Recent content by RUTA

It's a relatively new twist on the quantum reconstruction program. The book is the culmination of about 4 years of development (papers, blogs, and conference presentations) and it was published just last year. I made a 5-part YouTube video series totally less than an hour if you want an...

You got me wondering how to show that no matter what orientation I choose for ##\hat{b}## in the xy plane, when ##\hat{b}## makes an angle ##\theta## with ##\hat{z}## the distribution of outcomes will be P(+1) = ##\cos^2{\frac{\theta}{2}}## and P(-1) = ##\sin^2{\frac{\theta}{2}}## averaging to...

I would have to know what the phases ##\alpha## and ##\beta## mean physically. For example, in the double-slit qubit where you are illuminating the slits equally and in phase your state is ##|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( |S1\rangle + |S2\rangle \right)## (S1 = slit 1, S2 = slit 2)...

Suppose you start with the state ##|\psi\rangle=|z+\rangle##, then you make a SG measurement along ##\hat{b}## making an angle of ##\theta## with respect to ##\hat{z}##. It doesn't matter what coordinates you use for the ##\hat{b}\hat{z}## plane, your distribution of ##\pm 1## outcomes (in units...

But you're just changing the direction of the beam, you're still going to make your SG spin measurement in the plane perpendicular to that beam. I don't see what this accomplishes physically.

I guess I don't understand what you're talking about then. The rotation is always in the plane perpendicular to the beam but the beam direction is arbitrary. The Pauli matrices allow you to specify that rotation plane in any direction relative to your Cartesian coordinates. This is all in accord...

Again, I'm presenting our particular completion of the quantum reconstruction program (QRP), so this is not an idiosyncratic approach to resolving the conceptual problems of QM. There is a vast literature on the QRP and we have published several papers, blogs, and a book on our particular...

We have 30+ pages in Chapter 9 of the book on this, so what I write here is very superficial. The self-consistently shared information between interacting bodily objects establishes what we know as the "classical context" and that establishes the properties of the quanta of the interactions. So...

Sorry, I didn't make the context clear. What we did in the papers and book I referenced above is part of the quantum reconstruction program involving many other researchers beginning in 1996 as part of the "second quantum revolution." Let me share some quotes so you don't get the impression that...

That's why you have three Pauli matrices. You can see how the Bell spin states are invariant wrt transformations generated by those matrices and what it means physically in the Methods section of this paper.

Norton studied the history of Einstein's work on SR (here and here are two websites) and it was difficult because unlike his later work, there isn't much material on Einstein pre-SR. Anyway, what you said is precisely what Einstein struggled with in coming up with SR. It's not the principle of...

Assuming the relativity principle is fundamental (not derived from something else, but "declared by fiat" as the starting point of a theory) is not unique to us. Again Norton and those four textbook authors all think that about SR and I have other quotes from Rovelli, Mueller and others in the...

And Norton's references and the four intro physics textbooks. It's not idiosyncratic and it has found widespread acceptance. That's my point.

Here are peer-reviewed papers where we have published this idea: “Answering Mermin’s Challenge with Conservation per No Preferred Reference Frame,” W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein, Timothy McDevitt, and T.D. Le. Scientific Reports 10, 15771 (2020) “Beyond Causal Explanation: Einstein’s...

But you do have to add SO(3) to Lorentz boosts to get the Lorentz group. And you can clearly do a boost (generator K) or a spatial rotation (generator J for angular momentum) independently. That's what I'm talking about, independent functionality. So invariance with respect to SO(3) doesn't...