How can we test the holographic principle and nonlocality in quantum mechanics?

[christian_dude_27]

I've been reading the book The Holographic Universe: By Michael Talbot and am attempting to find evidences for his writings in this book. He does, however, list many tests and experiments that help prove his basis, but I want to find the information of reproductive experiments that will prove or disprove beyond a doubt the things he says in this book.

My first step is the Property of Nonlocality (the idea that "All points in space and time are equal and it is meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from everything else"-David Bohm). I'm not very in dept with a large vocabulary or am exactly great at mathematics beyond Euclidean Geometry (spl?). If you guys can help me find the information needed, it would be greatly appreciated.

I did hear that this was in the Quantum Mechanics section, so if possible, i would love to find some information here.

 

[Tzemach]

Have you read Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"? That's not a bad place to start if you are not very far advanced. He compares the concept with Zen ideas of connectedness and can help to get your mind around some unusual concepts.

 

[vanesch]

I should also write a book like the Dansing ..., and make a lot of money out of mystical gibberish with a sauce of physics !
I'm just in quest of a title... any ideas ?
I thought of "Prophecies of Duality: a Holistic View" or something... what do you think

Seriously, you need to learn physics from the ground up. These musings are "fun" if you know from what known stuff it is extrapolated, but the other way around is totally confusing.

 

[christian_dude_27]

Well, i can understand things that some people may find to be a bit wacked, and it's pretty simple for me to understand the ideas of the most complex things, it's just the math and stuff that gets me. I heard there was some evidence for nonlocality about a...positronium atom decay (spl?)...where a positron and an electron are fused together and then, when they decay, they both send out identicle photons that seem to still be connected, no matter how far away they are. i just can't find any info on it without haveing to buy another book, and i don't have a lot money just to go out buying books.

I'll check out that material you suggested though.

 

[DrChinese]

I heard there was some evidence for nonlocality about a...positronium atom decay (spl?)...where a positron and an electron are fused together and then, when they decay, they both send out identicle photons that seem to still be connected, no matter how far away they are.

You are referring to entanglement, when separated particles are in a quantum state of superposition. Yes, some people consider this evidence of non-locality - although special relativity is not violated. But such interpretation is not universal. Those who follow Bohm see entanglement as evidence of non-locality, but they also deny certain fundamental elements of special relativity.

 

[ZapperZ]

Have you read Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"? That's not a bad place to start if you are not very far advanced. He compares the concept with Zen ideas of connectedness and can help to get your mind around some unusual concepts.

Oh no! No, no, no, no, no!

We do not do metaphysics in this section of PF, nor should we do metaphysics in this section of PF. Bastardization of physics is not tolerated here.

Zz.

 

[ttn]

Yes, some people consider this evidence of non-locality - although special relativity is not violated.

Sure, if one re-defines "special relativity" to be only about measurement outcomes (and *not* about the fundamental spacetime structure of the world).

But such interpretation is not universal. Those who follow Bohm see entanglement as evidence of non-locality,

That has nothing to do with it. Or, if anything, it cuts the other way: people who are smart enough to understand what Bell really proved (namely, that non-locality is a fact of nature) then realize that the standard argument against Bohm (that his theory is nonlocal) is bogus. Although, to be fair, people who are smart enough to understand Bell are usually also smart enough to appreciate that Bohm's theory is virtuous for other reasons too (like that it solves the measurement problem).

but they also deny certain fundamental elements of special relativity.

Yes... because they recognize that those elements *have* to be denied (on pain of contradicting Aspect-type empirical data).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Taking the classical aspect of special relativity seriously in quantum mechanics amounts to asserting Einstein's realism. I see no reason why any quantum physicist should be required to do this, just to justify the term relativistic.

Relativistic Quantum Theory is quantum theory that behaves, according to its own definition of "behave", relativistically. By definition there isn't any "classical background" to appeal to, and those who assert that there is are denying quantum mechanics in the guise of arguing about details.

 

[ttn]

Taking the classical aspect of special relativity seriously in quantum mechanics amounts to asserting Einstein's realism. I see no reason why any quantum physicist should be required to do this, just to justify the term relativistic.

Relativistic Quantum Theory is quantum theory that behaves, according to its own definition of "behave", relativistically. By definition there isn't any "classical background" to appeal to, and those who assert that there is are denying quantum mechanics in the guise of arguing about details.

So... you're saying quantum theory is consistent with relativity ("according to its own definition", whatever that means exactly)? What about the collapse postulate, which is *manifestly* in violation of Lorentz invariance? And if you think that the collapse isn't a necessary aspect of the dynamics, perhaps you could indicate the collapse-less theory you favor.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So... you're saying quantum theory is consistent with relativity ("according to its own definition", whatever that means exactly)? What about the collapse postulate, which is *manifestly* in violation of Lorentz invariance? And if you think that the collapse isn't a necessary aspect of the dynamics, perhaps you could indicate the collapse-less theory you favor.

Fair enough.

To me, the collapse, and its "postulate" (do you mean the projection postulate?) are mistakes from the early era of QM. For me the state function has nothing per se to do with relativity, as it does not exist within spacetime.

I see the space of states and the accompanying algebra of operators, as comprising a structured database containing all the responses to interaction that the given system could possibly have. The mechanism of a particular operation and its spectrum merely selects one of those possible behaviors, instantiated as a list of possible outcomes in spacetime. These outcomes are consistent with relativity in the sense that no observable signal can be sent between spacelike separated events, and in the limit where h -> 0 the Lorentz Transformations are valid.

Beyond this, I am currently a fan of relational QM, expressed Merriam fashion as the interaction of dissering quantum viewpoints.

 

[christian_dude_27]

Uh...guys..hello...big words, unable to comprehend...in other words...WTC are you talking about?!

cd

 

[ZapperZ]

Uh...guys..hello...big words, unable to comprehend...in other words...WTC are you talking about?!

cd

I think that in itself should give you plenty of hints.

You should not try to start at the "top", because to get there, one needs to go through all the steps in between. So when you ask about "nonlocality", there are already a series of understanding that is required to be able to comprehend accurate answers to that question. It is why there are so many prerequisites in higher level college classes.

Read first about basic quantum mechanics, work yourself into quantum superposition and entanglement, then go into Bell theorem and experiments, and then maybe you'll discover the issue of "nonlocality".

There are no shortcuts.

Zz.

 

[ttn]

I see the space of states and the accompanying algebra of operators, as comprising a structured database containing all the responses to interaction that the given system could possibly have. The mechanism of a particular operation and its spectrum merely selects one of those possible behaviors, instantiated as a list of possible outcomes in spacetime. These outcomes are consistent with relativity in the sense that no observable signal can be sent between spacelike separated events, and in the limit where h -> 0 the Lorentz Transformations are valid.

OK, but if all you require by way of consistency with relativity is "no observable signal can be sent between spacelike separated events", why not favor the one version of QM which is completely ordinary and physical and common-sensical, and which has no special dynamical role being played by "observers", and which doesn't say that really there's no material world out there but just "information" in our minds, and doesn't postulate an infinity of unobservable parallel universes, etc., etc.? I am of course thinking of Bohmian Mechanics (a theory whose dynamics, like orthodox QM, is non-local but which, also like orthodox QM, ensures that the nonlocal cannot be harnessed to send signals between spacelike separated events).

Beyond this, I am currently a fan of relational QM, expressed Merriam fashion as the interaction of dissering quantum viewpoints.

Oh no! The most recent thing I read on "relational QM" was Rovelli's paper (on the arxiv a while back). I have never seen such blatant anti-scientific solipsism passed off as if it was serious physics.

 

[christian_dude_27]

I think that in itself should give you plenty of hints.

You should not try to start at the "top", because to get there, one needs to go through all the steps in between. So when you ask about "nonlocality", there are already a series of understanding that is required to be able to comprehend accurate answers to that question. It is why there are so many prerequisites in higher level college classes.

Read first about basic quantum mechanics, work yourself into quantum superposition and entanglement, then go into Bell theorem and experiments, and then maybe you'll discover the issue of "nonlocality".

There are no shortcuts.

Zz.

Yes, i understand where you're coming from, why don't you suggest to me some material that i don't have to buy or have mailed to me that i can actually understand the vocabulary and has no mathematics in it :D

Do you see my point? i don't have time to wait for 10 years just so i know a little bit of vocabulary or am better at math. the theory in itself is all i need to know, i don't need to know how to do the math to understand the theory of it. what you guys have said isn't really that much, it's just that i don't know what a lot of those words mean adn exactly what it is. could you please piece together the puzzle fo rme and we'll be okay from there.

 

[DrChinese]

Yes, i understand where you're coming from, why don't you suggest to me some material that i don't have to buy or have mailed to me that i can actually understand the vocabulary and has no mathematics in it :D

The book you mention in the original post is not really a good starting point to learn about quantum physics. Bohm's "holographic" ideas are definitely not mainstream, and you really need to learn mainstream concepts before you wander off into the wilderness. (Please keep in mind that I am a big fan of Bohm's writing. His "Quantum Theory" is a classic college text, but is not easy to acquire.)

There are plenty of spots like Wikipedia and Plato that give overviews of key aspects of QM, but I have a feeling you will need more than that soon. Please keep in mind that QM has important mathematical components, and it is really hard to appreciate the nuances of many discussions without being familiar with these. So you must decide how far you want to go. But definitely, get familiar with the basics from these sites first and branch out from there.

 

[selfAdjoint]

OK, but if all you require by way of consistency with relativity is "no observable signal can be sent between spacelike separated events", why not favor the one version of QM which is completely ordinary and physical and common-sensical, and which has no special dynamical role being played by "observers", and which doesn't say that really there's no material world out there but just "information" in our minds, and doesn't postulate an infinity of unobservable parallel universes, etc., etc.? I am of course thinking of Bohmian Mechanics (a theory whose dynamics, like orthodox QM, is non-local but which, also like orthodox QM, ensures that the nonlocal cannot be harnessed to send signals between spacelike separated events).

Why would I be interested in that desperate paste-up effort to preserve the Lord Kelvin view of physics ("If you can frame a picture of it...") in the face of overwhelming evidence for quantumness? My other great interest in physics is anti-reification. Throughout the history of science physicsts have been prone to reify their mathematical structures into clunky machines: epicycles, vortices, ether, wave functions, you name it. I think all this is bunkum, and Bohm is its poster boy.


< and here I expressed my interest in relational quantum theory >

Oh no! The most recent thing I read on "relational QM" was Rovelli's paper (on the arxiv a while back). I have never seen such blatant anti-scientific solipsism passed off as if it was serious physics.

Do you even know what solecism means? Relationalism is as far from solecism as could be, because it says every observer must be taken absolutely seriously. We're all quantum cats and we're all observers too. Nobody is preferred, no point of view is sacred.

 

[ttn]

Why would I be interested in that desperate paste-up effort to preserve the Lord Kelvin view of physics ("If you can frame a picture of it...") in the face of overwhelming evidence for quantumness?

I don't know what you mean. Since Bohmian Mechanics makes precisely the same empirical predictions as orthodox QM, it is in principle impossible that you could point to some empirical data and say: "this is evidence for quantumness *as opposed to Bohm's theory*." You could of course say: "this is evidence for quantumness *as opposed to classical physics*." But Bohmian Mechanics is not Newtonian Mechanics, so this is not at all the same thing.

Look, there are several possible ways of *understanding* the (correct) empirical predictions of orthodox QM. And what I mean by "possible" in that last sentence is precisely that, despite telling very different stories about the way the world works, they all are (in one way or another) consistent with the experimental data we have.

I'm currently exhausted from another long thread about this same topic, and so I really don't want to get into this here. But, for anyone who thinks the options facing us are simply "either Kelvin or quantumness, and the experiments clearly support quantumness" or whatever, please pick up a copy of (say) David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" so you can come to understand what the issues are.

My other great interest in physics is anti-reification. Throughout the history of science physicsts have been prone to reify their mathematical structures into clunky machines: epicycles, vortices, ether, wave functions, you name it. I think all this is bunkum, and Bohm is its poster boy.

So then you advocate the "shut up and calculate" interpretation? Like Bell, I respect that to a certain degree -- namely, I respect that not everybody will be interested in finding out how the world actually works. (Some people will be content merely to be able to correctly predict how some experiment will come out.) But (also like Bell) I believe there is a real world out there, and that one of the jobs of physics is to figure out what it's like. And (again, like Bell) I think there are ways of doing that that don't involve the fallacy of "reification" (though it is admittedly very difficult and subtle).

Do you even know what solecism means? Relationalism is as far from solecism as could be, because it says every observer must be taken absolutely seriously. We're all quantum cats and we're all observers too. Nobody is preferred, no point of view is sacred.

You mean (or rather, I said!) "solipsism", not "solecism." Or, if you meant "solecism", then no, I don't know what that means.

The problem with "every observer must be taken absolutely seriously" is that only *one* observer can be taken "absolutely seriously* by each person -- namely, himself. This "relationalism" actually turns immediately into a rather silly version of MWI in which each conscious observer experiences just one branch of the true universal wave function... and hence (at least with very high probability) different observers don't actually observe the same reality. So this is about as far as one could possibly get from a straightforward/realist "quantum theory without observers."

But let's not go down that road. The fundamental objection to the whole stupid (but trendy) attempt to interpret QM in terms of "information" is the following set of questions: *Whose* information? And information *about what*? At the end of the day, no "relational/information interpretation" can answer either of those questions (without simply rejecting that interpretation in favor of some other). And without answers to those questions, the very *term* "information" is rendered literally *meaningless* and the whole thing just falls apart as BS word salad.

This point is made very nicely here

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604173

for anyone who's interested...

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know what you mean. Since Bohmian Mechanics makes precisely the same empirical predictions as orthodox QM, it is in principle impossible that you could point to some empirical data and say: "this is evidence for quantumness *as opposed to Bohm's theory*." You could of course say: "this is evidence for quantumness *as opposed to classical physics*." But Bohmian Mechanics is not Newtonian Mechanics, so this is not at all the same thing.

You just don't get it. Bohmism posits classical (i.e. non-quantum) spacetime and then violates covariance to achive its predictions. Quantum mechanics asserts that no appeal to classical spacetime is really necessary beyond the results of the observations. So Bohm attempts to explain the quantum predictions by an appeal to old time (pre-Heisenberg) relativity physics and gets it wrong. QM does not make that appeal and is free of that error.

Look, there are several possible ways of *understanding* the (correct) empirical predictions of orthodox QM. And what I mean by "possible" in that last sentence is precisely that, despite telling very different stories about the way the world works, they all are (in one way or another) consistent with the experimental data we have.

Any explanation that is internally inconsistent is invalid, and I have argued above that the Bohmian explanation is inconsistent.

I'm currently exhausted from another long thread about this same topic, and so I really don't want to get into this here. But, for anyone who thinks the options facing us are simply "either Kelvin or quantumness, and the experiments clearly support quantumness" or whatever, please pick up a copy of (say) David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" so you can come to understand what the issues are.

I'm pretty full up myself, so I'll end this conversation after replying to the rest of this post. Best of luck.

So then you advocate the "shut up and calculate" interpretation?

I used to, but the advent of rationally respectable relational QM gives me hope of more (Rovelli, Smolin, Merriam).

Like Bell, I respect that to a certain degree -- namely, I respect that not everybody will be interested in finding out how the world actually works. (Some people will be content merely to be able to correctly predict how some experiment will come out.) But (also like Bell) I believe there is a real world out there, and that one of the jobs of physics is to figure out what it's like. And (again, like Bell) I think there are ways of doing that that don't involve the fallacy of "reification" (though it is admittedly very difficult and subtle).[/quote]

I agree that understanding is the goal. I disagree that there is anything out there at the present moment that gets us further toward that understanding than we are with QM and its descendents RQFT and the Standard Model (whiich is more detailed understanding of how interactions relate to each other without additional understanding of what interactions are.

You mean (or rather, I said!) "solipsism", not "solecism." Or, if you meant "solecism", then no, I don't know what that means.

Yes, solecism was a mistype (Freudian?).

The problem with "every observer must be taken absolutely seriously" is that only *one* observer can be taken "absolutely seriously* by each person -- namely, himself.

That's just the position of any account of our reality, unless you posit some supernatural eye in the sky that sees all knows all. Einsteinian relativity has the same problem, as many physicists asserted when it came out.

This "relationalism" actually turns immediately into a rather silly version of MWI in which each conscious observer experiences just one branch of the true universal wave function...

What universal wave function. In the relational view there ain't no such thing. And to me "experiencing a wave function" is bad language for "projection on an observable".

and hence (at least with very high probability) different observers don't actually observe the same reality.

Since spacelike related observers can't communicate, whether they experience the "same" or a "different" reality is a meaningless question.

So this is about as far as one could possibly get from a straightforward/realist "quantum theory without observers."

Not "without observers" but without preferred observers.

But let's not go down that road. The fundamental objection to the whole stupid (but trendy) attempt to interpret QM in terms of "information" is the following set of questions: *Whose* information? And information *about what*? At the end of the day, no "relational/information interpretation" can answer either of those questions (without simply rejecting that interpretation in favor of some other). And without answers to those questions, the very *term* "information" is rendered literally *meaningless* and the whole thing just falls apart as BS word salad.

I find this whole argument to be just word salad. Whose information is all the bitstreams on the internet? Not mine unless I generate it or get it on my screen, i.e. "observe" it. And that is true for every user. Does that make it not information? I guess meaning is in the eye of the beholder, a good relational interpretation!

This point is made very nicely here

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604173

for anyone who's interested...

 

[ttn]

You just don't get it. Bohmism posits classical (i.e. non-quantum) spacetime and then violates covariance to achive its predictions. Quantum mechanics asserts that no appeal to classical spacetime is really necessary beyond the results of the observations. So Bohm attempts to explain the quantum predictions by an appeal to old time (pre-Heisenberg) relativity physics and gets it wrong. QM does not make that appeal and is free of that error.

I'd say you haven't fully understood Bell's proof of nonlocality (the original subject of this thread). Nonlocality (which roughly amounts to some kind of violation of relativity like that you describe in Bohm's theory) is a fact. You can only elude it by accepting something way, way harder to believe than what you are trying to elude -- e.g., that there isn't just one objective reality, but that we each have our own. That, I submit, isn't science; it's crap philosophy.

Any explanation that is internally inconsistent is invalid, and I have argued above that the Bohmian explanation is inconsistent.

Being inconsistent with relativity isn't the same as being internally contradictory. But even that isn't the issue. What matters is being consistent with all the empirical data -- including the violations of Bell's Inequaliites which prove that relativity is broken.

That's just the position of any account of our reality, unless you posit some supernatural eye in the sky that sees all knows all. Einsteinian relativity has the same problem, as many physicists asserted when it came out.

Spoke like a true idealist (more crap philosophy!). How about the alternative that there's a real world out there, independent of *anybody's* consciousness (human's or god's or whatever). It's called "realism." It's the fundamental metaphysical foundation of science. You should try it!

Since spacelike related observers can't communicate, whether they experience the "same" or a "different" reality is a meaningless question.

There's only one reality. We all experience some aspects of it. If we don't agree about that, there's (truly, deeply) no point talking.

I find this whole argument to be just word salad. Whose information is all the bitstreams on the internet? Not mine unless I generate it or get it on my screen, i.e. "observe" it. And that is true for every user. Does that make it not information?

Actually, yes. What's "out there" in those wires is electrons, not information. Humans use the electrons to acquire information about... well, all sorts of things.

I guess meaning is in the eye of the beholder, a good relational interpretation!

Sure, but that's just being goofy with language. When you say, though, that "reality is in the eye of the beholder" -- i.e., there is no reality, just reality-as-experienced-by-me and then reality-as-experienced-by-you, you are off the crap philosophy deep end. This isn't the kind of stuff that scientifically minded people should (or even can) take seriously. It's not just a cute joke.

 

[DrChinese]

I'd say you haven't fully understood Bell's proof of nonlocality (the original subject of this thread). Nonlocality (which roughly amounts to some kind of violation of relativity like that you describe in Bohm's theory) is a fact.

They say that to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Every time someone wants to ask a question about non-locality in physics, we have ttn saying something like the above.

To everyone except ttn: Bell never gave a proof that nature is non-local. Bell's Theorem states essentially as follows:

No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

This is the standard and accepted interpretation, and you will find this given in Wikipedia under Bell's Theorem.

ttn has deposited a paper pushing his perspective (nature is non-local realistic) in the preprint archives. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal as of this time. There are other authors who have deposited in the preprint archives papers with diametrically opposite perspective: that Bell's Theorem is a proof that nature is local non-realistic (see THIS for a typical example).

I believe ttn improperly labels his personal opinion as fact. This gives casual readers the wrong idea. I like ttn's work; I agree with some and disagree with some. But it should not be labeled as fact.

 

[ttn]

They say that to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Every time someone wants to ask a question about non-locality in physics, we have ttn saying something like the above.

I know, it's tiresome to me even. But when people say stupid/wrong things in public (in particular, in the presence of curious honest young proto-scientists) I have a hard time just letting it go without comment.

To everyone except ttn: Bell never gave a proof that nature is non-local. Bell's Theorem states essentially as follows:

No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

This is the standard and accepted interpretation, and you will find this given in Wikipedia under Bell's Theorem.

Wikipedia agrees with you, while Bell himself agrees with me. If we're playing the "appeal to authority" game only (and not actually hashing out the logic, which I've learned doesn't work with you anyway) then: I rest my case.

I believe ttn improperly labels his personal opinion as fact. This gives casual readers the wrong idea. I like ttn's work; I agree with some and disagree with some. But it should not be labeled as fact.

I think this is insulting to the people who read/use this forum. Nobody (or at any rate, nobody who we should spend even a second worrying about) is going to just accept something they hear as "fact" because some anonymous person on the internet asserts their opinion. Normal reasonable people are entirely clear on the difference. What some people maybe don't know is that this particular issue is controversial. And *that* is all I ultimately care to convey with my posts here. Honest curious people need to know that even the so-called experts can't agree about these things, so they shouldn't just accept anything as dogma without thinking about it carefully for themselves and trying to understand the quality of the arguments put forward on each side. So... people should read both Wikipedia (which, I'll bet a nickel, you yourself -- the great unthinking conveyor of the unscrutinized widespread opinions of others -- have participated in writing!) and Bell's articles. Seriously folks, you have to read Bell. He understood what he proved *way* better than me, Dr Chinese, whoever wrote today's version of Wikipedia, and anyone else you're going to run into on the 'net.

 

[DrChinese]

Wikipedia agrees with you, while Bell himself agrees with me. If we're playing the "appeal to authority" game only (and not actually hashing out the logic, which I've learned doesn't work with you anyway) then: I rest my case. ... Seriously folks, you have to read Bell. He understood what he proved *way* better than me, Dr Chinese, whoever wrote today's version of Wikipedia, and anyone else you're going to run into on the 'net.

Why are you scared to label your opinion as your opinion? Is it because you don't think people will care? And why don't you label Bell's opinion as his opinion? Hey, just because Bell says it doesn't make it correct either. Sorry, Einstein was brilliantly right about many things but wrong about the completeness of QM as Bell himself later demonstrated. Hmmm... perhaps I should label my position as identical to Steven Weinberg's as a way to trump you in the name-dropping contest. (Or other noted physicists...) See, anyone can make the kind of claims you make for completely different positions than yours. So by your logic, I could claim my position as "fact" and then insult anyone who disagrees.

The late Caroline Thompson used to say that her local realistic position was indisputable, just as you claim your non-local realistic position is indisputable. So that means both extremes claim victory, with those of us in the middle laughing because the game is still being played. Well, I have news for you: IT IS DISPUTED! You cannot simply state that the people who dispute it are stupid while you are smart! (Well, you can try...) We even have participants in this forum, such as nightlight, who argue that all Bell test experiments - which you cite to support your position - are not valid. And he makes the same claims to support his position as you: just because it is generally accepted does not make it fact. True enough; but it is good science and that is why my words are relevant!

As to the substance of my previous post, that your views are not generally accepted: I assume you now acknowledge this as you acknowledge that my statements are generally accepted science. I do not see why you would diss my statements, or the statements of self adjoint and others, simply because they are mainstream. Mainstream science is GOOD.

P.S. You win your nickel bet about my words in Wikipedia. However, I should point out that Wiki is something of a peer-reviewed source, and I put that out nearly a year ago. It has survived attack from many sides. Try changing that Wiki article to reflect your opinion and see how long it lasts.

 

[DrChinese]

... you yourself -- the great unthinking conveyor of the unscrutinized widespread opinions of others...

That is an unfair insult. I am a thinker, and I scrutinize the works I site very closely. I do not accept upon faith alone. I do original work too, just as you do. And like your recent works in the preprint archive, mine is self-published. I will provide 2 examples of my work which I did not copy from anyone else (not to say that others didn't precede me with similar findings):

Bell's Theorem and Negative Probabilities: I derive a -10 per cent value for odds of a specific physical case if realism is assumed.

Determinism Refuted[/url]: There is bias towards assuming causality in nature.

I don't expect you to consider them worthy, and you will probably need a pithy comment or two to justify your original insult. I will bet a nickel that you cannot explain to a independent observer why your original writings reflect independent thought and intelligence, while mine do not.

By the way... if you stand with Bell, how is your work original? Isn't it copying a position he already stated? Hmmm...

 

[ttn]

That is an unfair insult.

You're right. I retract it and apologize. It came off very differently than what I had in mind (which was simply that you seem to often "argue" against my views by noting that they aren't universally-accepted by other people, rather than addressing/refuting my actual arguments). But I did not intend (and, especially in light of the examples you provided, do not even believe) that you are "unthinking" in general.

 

[christian_dude_27]

i can do that. um, i actually plan to take a major step in college. it'll cost a buttload of money, but i am willing to do it if i can. i plan to go to three colleges (Caltech, MIT, and Cambridge University in England). I plan to have a double major in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. after i get a PHD with that, i plan to go back and do it all over again for the same degree in Electrical engineering and Metaphysics (if they have a metaphysics class). By taking these courses i'll have enough knowledge of physics, electrical engineering, and metaphysics to possibly test some of my own ideas and maybe even those of Bohm, but that's a little way ahead. so, i'll look on wiki and plato and see what i can get.

cd

 

[DrChinese]

You're right. I retract it and apologize. It came off very differently than what I had in mind (which was simply that you seem to often "argue" against my views by noting that they aren't universally-accepted by other people, rather than addressing/refuting my actual arguments). But I did not intend (and, especially in light of the examples you provided, do not even believe) that you are "unthinking" in general.

Accepted. I really study what you are saying in depth. And I think you already knew I link your work from my site. I do not think that labelling a viewpoint as "non-orthodox" is any kind of cut. As a label, it assists one in making critical decisions about the entire line of thinking. Without non-orthodox thought, there would be no forward progress. Yet for better or worse, consensus is relevant in science - at least in the long run.

I consider it best to give mainstream advice to readers with less background in a subject area, as they will likely not perceive the nuances of sophisticated analysis and state-of-the-art experiments anyway. Advanced readers will not be affected by the labels anyway, and will tend to look at the underlying arguments. Since this forum contains a mixture of both audiences, I consider labelling (as "generally accepted") relevant.

 

[ttn]

Accepted. I really study what you are saying in depth. And I think you already knew I link your work from my site. I do not think that labelling a viewpoint as "non-orthodox" is any kind of cut. As a label, it assists one in making critical decisions about the entire line of thinking. Without non-orthodox thought, there would be no forward progress. Yet for better or worse, consensus is relevant in science - at least in the long run.

I'm happy to be labelled as "unorthodox". The shoe fits.

However:

I consider it best to give mainstream advice to readers with less background in a subject area, as they will likely not perceive the nuances of sophisticated analysis and state-of-the-art experiments anyway. Advanced readers will not be affected by the labels anyway, and will tend to look at the underlying arguments. Since this forum contains a mixture of both audiences, I consider labelling (as "generally accepted") relevant.

I don't believe that one should "toe the orthodox line" merely because it is orthodox, for the benefit of non-experts. There are certain cases where the orthodox line is demonstrably (and I would even here say obviously) wrong. I mean, seriously, who can honestly think that certain experiments done a few years ago in a physics lab in Zurich, prove that there's no objective reality? Such a claim is self-contradictory on its face, and nobody's doing anybody any favors by circling the wagons and trying to hide from non-expert outsiders how crazy and wrong the orthodoxy is (in this one particular case).

In this situation the right thing to tell newbies is the simple truth: the orthodoxy says X, but that is clearly wrong. If more people had the courage to simply call it like it is, we wouldn't have this annoying problem of wrong-orthodoxy that persists for decade after decade.

 

[DrChinese]

I mean, seriously, who can honestly think that certain experiments done a few years ago in a physics lab in Zurich, prove that there's no objective reality? Such a claim is self-contradictory on its face...

Well, actually, there are a lot of people who think exactly this. I thought you might find this interesting if you have not yet seen it - a preprint from Smerlak and Rovelli:

Relational EPR

...which actually cites your "EPR and Bell Locality". (Of course, they come down on the opposite side of the argument from you since they are from the RQM side of things.) To quote:

"Here we take this conceptual evolution to what appears to us to be its necessary arriving point: the possibility that EPR-type experiments disprove Einstein’s strong realism, rather than locality. Similar views have been recently expressed by a number of authors..."

where

"In the context of the EPR debate, realism is taken as the assumption that, in Einstein’s words, 'there exists a physical reality independent of substantiation and perception'."

Please note that their arguments follow the general line of thinking I have been pushing, which is a natural result of seeing the HUP as fundamental (at least to me). I think this is pretty convincing evidence that there are serious people who question absolute reality much as Einstein questioned absolute space and time. (And they do think an experiment in Zurich is relevant.)

 

[ttn]

Yes, I'd read Rovelli's latest. It got my blood boiling, so thanks a lot for mentioning it again. :yuck:

Please note that their arguments follow the general line of thinking I have been pushing, which is a natural result of seeing the HUP as fundamental (at least to me). I think this is pretty convincing evidence that there are serious people who question absolute reality much as Einstein questioned absolute space and time. (And they do think an experiment in Zurich is relevant.)

Well, maybe "otherwise serious people" or some such. In my book, someone who denies that there's an external physical world is not serious -- certainly not serious, in that moment, qua physicist.

And btw, it is quite bad form to quote Einstein in support of this kind of anti-realist nonsense (the same kind of nonsense against which Einstein waged a lonely but committed struggle for several decades). If you think that Einstein would *ever* have even *remotely* supported Rovelli's sort of interpretation, you don't know Einstein at all.

One last point: in seemingly characteristic form, you didn't really address the logical point I made (but just cited the existence of some people who disagree). Don't you see the self-refuting nature of the claim that experimental results from Zurich prove there is no reality? If there's no reality, there's no Zurich (for starters).

 

[DrChinese]

1. Yes, I'd read Rovelli's latest. It got my blood boiling, so thanks a lot for mentioning it again. :yuck:

2. Well, maybe "otherwise serious people" or some such. In my book, someone who denies that there's an external physical world is not serious -- certainly not serious, in that moment, qua physicist.

3. And btw, it is quite bad form to quote Einstein in support of this kind of anti-realist nonsense (the same kind of nonsense against which Einstein waged a lonely but committed struggle for several decades). If you think that Einstein would *ever* have even *remotely* supported Rovelli's sort of interpretation, you don't know Einstein at all.

4. One last point: in seemingly characteristic form, you didn't really address the logical point I made (but just cited the existence of some people who disagree). Don't you see the self-refuting nature of the claim that experimental results from Zurich prove there is no reality? If there's no reality, there's no Zurich (for starters).

1. Sorry 'bout that.

2. Your dismissal of the non-realist viewpoint smacks of a faith-based viewpoint - i.e. one outside of science. You believe in an absolute reality, and others see a relative reality.

3. You almost are required to quote Einstein in order to frame the debate. I use his definitions frequently in my writing too. Of course he would not associate himself with the non-realistic school. And of course, he would be even LESS likely to associate himself with the non-local school. :tongue:

4. If it is self-refuting and obvious, why don't I see that? Why don't others, such as (insert lengthy list here) etc. Is everyone stupid except you? (Of course, even in a relativistic world, there is existence.)

 

[ttn]

2. Your dismissal of the non-realist viewpoint smacks of a faith-based viewpoint - i.e. one outside of science. You believe in an absolute reality, and others see a relative reality.

More abuse of language. If believing in an external world is an act of "faith", then what, exactly, does the concept "faith" mean? What would be left that *isn't* an act of "faith"?

*I* think faith means (roughly): believing in something even though there is no evidence for it, you can't see it, etc. But reality (which is a collective term meaning "all the stuff we see all the time, and everything else there is, too") is directly available to our gaze at all times. Whenever you are awake and conscious, you're drowning in evidence that reality exists.

Or maybe you mean something special by the adjective "absolute"? If so, you'll have to explain what you mean. I'd be happy to say that, yes, reality is absolute, but it seems a pointless and unnecessary qualifier: reality just *is*.

3. You almost are required to quote Einstein in order to frame the debate. I use his definitions frequently in my writing too. Of course he would not associate himself with the non-realistic school. And of course, he would be even LESS likely to associate himself with the non-local school. :tongue:

If he were alive today? There's no question he'd have been shocked and amazed by Bell's Theorem, but would understand and accept its implications. For sure, he'd give up locality before he'd give up realism. Only a crazy person would make the opposite choice, and Einstein was not crazy.

4. If it is self-refuting and obvious, why don't I see that?

No comment.

Why don't others, such as (insert lengthy list here) etc.

Because they're stupid and/or twisted and corrupted by crap philosophy.

Is everyone stupid except you?

No. I know lots of smart, clear-thinking people. I'm sure you can guess who some of them are, since I tend to quote their papers and refer to their articles and urge people to read their books (and that kind of thing) all the time. If you weren't taking notes before, here's a short list of smart people who aren't me: Einstein, Bohm, Bell, Shelly Goldstein, Tim Maudlin, David Albert, Rod Tumulka, Andrew Whitaker, Howard Wiseman, Jim Cushing, Antony Valentini, and of course many others.

Just for fun, here's a list of smart people who are me: me!

 

[DrChinese]

No comment.

Drat! I was throwing you a softball on that one... (Of course, you levelled some good ones against everyone else...)

:tongue:

I do think it is interesting that you are so certain that Einstein, had he known about Bell & Aspect, would choose realism over locality. I think the answer is less clear. I do not think he would have embraced "spooky action at a distance" easily, if at all.

 

[ttn]

Drat! I was throwing you a softball on that one... (Of course, you levelled some good ones against everyone else...)

:tongue:

I do think it is interesting that you are so certain that Einstein, had he known about Bell & Aspect, would choose realism over locality. I think the answer is less clear. I do not think he would have embraced "spooky action at a distance" easily, if at all.

That you find it interesting suggests to me that you still haven't grasped one of the main points here. There is really no choice between "giving up realism" and "giving up locality". Without reality, there is no such thing as locality. So to give up realism is to give up *both*. Hardly a cost-effective strategy. Which is all of course just another way of saying what I've been saying all along (and Bell said for many years before I was even born): you have to give up locality. That's just what the EPR/Bell Theorem(s) prove.

 

[christian_dude_27]

can i ask a simple question? are we still on topic here :D

cd

 

[DrChinese]

can i ask a simple question? are we still on topic here :D

cd

We are now... unless that was your question.

By the way, I think it is great that you want to get degrees in physics. You will learn ever more about this fascinating world we inhabit.