EPR/Bohm/Bell & Localism vs Universalism

[DrChinese]

The more I think about that one the more I realize how deep it is.

Sorry no answer to give - except my head hurts and I now have another one for the too hard basket.

Good one Dr Chinese - no very good one.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks. It is an ongoing puzzler to me. I have seen a lot of folks who are well versed in QFT repeat the comment that photons (and other intermediate particles) are mathematical constructs (in the sense that one never truly encounters a free photon in the lab). Often, I see commentary around "excitations" and the like. Clearly, the CMB photons we detect have both a beginning and an end point consistent with that. Is that a firm requirement? Is it an explicit assumption of the model?

Because light emitted today into the depth of space will likely NEVER encounter something to scatter against. Assuming an ever-expanding model, which is looking more likely all the time. So that assumption, I think, might be testable. But again, I am insufficiently versed to really follow some of the nuance. Maybe you can think it through further on the theoretical side. I believe I can explain how a test could be constructed around the idea.

 

[DennisN]

I was a little short before, but I'd like to give some further feedback to the OP on the signalling idea presented before;

So, when we flip the switch at the source to the "on" position, we can see that there will be a moving "surface of possible signal reception" whose precise location is determined by the following factors:

1) the amount of energy that has been input into the source
2) the level of sensitivity of the receiver to detect whether the arrangement of its elements has been suitably altered

In this theoretical universe, it is precisely the speed of this surface that determines what, in our universe, is called the speed of light, or c. (my boldings)

So, if I understand this correctly (which I admit I am definitely not certain I do), this idea predicts that the speed of light is variable? That's what I get out of it, since:

A moving "surface of possible signal reception" (like a light cone but spherical) whose precise location is determined by 1) energy 2) the receiver's sensitivity - clearly implies a variable c. But the problem is we don't see this effect in our universe. Higher (or lower) energy does not mean faster light. Nor do we see that the speed depends on the receiver's sensitivity (I suppose sensitivity ≈ energy levels of atoms which finally absorbs the light (photons)?).

So in short, I sense that this idea does not fit well with neither observations, cosmology, astrophysics, special relativity nor general relativity. And may I allow myself to be somewhat philosophical, since it's getting late at my place?

A person can not make the Universe agree with a theory. But a person can make a theory agree with the Universe.

But it's sure not easy.

 

[DennisN]

This is also a refreshing clip IMHO; Who can resist hearing Richard Feynman describing the scientific method in one clear and concise minute?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

 

[Ilja]

... clearly implies a variable c. But the problem is we don't see this effect in our universe. Higher (or lower) energy does not mean faster light. Nor do we see that the speed depends on the receiver's sensitivity (I suppose sensitivity ≈ energy levels of atoms which finally absorbs the light (photons)?).

So in short, I sense that this idea does not fit well with neither observations, cosmology, astrophysics, special relativity nor general relativity.

A variable speed of light is something you can make compatible with observation easily. All you need is to combine it with a variable speed of clocks and variable length of rulers. You do not even have to change the definition of the meter to obtain the constant c as measured in m/s, that means, with distorted rulers and distorted clock time. In undistorted terms, as defined by a system of preferred coordinates, the speed of light would be variable.

 

[bhobba]

This is also a refreshing clip IMHO; Who can resist hearing Richard Feynman describing the scientific method in one clear and concise minute?

Yea - if it disagrees with experiment it's wrong.

That's it, that's all, end of story - or maybe not:


Feynman was actually involved with some of those 'guesses' that were preferred due to their beauty.

The point though is if experimental data kept coming in against it out the window it would go - its just that sometimes something is so beautiful some people will give it a bit of leeway - for a while anyway.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DrChinese]

This is also a refreshing clip IMHO; Who can resist hearing Richard Feynman describing the scientific method in one clear and concise minute?

Great clip, thanks!

 

[DennisN]

Yea - if it disagrees with experiment it's wrong.

That's it, that's all, end of story - or maybe not:


Feynman was actually involved with some of those 'guesses' that were preferred due to their beauty.

The point though is if experimental data kept coming in against it out the window it would go - its just that sometimes something is so beautiful some people will give it a bit of leeway - for a while anyway.

Thanks
Bill

Good points, and I don't disagree. The Gell-Mann clip is a good one too. I remember having seen it before.

 

[DennisN]

A variable speed of light is something you can make compatible with observation easily. All you need is to combine it with a variable speed of clocks and variable length of rulers. You do not even have to change the definition of the meter to obtain the constant c as measured in m/s, that means, with distorted rulers and distorted clock time. In undistorted terms, as defined by a system of preferred coordinates, the speed of light would be variable.

Well, I was trying to emphasize the scientific method and get the OP's idea at least a bit closer to experiments in our observable world. Neither the speed of stationary clocks ("ticking", I presume) nor the length of stationary rulers are hitherto observed to significantly change in the stationary frame of reference in a lab, if I'm not mistaken? Otherwise it would be devastating to relativity, I think.

Anyway, that wasn't the whole of it; the OP was heading in the direction of a connection between the speed of light and energy (or energies). To show that such an idea would have some merit, experiments would have to support that the speed of light is dependent of energy (of senders) and sensitivity* (of receivers; but, of course, "sensitivity" would have to be clearly defined).

To get anywhere with it, there would obviously have to be some proposed mathematical equation(s) that include energy/energies, distance and time. Without any equations, the idea can not be evaluated in more detail (at least not by me ). So I won't try to interpret further what the OP meant.

* The OPERA neutrino anomaly was actually dependent on the sensitivity of the receiver - it was due to a faulty timing system (CERN).

 

[glengarry]

glengarry, I think you missed the most ‘troublesome’ property of CMB – redshift – which is not compatible with your “immediately given state”.

[PLAIN]http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/beginners/expansion_tran.gif[/CENTER][/QUOTE]

The last time I attempted to respond to this post, the result was about 6 hours wasted effort (the response was sent down the rabbit hole), because I tried to offer some "speculation" about what might cause redshift. Needless to say, I got in trouble for speculating. So I got mad and tried to forget about everything...

But then I saw the light. Today, I finally realized something very basic:

E=hv

The definition of a photon contains no spatial component. That is, it is a pure mathematical point. What I realized is that we are arguing in the QM forum here, and the rules of classical mechanics simply do not apply. It is only by way of continuous functions that we can speak about changes in wavelengths between signal sources and receivers. But the entire foundation of QM came from the theoretical failure of applying continuous functions to the interchange of energy between remote bits of matter. The result of this "failure" was that the energy of EM radiation has to be transferred in its entirety, without delay. This just means that photons are simply disembodied bundles of frequency. There is no concept of a "wavy substance" whose spatially measurable wavelengths can possibly change size, depending on relative speeds between source and receiver.

So, from the perspective of standard QM, the concept of redshift as a result of spatial expansion simply doesn't apply.

But this whole notion of "the perspective of standard QM" is the precise reason why I wanted to develop this thread. That is, standard QM, as I see it, is not a direct theory of physical reality, but only indirectly so. It is rather a theory of the measurements that are conducted on physical reality.

So the point of this thread is simply that de Broglie's matter waves were an attempt to construct a direct theory of physical reality, which was later taken up by Bohm. But seeing as this is a much more difficult thing to do than simply talking about the statistical outcomes of infinite experimental trials, there are not bound to be many theoretical physicists focusing on de Broglie/Bohm-like models.

Granted, there are issues with the simple model that I've developed when it comes to trying to explain every single phenomenon in existence. But when it comes to developing a theoretical unification of the major issues of GR (the nature of gravity fields) and QM (the nature of light and matter), I think this little model does quite well.

Again, I need to reiterate these points:

1) The axioms of standard QM do not allow for a classical mechanism of energy exchange that allow for shifts in frequency. Photons are defined as being perfectly discrete units that are delivered discontinuously (i.e., in moments of zero duration).

2) Standard QM is only an indirect theory of physical reality.

3) de Broglie/Bohm-like models are attempts to develop direct theories of physical reality. The model outlined in this thread is such an attempt. Granted, people might not like it... but then again, I dare anyone to find such a model that they do like.​

 

[bhobba]

The axioms of standard QM do not allow for a classical mechanism of energy exchange that allow for shifts in frequency. Photons are defined as being perfectly discrete units that are delivered discontinuously (i.e., in moments of zero duration).

They come about naturally in QFT. You start out with nothing but fields and particles emerge without being put in from the start.

Standard QM is only an indirect theory of physical reality.

I think arguments like that would hold more water if you could actually get people to agree what 'reality' is. Philosophers have been arguing that one since time immemorial with zero agreement.

I prefer the definition of physical reality as what physical theories tell us. For example there is disagreement about how to interpret QM but very little disagreement about the theory itself - its the most accurately verified theory ever devised.

de Broglie/Bohm-like models are attempts to develop direct theories of physical reality. The model outlined in this thread is such an attempt. Granted, people might not like it... but then again, I dare anyone to find such a model that they do like.

de Broglie/Bohm-like models are attempts at an interpretation that gels with some people's intuition about how the world should be. It's more a comment on their underlying world view than anything objective in the sense of the world MUST be like that because quite obviously it doesn't.

My favorite basis for QM these days is the following - and is a model I do like:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.0695v1.pdf

But it leaves others cold. That doesn't make it right or wrong. In science correspondence with experiment is the only arbiter - not what people like or dislike.

This is why philosophers hardly never agree - but scientists agree on many things - just not all.

Thanks
Bill

 

[glengarry]

Standard QM is only an indirect theory of physical reality.

I think arguments like that would hold more water if you could actually get people to agree what 'reality' is. Philosophers have been arguing that one since time immemorial with zero agreement.

Only God knows what the underlying reality of the universe consists of, but I will say that theories that attempt to directly model reality make use of differential equations that operate over continuous manifolds/fields. Things like "action at a distance", "quantum jumps", and other types of discontinuity are not allowed in these kinds of models. The goal is to try to develop deeply intelligible notions of causation rather than relying upon the "crutch of abstraction" inherent in theories that are based on the Born's statistical interpretation of the wavefunction.

 

[bhobba]

Only God knows what the underlying reality of the universe consists of, but I will say that theories that attempt to directly model reality make use of differential equations that operate over continuous manifolds/fields. Things like "action at a distance", "quantum jumps", and other types of discontinuity are not allowed in these kinds of models. The goal is to try to develop deeply intelligible notions of causation rather than relying upon the "crutch of abstraction" inherent in theories that are based on the Born's statistical interpretation of the wavefunction.

Yea - but how do you know that reality isn't really like that? If the model agrees with observation its as good as any other. Think about it - there is no a-priori reason it must conform to your intuition about these things.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DennisN]

But then I saw the light. Today, I finally realized something very basic:

E=hv

The definition of a photon contains no spatial component. That is, it is a pure mathematical point.

That's no definition, it's an energy formula. Which doesn't include electric charge (0), mass (0) and spin (1).

The definition of a photon contains no spatial component. That is, it is a pure mathematical point.

Really? How come the photon carries momentum? The relativistic energy is
E^{2} = p^{2}c^{2} + m^{2}c^{4}
The mass of a photon is m=0, so this reduces to
p = \frac {E}{c} = \frac {h \nu}{\lambda \nu} = \frac {h}{\lambda}
where p is the momentum of a photon. Furthermore, if the photon has no spatial component, how come there's a thing called polarization?

What I realized is that we are arguing in the QM forum here, and the rules of classical mechanics simply do not apply.

E.g. conservation of energy and conservation of momentum still applies, AFAIK.

Photons are defined as being perfectly discrete units that are delivered discontinuously (i.e., in moments of zero duration) (my bolding).

In moments of zero duration? I do not understand what that means. Individual photons travel at max c. See this: paper, article1, article2. Anyway, you can't have a frequency without a time component. My regards.