it to be correct. This is the point I keep trying to make. The standardized scientific method is no longer working because they are trying to solve the foundational issues by pure intellect and math. It won't work! In order to see at the foundations of reality we are going to have to take a leap of faith. We have to intuitively or psychically probe this realm for the purpose of actually seeing what is there. Our instrumentation and math can't reveal what exists there?... Then seeing what is there we can acquire a deep understanding, create a physical model and then apply the math as the final step.

I agree with these statements, at least the words. Unfortunately, I know that you want to implicate QM by these words, and that's where we differ because QM is not guilty of the picture you present. QM is pursued because it is scientifically testable, or "falsifiable" to use philosophers' jargon, so it isn't just pure intellect and math the way M-theory is. The real caveat to your statements here is your last sentence. Obtaining a deep understanding remains a subjective assessment until it can be objectified into mathematical formalism that yields testable theory. Until then, it isn't physics. That's why M-theory isn't true science. M-theory persists for the time being due to the clout of its practitioners in the academic world.

The final part of the last statement is a gross misjudgement of the importance of this discovery [viz., the hypothetical discovery that locality and classical mechanics holds for subatomic behavior]. If we were to discover in fact, that everything is connected and that there is no such thing as non-locality. Well that in my opinion would be a huge discovery. It's definitely not a novel one. I believe from that kind of deep discovery we touch the foundation of existance. That is the kind of knowledge we need to build a model that explains everything. We discover not a relative truth, not your version or my version of the truth, not a contextual truth. A truth made of stone that comes from the source. The subjective truth most likely exists not in this physical dimension but in the afterlife where there is only spiritual consciousness, but that concept is for another conversation entirely.

With no intention on my part to discount your passion, I really believe we are both saying the exact same thing, even if I chose to label it only "a novel discovery." Yes it would indeed be a huge discovery, though I don't understand why you should declare it as not novel. A scientific explanation of the proofs of Bell's Inequality that relies on local realism? That seems awfully novel to me, given how most physicists reject such a solution on principle and how most alternative theorizing that is taken seriously utilizes hidden variables, not realism, to preserve locality. I also disagree about it being any truth "made of stone," neither relative nor contextual, for reasons we cannot discuss productively. Rather, it would be a hugely important discovery because it would fundamentally alter the direction of theoretical physics and physics research, and would impact the historical course of philosophy.

Xris: KWYM:) ISTM there are three aspects to the quantum world. The macro world that we can see, in principle, which displays Bell's strong correlations; QM itself which provides a mostly mathematical description of that world, and allows us to predict what we will see in given circumstances; and interpretations of these two as to what might be going on behind the scenes that might explain why we see Bell's correlations and why QM works so well. These interpretations do sometimes provide counter-intuitive pictures, such as an electron being in two places at once, implying (to put it kindly) that QM says this is how the world is. But the only thing QM actually stipulates is that a local hidden-variable interpretation won't work - anything else is possible. It is easy unfortunately to posit a conjecture as a fact, and one needs to be on guard for that.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to explain to this ignorant observer, the language sounds a bit ambiguous. So when we are told two electrons are in two places at the same time, hidden variables are not the cause but other explanations could make that statement invalid. If particle science is not exactly explaining but admitting a strange conclusion are we not entitled to say you might have it wrong? I hate to mention it again but when Gaede indicates a type of electromagnetic rope connecting two atoms a direct link eradicates the idea of two electrons, in fact there is no need to imagine electrons as particles. If an electron is never a particle and never a wave function we must in my humble opinion consider it something else entirely. Surely particles as a "concept" are a hindrance to understanding the quantum world.Thanks xris

Mmfiore,

There is an error in my last post. There is a clause in the last paragraph stating, "most alternative theorizing that is taken seriously utilizes hidden variables, not realism, to preserve locality."

I should have instead stated, "most alternative theorizing that is taken seriously utilizes hidden variables and retains nonlocality, not realism to preserve locality." Sorry for any confusion.

A Poster: I'm so pleased you posted that correction, I've been wondering whether to respond to your original...

-- Updated May 26th, 2012, 3:38 pm to add the following --

If particle science is not exactly explaining but admitting a strange conclusion are we not entitled to say you might have it wrong?

No, as I said the strange conclusions (right or wrong, sense or nonsense) are arrived at because "we see Bell's correlations"; we see them, they are there, part of reality. AFAIUI that's why Gaede has his conclusions, it's what he's trying to explain. So if anything is wrong because it admits strange conclusions, then it is reality, not science of whatever description. To say reality is wrong, really is nonsense.

A Poster: I'm so pleased you posted that correction, I've been wondering whether to respond to your original...

-- Updated May 26th, 2012, 3:38 pm to add the following --

If particle science is not exactly explaining but admitting a strange conclusion are we not entitled to say you might have it wrong?

No, as I said the strange conclusions (right or wrong, sense or nonsense) are arrived at because "we see Bell's correlations"; we see them, they are there, part of reality. AFAIUI that's why Gaede has his conclusions, it's what he's trying to explain. So if anything is wrong because it admits strange conclusions, then it is reality, not science of whatever description. To say reality is wrong, really is nonsense.

You have lost me here Half-Six. Gaede is not making strange conclusions, he is opposing strange conclusions because of what he attributes to strange science. Reality is not in question it's the science that claims reality is strange. If particles are not behaving like particles maybe their not.

@ Poster

Results of the EPR experiment demonstrate Bell's limit on coincidental correlation of space-like separated quanta is violated, as Bell predicted it would be if QM is correct. To preserve a locally real explanation for this requires resorting to either hidden variables, or otherwise "connecting" the space-like separated quanta in a manner that is not demonstrable. So, whether via hidden variables or local connections, these are what I mean by undemonstrated assumptions.

Now that we have it absolutely clear it can be dissected. You admit an either or possibility exists. If local reality exists it can be explained by “either hidden variables or otherwise "connecting" the space-like separated quanta in a manner that is not demonstrable”. So why are these interpretations, (not assumptions) not demonstrable? Obviously something is happening that QM cannot explain. The results of the experiment clearly demonstrate that our definition for locality is in fact incorrect. Obviously in certain special situations a connectedness exists between spatially separated objects. Through this connectedness there must exist a superluminal connection where entangled particles are concerned. Why not test for this. It can be done. So with that in mind it is demonstrable.

Also on a side note you do know that Bell was not a big fan of QM.

I am going to simplify the experiment to expedite this comment. Bell’s Theorem says that if there are hidden local variables driving the statistical outcome then the results of such an experiment support the Copenhagen interpretation, (not explanation). TheCopenhagen interpretation rules say the wave function "collapses" at the time of measurement, so there must be action at a distance (entanglement) or the object must know more than it's supposed to (hidden variables). This interpretation says there must be action at a distance and somehow that happens faster than light. Think now about this. The principle of locality states that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. It is generally believed that any theory which violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus deeply unsatisfactory. Therefore obviously there must exist some sort of hidden reality or undiscovered theory of nature to which Quantum Mechanics acts as a kind of statistical approximation (an admittedly very successful one for predicting sub atomic particle interaction). In reality all QM is, is an approximation of reality with no physical explanation. That’s what EPR points out. The reluctance of the scientific community to acknowledge that is where the problem is.

So let me propose an experiment which could settle this once and for all. My idea is that there is a physical explanation for the superluminal connection. The superluminal connection must be composed of a material object whose properties are modified in the special case of phase correlated pairs (twins). Normally the mediator does not allow faster than light speed electromagnetic wave. The correlation key is in the creation of the twin pair. Concentrate on this next statement. Something happens in their creation that physically entangles them and until that entanglement is disturbed they remain physically connected. They are spatially separated yet their locality remains intact. I believe that the twin pair are connected through a physical medium. That medium is the mediator of the physical connection. Therefore if that medium does physically exist we should be able to disturb the connection in a way that Quantum mechanics does not predict. Uh oh! If I am correct QM is in trouble. All that is needed is to have the two detectors as normally done for the EPR experiment. We now place in the path of one of the photons about midway between the source and the detector an electronically controlled polarizer or some other type of filter that would break the physical connection. We run the experiment as normal without activating the interference device. We will get results the QM predict. In phase 2 we change one thing. We activate the interference filter after the photon passes by not before. QM predicts this should have no effect. But if it is like I say, the activation of the interference filter after the particle passes by will break the entanglement connection allowing a result to match what classical physics predicts. This will validate that in fact a superluminal connection does exist and in one fell swoop it will prove that both QM and standard classical theory are lacking in a deep explanation for how reality works. It will be killing 2 birds with one stone. The lack of thoroughness and imagination that the modern day scientist possesses is very frustrating for me as this experiment should have been thought of and performed by now. This has not happened because their belief systems are so deeply entrenched.

I agree with these statements, at least the words. Unfortunately, I know that you want to implicate QM by these words, and that's where we differ because QM is not guilty of the picture you present. QM is pursued because it is scientifically testable, or "falsifiable" to use philosophers' jargon, so it isn't just pure intellect and math the way M-theory is. The real caveat to your statements here is your last sentence. Obtaining a deep understanding remains a subjective assessment until it can be objectified into mathematical formalism that yields testable theory. Until then, it isn't physics. That's why M-theory isn't true science. M-theory persists for the time being due to the clout of its practitioners in the academic world.

Well at least you acknowledge in part what I am saying rings true. This is what I believe scientists should be practising on a regular basis. I perform this exercise when I am working on a problem. Usually I do this imaging exercise between the hours of 2 am to 6am when things are quiet and there are no distractions. I attempt to visualize the subject or problem I am working on. My lab is in the mind and it is there where I can see things that are not viewable with test equipment. I can work out the details by watching particles and seeing what is hidden. Then I model what I see after that to form a basis for creating something I can explain using our common language. It is a form of remote viewing. The more you do it the better you get. Then I research to make sure what I have imagined is backed up by experiment and observation.

Science today works foundational problems using a vague concept and then letting the abstract math take the lead. There is no clear vision so this method will not work. Do the experiment I propose and all of this can be settled.

Reality is not in question it's the science that claims reality is strange.

No, this is what altered with Bell’s theorem, and this is what needs be understood in order to grasp the full importance of Bell’s theorem. The EPR paper argues, basically that QM describes a reality (shown in the results of experiments), which has correlations that can be explained using a description of underlying local hidden-variables. QM however doesn’t describe these underlying local hidden-variables; therefore, if there are such underlying local hidden-variables, then QM is incomplete – it’s missing something. This much is valid argument. EPR further argued that if QM is a complete description, then any conclusions derived from it about underlying reality would be strange – too strange for EPR to accept. In other words EPR is arguing that if QM is complete, then conclusions drawn from it would be strange i.e. science (QM) reaches strange conclusions – which is what you are arguing, I believe. What Bell argues is that EPR is missing an aspect of reality that QM describes (shown in the results of experiments – Aspect’s etc), which has strong correlations that cannot be explained using a description of underlying local hidden-variables. If we accept Bell, i.e. we accept that reality has these strong correlations, then conclusions derived from reality about underlying reality would be strange – too strange for EPR to accept. Regardless of whether QM is correct, or turns out to be wrong. Since Bell, then, reality has become the question. I think Gaede accepts Bell in this way. Gaede’s argument then is that the conclusions he derives from the strong correlations of reality, are not strange – unlike conclusions others have derived from this reality. Now whether that’s true, whether it’s even true to say Gaede derives valid conclusions, is another matter that I shan’t enter into. But, reality is the question.

Reality is not in question it's the science that claims reality is strange.

No, this is what altered with Bell’s theorem, and this is what needs be understood in order to grasp the full importance of Bell’s theorem. The EPR paper argues, basically that QM describes a reality (shown in the results of experiments), which has correlations that can be explained using a description of underlying local hidden-variables. QM however doesn’t describe these underlying local hidden-variables; therefore, if there are such underlying local hidden-variables, then QM is incomplete – it’s missing something. This much is valid argument. EPR further argued that if QM is a complete description, then any conclusions derived from it about underlying reality would be strange – too strange for EPR to accept. In other words EPR is arguing that if QM is complete, then conclusions drawn from it would be strange i.e. science (QM) reaches strange conclusions – which is what you are arguing, I believe. What Bell argues is that EPR is missing an aspect of reality that QM describes (shown in the results of experiments – Aspect’s etc), which has strong correlations that cannot be explained using a description of underlying local hidden-variables. If we accept Bell, i.e. we accept that reality has these strong correlations, then conclusions derived from reality about underlying reality would be strange – too strange for EPR to accept. Regardless of whether QM is correct, or turns out to be wrong. Since Bell, then, reality has become the question. I think Gaede accepts Bell in this way. Gaede’s argument then is that the conclusions he derives from the strong correlations of reality, are not strange – unlike conclusions others have derived from this reality. Now whether that’s true, whether it’s even true to say Gaede derives valid conclusions, is another matter that I shan’t enter into. But, reality is the question.

So you are sitting on the fence, not accepting one or the other. Can you argue with certainty for one or the other or are you just as bemused as I? I only introduced Gaede as he makes a valued observation that would or could make quantum turn on its head. Is that what scares most from making any reasoned response? Has Gaede sent shivers down the academic spine? I, with very little knowledge simply desire an open debate about Gaedes outrageous but feasible alternative but no one appears willing to enter into combat. I have heard and read all the scripts on quantum and realised that there is dangerous acceptance at large that requires revolution but we have no rebels.

So you are sitting on the fence, not accepting one or the other. Can you argue with certainty for one or the other or are you just as bemused as I? I only introduced Gaede as he makes a valued observation that would or could make quantum turn on its head. Is that what scares most from making any reasoned response? Has Gaede sent shivers down the academic spine? I, with very little knowledge simply desire an open debate about Gaedes outrageous but feasible alternative but no one appears willing to enter into combat. I have heard and read all the scripts on quantum and realised that there is dangerous acceptance at large that requires revolution but we have no rebels.

You've not answered the questions I raised about Gaede in a previous post. Are you scared of making any reasoned response?