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

[DrChinese]

Whoa hold up there DrC. You were doing fine till this one.

You’ve got Einstein agreeing with QM just by plastering on Relativistic to QM and calling it “LOCAL” just not realistic! How do you make that work?

The non-local part of QM comes from HUP and pasting on relativistic is not going to solve the correlations seen in entanglement except by retaining the non-local probabilistic solution of HUP.

Einstein would not accept this as a local solution, although I sure he would still be convinced that something is being missed even with current experiments and ‘proofs’, just as Von Newman’s proof did change his mind in his day.

Did not expect you to call QM in any form “local”,
I just don't see where that can cut it.

TNN already knows I disagree that there is anything to distinguish BM over QM or any other non-local theory (String, M, MWI, etc).
That includes the “measurement solution” shown in the Double Slit.
There QM defines a probabilistic ending location.
BM defines a definitive ending position based on a definite trajectory departing the slits. Unfortunately, the BM departing trajectory from the slits is unmeasured, likely un-measurable, and (oops) probabilistic, thus no real solution there anyway.

So from my ‘Local Realist’ view, I can not see anything but “Non-Local” assigned to QM or BM, with or without Relativity (or Einstein). The only advantage between the two being personal preference based on the application.

Well, I guess that's a fair point. I have edited the post to better get across what I was trying to say (but obviously failed to accomplish, upon a later reading). So thanks for setting me straight.

If we want to look at it from the perspective of the debate as EPR framed it - and that's where I am really at - then using the term "relativistic" could be misleading. I think it is relativistic in the (limited) sense that there is nothing about it that directly conflicts with relativity's prohibition that causes/signals not propagate with a velocity > c. That was intended to contrast with BM, which is "grossly non-local" (I think this was Bell's phrasing) by pretty much any standards.

So do I think oQM/QFT local? I think it is in some ways per above. I think it isn't in other ways, some of which match ttn's (or Bell's) definition. When the answer depends on an EXACT and extremely precise definition of locality, then I think that different people will come to different conclusions. That is part of the reason I object to ttn's blanket description that "Bell tests -> non-locality".

I definitely see that Bell's Theorem incorporates assumptions of both realism (or HVs) and locality - despite ttn's denial of this (not trying to stir that argument up again, as we have already been down that road a few times). So while I am left wondering whether to dump realism or locality, he is adamant that locality must be dumped to account for the results. And I can certainly see some respects in which he is right, and other respects in which I think he is wrong. I don't see how he arrives at an absolute position on the matter.

 

[ttn]

I do not intend any disrespect.

None taken. But you're still not getting it, and everything I'm saying at this point has been said a thousand times before in previous posts. So this will be my last post on this thread, and I'll simply advise you to go back and re-read our exchanges from the past and try to (as Tez suggested) pay attention to what I'm *actually* saying, not what you think I ought to have said.

But we already know that your paper uses a definition of locality that is aligned with what you call "Bell Locality" and which is consistent with Bell's later ideas. On the other hand, EPR (and Einstein) use the term local in more of a relativistic sense - as do I and a lot of others.

That's a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one. We all mean the same thing by locality in a qualitative sense -- no superluminal action at a distance. The problem is, Einstein et al just talked loosely about "no superluminal causation" without ever making such a requirement mathematically precise. That is what "Bell Locality" accomplishes. Your comment seems to be based on a tacit assumption that Bell Locality is not just the requirement of no superluminal causation, but something else too (like maybe it smuggles in "realism" or "hidden variables" or "determinism" or some such). But that just ain't so.

Therefore: I simply state: relativistic QM is a local* theory which predicts results in complete accordance with Bell tests.

That's dumb. I could just as well say: "Therefore: I simply state: Bohmian Mechanics is a local theory which predicts results in complete accordance with Bell tests." See, wow, it's easy to just say stuff like that. The problem is, both of our assertions are false. Bohm's theory is *not* local (the nonlocality is right there in the dynamics for all to see). And same for your orthodox QM: the nonlocality is right there in the dynamics (viz, the collapse postulate) for all to see.

I assume what you mean by "relativistic QM" is N-particle Dirac theory, or QFT, or some such. The problem is, all such "relativistic" theories are only 50% relativistic: of the two dynamical formulas which define the theories, one is local (the unitary evolution equation) and one isn't (the collapse equation). So, misleading names to the contrary notwithstanding, such theories are *not actually consistent with relativity*.

So, sorry, but you have not provided a counterexample to my assertion.

This is the counter-example you asked for, and will suffice for anyone whose definition of locality matches mine (and Einstein's).

See about. But re: Einstein... you've got to be kidding! If you think Einstein would have been content with orthodox QM (that is, content as in willing to accept that the theory is local) you have (again) completely and totally failed to appreciate the point of EPR. The whole argument there is that we have to regard orthodox QM as providing an *incomplete* description of states *because otherwise the theory is manifestly nonlocal*.

Until you get this, you are just wasting your time trying to grasp Bell. Go back and read "The Shaky Game" or "Einstein's Boxes" or something again until you get it.

It will not suffice for those whose definition matches yours (and Bell's), because you insist that relativistic QM is either not a local** theory or not a valid*** theory.

I've never been ambiguous about this. Orthodox "relativistic" QM is not a local theory. It violates Bell Locality, plain and simple, and that means it includes superluminal causation. There is of course no mystery whatsoever about this: the theory just openly says that the state of one particle can change *instantaneously* as a result of a spacelike separated measurement.

I know you do not agree with my thinking, but certainly you must be able to see why many would.

Sure, it's because they have yet to appreciate Bell Locality as a correct mathematical transcription of "no superluminal causation". But that's their problem, not Bell's or mine.

(** yet it must be local, by definition, precisely because it is relativistic)

That's the weakest argument yet! I can take N-particle Dirac theory and write down a Bohmian version of it. The evolution equation for the N-particle wave function is manifestly covariant (it's the same equation in the orthodox and Bohm theories, of course). So let's call this "relativistic Bohm theory". Can I then infer that "relativistic Bohm theory" is local, by definition, precisely because it is relativistic? No. That would be wrong. The theory is actually non-local, because the *other* part of the dynamics (the Bohmian guidance formula) is manifestly *not* Lorentz invariant. It requires some preferred frame to define it. But guess what? The orthodox version of the same N-particle Dirac theory works exactly the same way: the unitary evolution equation for the wave function is Lorentz invariant, but *the other half of the dynamics isn't*.

(*** very difficult to accept this, as there is no known flaw in its predictions)

Yes, nobody questions that these theories all give the right empirical predictions. The *only* issue is whether or not they are local. I say: Bell Locality gives a clear mathematical criterion for deciding. You seem to say: if a theory's name has "relativistic" in the title, then it's local by definition.

I'll leave it to you and others to work out which makes more sense.

 

[DrChinese]

I say: Bell Locality gives a clear mathematical criterion for deciding. You seem to say: if a theory's name has "relativistic" in the title, then it's local by definition.

As I pointed out in response to RandallB, my post used poor wording. So my apology about that.

I agree that Bell Locality as you formulate it in mathematical terms is pretty clear. I do not agree that definition is required to prove Bell's Theorem. And even if it were, it does not remove the other critical assumption of Bell's Theorem: that of realism, which is essential to the theorem. Bell: "It follows that c is another unit vector [in addition to a and b] ...". Without this assumption* - that there are other settings at which the spin component is considered to be simultaneously real and well defined - there is no Bell's Theorem. You always skip this point in your rush to tell me I don't get it. Unless and until you address this key point head on, I don't expect your "Bell test results -> Locality" to be convincing.

 

[RandallB]

I simply state: QM could be considered a local* theory ...
(*and also non-realistic, because there are no HVs - this of course violating your assertion that: locality -> HVs)

Granted removing “relativistic” helps just a little but, DrC in think here is where a significant communications problem can develop based on different scientific vocabulary or nomenclature applied to various terms.

I refer to a confusion I’m seeing between “local” “non-realistic” and “reality”.
Consider the value of looking at these terms in this way.
Reality = An understanding of how the world and all that is in it truly works; a puzzle man has been working on since the ancient Greeks.
Realistic = Something that conforms to that Reality what ever it may be; Multi Dimensional, String, QM, BM whatever.
Non-realistic = Therefore means something that is an incorrect solution.
Thus Realistic and Non-realistic should not be defined by what we understand as our current level of “Common Sense” or Classical interpretation of what we see as a three dimensional world. That more Common understanding is better defined as:
Local = The idea that reality conforms to the requirements expressed in EPR where individual objects retain unique non-commuting variables – no weird action at a distance.
Non-Local = Those definitions of reality that allows for weird action at a distance as viewed from our common or classical perception within that overall reality.

I believe when you try to apply the term local to QM by allowing it to retain the element of “Non-Realistic” the only thing that is meaningful in that Non-realistic component is the probabilistic Non-Local part.
Taking the idea, "QM as local", into an impossible self-destructive circular logic.

Local and Non-Local is the more efficient way of breaking the possible forms of reality into two major categories. (basically Einstein vs. HUP)
What is “Realistic” is more of what we a looking for in what is the true reality. Presuming a view of what is realistic cannot be done without assuming an end solution of what is that true reality.

Does organizing these terms this way make sense and help?

 

[DrChinese]

Granted removing “relativistic” helps just a little but, DrC in think here is where a significant communications problem can develop based on different scientific vocabulary or nomenclature applied to various terms.

I refer to a confusion I’m seeing between “local” “non-realistic” and “reality”.
Consider the value of looking at these terms in this way.
Reality = An understanding of how the world and all that is in it truly works; a puzzle man has been working on since the ancient Greeks.
Realistic = Something that conforms to that Reality what ever it may be; Multi Dimensional, String, QM, BM whatever.
Non-realistic = Therefore means something that is an incorrect solution.
Thus Realistic and Non-realistic should not be defined by what we understand as our current level of “Common Sense” or Classical interpretation of what we see as a three dimensional world. That more Common understanding is better defined as:
Local = The idea that reality conforms to the requirements expressed in EPR where individual objects retain unique non-commuting variables – no weird action at a distance.
Non-Local = Those definitions of reality that allows for weird action at a distance as viewed from our common or classical perception within that overall reality.

I believe when you try to apply the term local to QM by allowing it to retain the element of “Non-Realistic” the only thing that is meaningful in that Non-realistic component is the probabilistic Non-Local part.
Taking the idea, "QM as local", into an impossible self-destructive circular logic.

Local and Non-Local is the more efficient way of breaking the possible forms of reality into two major categories. (basically Einstein vs. HUP)
What is “Realistic” is more of what we a looking for in what is the true reality. Presuming a view of what is realistic cannot be done without assuming an end solution of what is that true reality.

Does organizing these terms this way make sense and help?

I will grant you that it ends up being "something" and "non-something", but the usual categorizations are:

"Local vs. Non-local"
"Realistic vs. Non-realistic" or frequently "HV or No-HVs"

It is worthwhile to mention that the "No-HVs" scenario is often labeled as "No Go". No Go Theorems are those, such as The Kochen-Specker Theorem, basically say that particles do not have well-defined properties outside/independent of the context of an observation. There are a lot of No Go Theorems being posted into the arxivs.

Whereas: some theories state that entangled particles are able to communicate using a form of instantaneous communication or similar, that we are not otherwise aware of from experiments. And this is more along the lines of the non-local idea.

The problem with the "realistic" label is that is an ineffective word, that has a lot of baggage associated with it - at least for some. I like it fine but a lot of people don't.

 

[ttn]

You always skip this point in your rush to tell me I don't get it. Unless and until you address this key point head on, I don't expect your "Bell test results -> Locality" to be convincing.

I really don't have time to keep debating this, but I couldn't let this comment go. Here's my response: you've got to be f***ing kidding me.

I keep explaining, over and over and over and over again, that the EPR argument *from* locality *to* hidden variables (or what you sloppily insist on calling "realism") is the point you're missing here. I even wrote a whole long detailed paper (two, actually) explaining this point. That, after all this, you'd come back and say "yeah, but Bell assumed *both* locality *and* hidden variables, so can't we blame the violation of the inequalities on hidden variables?" tells me you're either stupid, pathologically forgetful (think "Memento"), or deliberately wasting my time. I mean, seriously, how the hell can you accuse me of not addressing this key point head on? It's the most outrageous accusation I've ever heard.

If you have any serious interest in understanding this stuff, and if you want to take Tez's good advice seriously, then you need to go back and re-read what I've said (sooooo many times here, and in papers) and try to actually *pay attention* and *remember* some of it. Or if, as I suspect, you are just an ignorant time-waster who is hell-bent on remaining such, you'll have to find someone else to argue with.

 

[DrChinese]

... you're either stupid, pathologically forgetful (think "Memento"), or deliberately wasting my time... Or if, as I suspect, you are just an ignorant time-waster who is hell-bent on remaining such, you'll have to find someone else to argue with.

I think the "Memento" one is probably closest...

Perhaps you are correct, and I am the only person out here that doesn't follow your line of thinking. I will continue to read what you write, and continue to look for that part of what you say that I can learn from. If you do or do not want to respond to my posts, that is strictly your choice.

 

[RandallB]

I still think you’re allowing yourself to get hung-up in a naming convention problem overlapping Layman vocabulary with a Scientific vocabulary with the resulting confusion and misunderstanding between terms/definitions that wind up driving some into a third colorful vocabulary.

The problem with the "realistic" label is that is an ineffective word, that has a lot of baggage associated with it - at least for some. I like it fine but a lot of people don't.

But here in this word is where I think you run into trouble, because in layman terms it means in effect EPR-Local – I happen to like the idea of EPR-Local. My Local Realist view would accept “realistic” in the layman sense of the word. Therefore, I would never use the term “realistic” as it implies HV-Locality is the true reality (the reality I believe in). But science has yet to completely define reality or we would have both a GUT & TOE to answerer these issues.

Therefore, I disagree with the term even being used in any theory KS, MWI, QM, BM any of them, because it implies some knowledge of the complete workings of true reality. And that is what we are looking for! You can not assume the solution to offer as proof of that solution.

I suspect if you take some time and focus on what you really mean by “realism” as you have used it, you will see it as simply another term for EPR-Local or ‘go’ HV.

BUT, if the intention is to describe “something” that can be Non-local or even can somehow contain both local and non-local ideas in ‘realism’; it needs to be defined in much better detail than I’ve seen.
AND, If so that “something” should be given a different name not realism.

 

[DrChinese]

I still think you’re allowing yourself to get hung-up in a naming convention problem overlapping Layman vocabulary with a Scientific vocabulary with the resulting confusion and misunderstanding between terms/definitions that wind up driving some into a third colorful vocabulary.

...

BUT, if the intention is to describe “something” that can be Non-local or even can somehow contain both local and non-local ideas in ‘realism’; it needs to be defined in much better detail than I’ve seen.
AND, If so that “something” should be given a different name not realism.

The short answer is: Bell's Theorem is usually cast to say that "Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with all Local Realistic theories" and "Bell test results support QM over LR". Then they say: "You must jettison the assumption of locality or realism, or both". This isn't really my words, it's just a common description and one does not need to agree that those words are the best description (or even accurate). It is simply the stock answer.

But the standard way of seeing the issue is that there are *2* separate assumptions embedded in Bell's Theorem: locality and realism (or HVs, or non-contextuality, or more complete description of the wave function, or observer independent reality, or whatever term you prefer). It is not common to express these as a single assumption. Although it may turn out that they are 2 sides to the same coin, I can't say. And ttn feels strongly that it is locality that must be jettisoned.

Look: when people first heard about relativity, many had a hard time picturing how there could NOT be an absolute reference frame. And similarly: when people hear that we may live in an observer dependent reality, many have a hard time picturing how that might be possible. So be it; I didn't invent it so please don't hold me personally responsible for it (as apparently ttn does). The collapse of an entangled wave function operates in a manner that is otherwise counter-intuitive, regardless of what you choose to toss.

 

[Ernies]

The voluble Dr. Chinese keeps saying "why do most people not agree...". I am a retired theoretical physicist who talked with Bell (and Feynmann, for that matter).
Most people used to agree with Von Neumann's 'theorem' showing the argument for non-local theories to be inconsistent till Bell (among others) destroyed it. "Not just stupid, but silly" was his comment. Yet the theorem's errors were pointed out by a Dutchman- whose name I have forgotten-- only a year after Neumann's paper. So for half a century or so 'most people' agreed with Neumann because of his reputation, and held up a lot of physics for that period. So much for 'most people'.
Bell knew what he meant, and what the inequality implied. All the kerfuffle ultimately depends on whether the effects are thought of as causal, or as is usual in QM dismissed as correlations.
I'm on the side of Bell's original interpretation. I cannot quote it exactly but it amounted to the choice between non-locality and science depending on 'observers'.

Ernies

 

[RandallB]

The voluble Dr. Chinese keeps saying "why do most people not agree...

I disagree, the only time I see him to be a little “voluble” is when he seems in the troughs of sorting out some issues on his own and trying to make some progress with fleshing out a new idea. Everyone should be allowed some latitude in working though ideas in their own way.
I find the vast majority of posts by Dr. Chinese to be highly valuable to an independent researcher like myself; instructive, a reference, or referral to other information typically helpful stuff. And not insisting that folks agree with him.

I’m not so keen on Mr. Bells comments on observers and “beables”. But I too love his originality and thinking contained within the Bell Theorem, and most of all his belief in Einstein’s ‘local reality’ over QM, even after his own work seemed to have shown Einstein wrong.

I like your analogy to Von Neumann as I’d like to see Bell’s work recast to show that he and Einstein were right and QM was wrong after all. Not that I think the Bell work could ever be described as stupid, I just still feel there is something wrong there, maybe even silly. Which says a lot about why I’m an independent.

 

[Ernies]

Further to earlier postings, I have just obtained Rovelli's article and consider it contains a number of flaws---not mathematical ones but those of reasoning. For example it contains the statement that a fundamental presupposition implies that <quote>any physical system provides a potential observer<end of quote>. This is even worse than the opriginal Copenhagen suppositions. The term 'observers' is of course undefined.

I recall many years ago reading a book (edited by P.C.W. Davies) which gathered the comments of six or seven eminent physicists on the interpretation of QM as given in BBC broadcasts. ALL except one (I think Bell) said very firmly that there was only one interpretation, and proceeded to give it. The trouble was that all were different. Things don't seem to have changed much.

 

[gptejms]

I haven't gone thru all the posts carefully,but the crux seems to be:-ttn argues that violation of bell's theorem implies non-locality(which is equivalent to falsification of HV theories) whereas drchinese thinks otherwise.Is that right?

 

[Hurkyl]

It might be that ttn doesn't acknowledge forms of locality that don't reduce to Bell locality. I never managed to convince myself one way or the other on that question.

 

[Ernies]

In reply to qptejms, I would answer "Well,yes, they do disgree here, but is that really the crux?". What seems to me the point at which they are talking 'past each other' lies in ttn's point that, locally real theory or not, 'action at a distance' is required to agree with experiment. Or have I got it wrong as well?

 

[gptejms]

the point at which they are talking 'past each other' lies in ttn's point that, locally real theory or not, 'action at a distance' is required to agree with experiment.

You mean there can be 'action at a distance' in a locally real theory?

...see,my point is that action at a distance implies non-locality.Now whether there's action at a distance in EPR experiments--I think that's the whole point of such experiments--spooky action at a distance is taking place.If the photons really had (random in the classical sense though well defined)polarizations at a given time that were correlated,then Bell's inequality would not be violated.

 

[Ernies]

We are getting tied up on terminology again. What Bell wrote was that if the world did not depend on being observed (or some equivalent phrase-- I don't have the texts to hand) then non-local effects, (those I loosely described as action at a distance) must occur if the expermental results were to be accounted for.
I should add that Bell said to me personally that this was a fair interpretation of his views. Whether he would also consider it a precise one, I don't know.
ttn seemed to me to be saying that whether or not observers were required, non-local effects are necessary to account for the results.
I have been unable to formulate Dr. Chinese views in like terms. That is why I said they were 'talking past each other.
Bell and a number of other eminent physicists plumped firmly for the idea that observers are not essential for physical reality. So do I.
Just to stir the pot a bit more, perhaps it is like the problem of free will where we would be, perhaps are, compelled to act as though we had it even if we do not.

 

[gptejms]

I don't get this--it's only on being observed that there's spooky action at a distance.Before the observation,we can't even talk of the non-local effect(action at a distance).

 

[Ernies]

Your answer begs the question. It ASSUMES that the world depends on observation: for example that the observation of an entangled particle causes the instantaneous collapse of the wave-function of both particles.The alternative point of view is that the observation of one particle affects the knowledge of the observer and he is able to deduce with certainty the state of the other. I do not see why I cannot talk about that.
If one does not accept that, one is driven to agree with Rovelli's statement that reality is different for every observer, and ultimately into solipsim. I can see no rational (and certainly no proven) intermediate state. For me, the world does not depend on observers, though obviously they may affect it.

 

[gptejms]

I was reacting to your statement in the last post "if the world did not depend on being observed (or some equivalent phrase-- I don't have the texts to hand) then non-local effects, (those I loosely described as action at a distance) must occur if the expermental results were to be accounted for".I don't know if you are saying the same thing below:-

The alternative point of view is that the observation of one particle affects the knowledge of the observer and he is able to deduce with certainty the state of the other. I do not see why I cannot talk about that.

Are you saying that one can know about the state of the other particle (without observation of that particle)so there is a non-local effect?

If one does not accept that, one is driven to agree with Rovelli's statement that reality is different for every observer, and ultimately into solipsim. I can see no rational (and certainly no proven) intermediate state. For me, the world does not depend on observers, though obviously they may affect it.

I know nothing of Rovelli's paper,so can't comment on that,but regarding your last statement "the world does not depend on observers"hysics talks only about observations;what happens when it's not observed is something nobody can answer.I think it's not even a valid question.

 

[Haelfix]

Half of you are using terminology so loosely, I can't disentangle the mess of what you are actually trying to say. This is a good example of why physics needs to be done on a blackboard and not a discussion forum.

The biggest offender:

Locality... several definitions, not all of them equivalent. Worse there are different contexts for locality, one in the shroedinger equation and two in the collapse postulate (and of course the various interpretations have different stages as well, further compounding the mess) and even another in field theory. Closely related, but not equivalent is causality (again different definitions). For instance you can have a manifestly non local theory (for instance string theory, it possesses tachyons) but that satisfies causality.

Anyway back to the point, I think the 'observer specific' interpretations of QM are more or less done away with these days with the advent of decoherence. We don't need to talk about 'consciousness' or any of that mysticism, and we don't need human beings to make the universe work.

 

[Rade]

...we don't need to talk about 'consciousness' or any of that mysticism, and we don't need human beings to make the universe work.

What do we need, non-human things that interact locally perhaps ?

 

[Ernies]

Haelfix says: Anyway back to the point, I think the 'observer specific' interpretations of QM are more or less done away with these days with the advent of decoherence. We don't need to talk about 'consciousness' or any of that mysticism, and we don't need human beings to make the universe work.<end of quote>.

I agree that the various definitions for locality etc. make for a mess. But to my mind 'decoherence' is part of the mess, and does not seem to be well-defined.
While I have been out of the professional game for some time, and may have missed it, has anyone reconciled General Relativity and QM yet? As many people, latterly including Suarez have pointed out, relativity means that the ordering of events need not be the same for all observers, so that one cannot unequivocally say that A is the cause of B. While Suarez particular solution was refuted by the experiments of Stefanov et al (Phys. Rev.A67,042115), they conclude 'Correlations reveal somehow dependence between events. But regarding quantum correlations, our experiment shows that the dependence does not correspond to any real time ordering'.
How is that for a result that 'sits on the fence'?

Ernies

 

[Farsight]

Haelfix: can you indicate a website that will give me a concept for decoherence? I can search google, but I'm not sure whether something that looks OK to me is OK.

 

[gptejms]

Anyway back to the point, I think the 'observer specific' interpretations of QM are more or less done away with these days with the advent of decoherence. We don't need to talk about 'consciousness' or any of that mysticism, and we don't need human beings to make the universe work.

There have been numerous threads here and as well at s.p.r. which address the question 'does decoherence solve the measurement problem?'--the answer is it doesen't.

In any case I wasen't talking of 'observer specific' interpretations or anything of that sort in my questions to Ernies.I was just trying to understand what exactly his point of view(or that of Bell as he claims) was and how that was consistent with whatever he wrote.

 

[DrChinese]

We are getting tied up on terminology again. What Bell wrote was that if the world did not depend on being observed (or some equivalent phrase-- I don't have the texts to hand) then non-local effects, (those I loosely described as action at a distance) must occur if the expermental results were to be accounted for.

I should add that Bell said to me personally that this was a fair interpretation of his views. Whether he would also consider it a precise one, I don't know.

ttn seemed to me to be saying that whether or not observers were required, non-local effects are necessary to account for the results.
I have been unable to formulate Dr. Chinese views in like terms. That is why I said they were 'talking past each other.

Bell and a number of other eminent physicists plumped firmly for the idea that observers are not essential for physical reality. So do I.
Just to stir the pot a bit more, perhaps it is like the problem of free will where we would be, perhaps are, compelled to act as though we had it even if we do not.

Please keep in mind that I often try to push the "orthodox" view because many readers here are not familiar with the nuances of some of the arguments being presented. I think it is good to be aware of the standard interpretations even if you do not agree with them. I am quite aware that the orthodox view changes with the eye of the beholder as Ernies points out, but there is still something to be gained by being aware of this. We are not doing original research here, so my presentation of a standard view should not really be considered controversial. I do not argue that it is some absolute truth that will never change in the future, but rather that this view reflects "generally accepted" scientific opinion at this time.

Specifically, I pretty well agree with what Ernies is saying about his conversation with Bell: either there is non-locality, or reality is observer dependent. (An observer dependent reality corresponds to the "non-realistic" viewpoint I have mentioned many times.) If you don't like the idea of an observer dependent reality, then that is a reasonable opinion. I simply point out that is *not* equivalent to asserting that Bell's Theorem requires non-locality to agree with experimental results - which is essentially ttn's position.

 

[vanesch]

Anyway back to the point, I think the 'observer specific' interpretations of QM are more or less done away with these days with the advent of decoherence. We don't need to talk about 'consciousness' or any of that mysticism, and we don't need human beings to make the universe work.

Well, this is not entirely true, if you mean by that that decoherence "solves" entirely the issue. Decoherence is a great help, in that it suggests that there is a "natural basis" in which to write your wavefunction. But it STILL doesn't tell you why you only see ONE term, while your body is present in all of them. It only explains you why you do not see weird interferences.
So let's say that decoherence tackles ONE of the two main aspects of the measurement problem: the preferred-basis problem. There is (on a coarse-grained level) a natural emerging preferred basis.
But it doesn't solve the AND/OR issue. Now, the AND/OR issue has no physical consequences ! You can happily *continue* to work in all your decohered terms *in parallel*, and in these different terms, there's no "influence" from the neighbouring term. The AND/OR issue only comes about because we don't see the world that way. We don't see the world in "many parallel terms", we only see one. Maybe that is because there only IS one (but then, decoherence is of no help), or maybe it has something to do with our perception (and then all this consciousness stuff comes in whether you like it or not).

 

[ttn]

Specifically, I pretty well agree with what Ernies is saying about his conversation with Bell: either there is non-locality, or reality is observer dependent. (An observer dependent reality corresponds to the "non-realistic" viewpoint I have mentioned many times.) If you don't like the idea of an observer dependent reality, then that is a reasonable opinion. I simply point out that is *not* equivalent to asserting that Bell's Theorem requires non-locality to agree with experimental results - which is essentially ttn's position.

This is an illogical statement of the "options" because the kind of "observer-dependence" that would be *needed* in order to achieve consistency with the data would be a dependence of some facts "over there" depending on an observer "over here". In other words, not any old "observer dependence" will get you out of the trouble here. What you need is *non-local* "observer dependence"... which is not exactly an *alternative* to non-locality, now is it?

Of course, you can go *completely* anti-realist -- not just say that what is real is affected by (i.e., depends on) interaction with some observer, but say that there is no such thing as "real", really, there is no physical reality out there independent of us at all, what we (erroneously) speak of as physical happenings at various places are actually just ideas in somebody's head. In other words, you can assimilate the whole content of physics onto the philosophical brain-in-vat scenario. And then, I grant, you have successfully eluded the conclusion (from Bell's work) that there are real non-local influences out there in nature. But you've done it by surrendering the whole fort. There are (in this scheme) no non-local influences out there in nature, only because there are no "influences" at all (even local ones), no "out there", and no "nature". And, I say, anyone who thinks that is a rational way out of the dilemma is crazy. By giving up this broad philosophical notion of realism, you also ipso facto give up any meaningful claim that reality is local. If there's no reality, reality ain't local. You cannot "save locality" by giving up realism -- which is the kind of sloppy thinking that usually motivates people to go this route in the first place.

 

[vanesch]

Of course, you can go *completely* anti-realist -- not just say that what is real is affected by (i.e., depends on) interaction with some observer, but say that there is no such thing as "real", really, there is no physical reality out there independent of us at all, what we (erroneously) speak of as physical happenings at various places are actually just ideas in somebody's head.

You can just stop short of that, by considering that each observer observes only ONE ASPECT of a multi-observer reality, which could be assigned the status of "what is real".

Instead of having one Bob and one Alice, after each photon pair, you have doubled the number of Bobs and Alices, each with their respective observations. But a "particular Bob" will just meet "a particular Alice" in such a way that their observations match.

So, what's "objectively real" are then the miriads of Bobs and Alices, and what's "real for (a) Bob" is just one small aspect of it, which this Bob erroneously thinks as of "all what is out there".

In other words, you can assimilate the whole content of physics onto the philosophical brain-in-vat scenario. And then, I grant, you have successfully eluded the conclusion (from Bell's work) that there are real non-local influences out there in nature. But you've done it by surrendering the whole fort. There are (in this scheme) no non-local influences out there in nature, only because there are no "influences" at all (even local ones), no "out there", and no "nature".

No, on the contrary: there's MUCH MORE out there than what you see, not much less. There's not only "you" with all your past observations, but there are also all "your alternatives" with all THEIR observations ; and idem for all the other observers out there. Myriads of copies, but you only see one.
So instead of denying reality, it goes the other way: there's in a way "too much" reality and you are only aware of one small small part of it.

And, I say, anyone who thinks that is a rational way out of the dilemma is crazy.

There are so many strange ideas around that people one day found crazy. I'd say it is rather encouraging

Now, I realize what you are saying, but out of two things one:
or, indeed, this is crazy, and the world really IS what we seem to think it is (and not a much bigger place, of which we only see one small "version" and think that it is all there is to it). In that case, we have been seriously misguided for most of the 20th century. This _could_ be the case.
or, this is correct, and then it is just that the world is a much more subtle place than we thought it was, and this is one of the biggest insights ever. This _could_ also be the case. It happened before, that we found out, to our almost unbelievable astonishment, that the world was way bigger than we thought it was.

Weird ? For sure ! Crazy ? Not so sure. Correct ? No idea.

 

[ttn]

You can just stop short of that, by considering that each observer observes only ONE ASPECT of a multi-observer reality, which could be assigned the status of "what is real".

So, it's just the brain-in-vat scenario I described before, but you add two seemingly arbitrary additions: 1. in addition to me, there are lots of other "people" (i.e., other brains in other vats) "out there" who are, for all practical purposes, in different universes (where "universe" means, in good philosophically idealist style, all the conscious experiences of one of the brains-in-vats). and 2. in addition to all these brains-in-vats with their experiences, there's a real objective physical world (which, however, doesn't correspond to any of the beliefs of any of the brains in vats).

All I can say is, yes, that's a third alternative. Either there's a real world which corresponds to all the stuff we've known for a long time (e.g., observed experimentally and/or perceptually) -- or that's a delusion and I'm just a brain in vat (except there's no physical brain and no physical vat, just my conscious experience) -- or there is a real physical world but it is nothing like what we believe (based on experiment/perception) and so everything we do believe (even the good scientifically/experimentally proved stuff, like that Bell's inequalities are *really* violated, or that there's a table in front of me) is a delusion.

Those are indeed the three options. Either we're all crazy, we're all *really* crazy, or there are superluminal causal influences out there in physical reality.

 

[gptejms]

Specifically, I pretty well agree with what Ernies is saying about his conversation with Bell: either there is non-locality, or reality is observer dependent. (An observer dependent reality corresponds to the "non-realistic" viewpoint I have mentioned many times.) If you don't like the idea of an observer dependent reality, then that is a reasonable opinion. I simply point out that is *not* equivalent to asserting that Bell's Theorem requires non-locality to agree with experimental results - which is essentially ttn's position.

Ernies has not answered my questions(in my last to last post).Since you seem to be in agreement with Ernies,may be you can answer those questions.

 

[vanesch]

So, it's just the brain-in-vat scenario I described before, but you add two seemingly arbitrary additions: 1. in addition to me, there are lots of other "people" (i.e., other brains in other vats) "out there" who are, for all practical purposes, in different universes (where "universe" means, in good philosophically idealist style, all the conscious experiences of one of the brains-in-vats). and 2. in addition to all these brains-in-vats with their experiences, there's a real objective physical world (which, however, doesn't correspond to any of the beliefs of any of the brains in vats).

You formulate it in a highly pejorative way , but yes, it's some summary of the viewpoint. Except that you can replace "vat" by "body state".

All I can say is, yes, that's a third alternative. Either there's a real world which corresponds to all the stuff we've known for a long time (e.g., observed experimentally and/or perceptually) -- or that's a delusion and I'm just a brain in vat (except there's no physical brain and no physical vat, just my conscious experience) -- or there is a real physical world but it is nothing like what we believe (based on experiment/perception) and so everything we do believe (even the good scientifically/experimentally proved stuff, like that Bell's inequalities are *really* violated, or that there's a table in front of me) is a delusion.

Again, it's in the choice of words. Compare it to looking at a hologram: you think you see an object, and you DO see the lightwaves that come from an object, but the object is not what you think it is.

Those are indeed the three options. Either we're all crazy, we're all *really* crazy, or there are superluminal causal influences out there in physical reality.

Sort of. And given that the last alternative goes against relativity's founding principle, only the first two are open for discussion, if you want to keep the otherwise nice formalism of relativity.
In other words, by thinking hard enough about all we've seen, we realize finally that we've been looking at a hologram all the time. (maybe a poor analogy, don't know). Delusion ? Discovery ? Things still look the same.

 

[Ernies]

Let me make a number of points
1. I do not claim any personal relationship with Bell other than after-session coffee chats between half-a-dozen people two or three times. In these one is not so careful to distinguish between 'views' and scientific assertions to be proven or refuted as on more formal occasions.
2. Our current forum discussions get hung up on different definitions of 'local', 'real', and so on. I therefore will descend to using words in the layman's sense, which most people find understandable, even if less precise.
3. On at least one occasion it was agreed that we all believed statements like "The book in a drawer is still there even when not being observed" to be true. If some versions of physics did not agree, whether as accidental fact or by the definition of physics, too bad for those versions.
4. The experimental results disproved the EPR thesis, and implied superluminality.
5. I have yet to see a believable theory which truly reconciles General Relativity and QM.

I do not know whether this answers the questions on my point of view or not. But if not we are not going to get anywhere at all
Ernies

 

[RandallB]

I think it's great that we have someone here that had the chance to be conversational with Bell.

And I like the idea of things been put in layman terms, a good scientist should be able to translate from their. I think it was Einstein and Born that used to say a good theory should be understandable to a barmaid. I'm sure they used something else like children in their lectures.

In the simplest of layman's terms I'm convinced that QM and GR can never be reconciled. Fundamentally QM expects gravity to be explained by particle exchange (gravitons), while GR accounts for it entirely by the warped shape of space-time. Although both can be seen as nonlocal I cannot see how they can ever be compatible with each other. It's just too big a fundamental difference.
In fact in layman's terms it may be easier to see this; then in some of the cryptic scientific efforts to force the two theories together.

 

[Farsight]

Somebody on another thread gave me a lead to this article on Relational Quantum Mechanics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/

I can't vouch for it, but it struck me as "Quantum Relativity", and I found it interesting.

I'm not convinced that QM and GR cannot be reconciled, and I think there are possibiliites for a layman's explanation connecting warped spacetime and particles. Let's give it a whirl:

Imagine a charged particle as a tent pole at one end of a "rubber tent" Universe, with another charged particle at the other end. Kick your nearest tentpole and a little rubber ripple of height variation shoots away in the direction of your kick. That's basically a photon. If it goes anywhere near the other tentpole it gets absorbed and vanishes, and you see the other tentpole moving like you'd kicked it directly. Or like you'd shot it with a bullet - which is why we think of the photon as a particle too. We think gravitons are similar, but we haven't found them yet.

 

[RandallB]

I'm not convinced that QM and GR cannot be reconciled, and I think there are possibiliites for a layman's explanation connecting warped spacetime and particles. Let's give it a whirl: ...

But that doesn’t reconcile the two, or get them to work together.
You have put into layman’s terms why they are not reconcilable.

One system uses a rubber tent to transfer gravity information.
No need for “bullets” it is complete as is within the warping approach.

The other is complete by using “bullets” or gravitons alone.
Additional movement from rubber tent forces being taken into account can only interfere with the complete results of the particle exchange approach.

Particle exchange vs. warped space-time:
two different and incompatible ways to explain the same thing.

So if someone can build a theory that does combine these two non-local theories into one compatible explanation, consistent with both GR and QM, no doubt they would go into the history books.

 

[Farsight]

Here's how I see it Randall:

You can't see the bullets. But something hits you like a bullet, so you call it a bullet, and you start calculating. The sums work for bullets, but these bullets are mysterious, and seem to be in two places at once. Plus you can't see how your bullets can be reconciled with a rubber tent.

I think your problem is with those bullets. Those "billiard ball" particles. Stop calling them particles, call them something else. Think of those everyday objects with no tangible substance of their own, like a knot, a crease, a shout, a wave, a wibble. Call your particles "entities" or something suitably neutral. Get the hang of it, then look again at the difference between QM and GR.

 

[Ernies]

I think your problem is with those bullets. Those "billiard ball" particles. Stop calling them particles, call them something else. Think of those everyday objects with no tangible substance of their own, like a knot, a crease, a shout, a wave, a wibble. Call your particles "entities" or something suitably neutral. Get the hang of it, then look again at the difference between QM and GR.

Many people went down that route. I recall in the 40's the popular term was 'wavicles'. But it didn't achieve anything. What precisely is meant by having 'no tangible sustance of their own'? Do they have some substratum for their existence, as a knot or crease does, or are they, like wave-functions, merely a statement of probabilties.? I can't see how either would help.

Ernies

 

[Farsight]

What precisely is meant by having 'no tangible sustance of their own'?

I can't say for all entities Ernie, but if we consider a photon, it has no edge or surface that you can touch, so you could not hope to locate it in a particular place. It isn't made out of something, or anything. It's a self-propagating electromagnetic distortion with a given energy, that could have been created by acclerating a charged "particle". A running warp if you like. Kinetic Energy leakage from the charged particle's resistance to motion.

Do they have some substratum for their existence, as a knot or crease does, or are they, like wave-functions, merely a statement of probabilties?

I think yes, the electrical permittivity v magnetic permeability of space, but please seek expert input.

 

[RandallB]

(from Ernies) What precisely is meant by having 'no tangible sustance of their own'?
Do they have some substratum for their existence, as a knot or crease does, or are they, like wave-functions, merely a statement of probabilties?

I think yes, the electrical permittivity v magnetic permeability of space, but please seek expert input.

You're missing the point he wasn't asking for your help or direction to an expert.
Ernies, IS the expert on this point!
He is giving you some significant advice in the form of a question that needs to be addressed completely, in your attempt to mash together QM & GR in something more than a mystical imagination to call them reconciled.

It needs to fit BOTH:
GR; that expects no gravitons just curved Space-Time.
And QM; that may well use SR plus maybe 10 or 11 dimensions, but would not need GR as it expects particle exchange to account for gravity.
I see nothing in your speculations to account for the discrepancies between the two or even in any small may start to reconcile them.

 

[Farsight]

Particle exchange vs. warped space-time:
two different and incompatible ways to explain the same thing.

All I'm saying is a photon is a traveling warp rather than a billiard ball "particle", and this offers at least the start of a connection between the two.

 

[RandallB]

All I'm saying is a photon is a traveling warp rather than a billiard ball "particle", and this offers at least the start of a connection between the two.

And the point Ernies was offering you from experience and expertise is that you will need to do much better than a ‘warp’ or 'wavicles' to even start. The difference between GR & QM is more than explaining waves acting like particles & particles like waves.

Ernies depth of information is deeper than mine, I’d never heard of Huygens 'wavicles' or that they had been applied to QM. Amazing what you can find when someone gives you just a word and you have Google available.

 

[Ernies]

I see Farsight's reason for such an attempt, but I think his argument does not work. It treats space (or spacetime) as a substratum through which the "wavicle" passes, whether as a bullet or a warp or something we haven't yet thought of. This really is back to the old "ether".

I'm afraid I must decline being termed 'expert'. Iwas fairly well up on cutting edge stuff until I retired, but now I can only hope to help people avoid already trodden dead-end paths. But thanks anyway.

Ernies

 

[Farsight]

Here's a moving charge applet. In essence it's the "rubber tent" tentpole analogy viewed from the top. One can view a photon as a traveling warp in the local charge height, charge being a fundamental dimension of the universe.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/MovingCharge/MovingCharge.html

I'd be grateful if somebody could explain why this is a naive view and enter into some dialogue rather than dismissing it out of hand.

 

[Farsight]

For reference:

Somebody on another thread gave me a lead to this article on Relational Quantum Mechanics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/

I can't vouch for it, but it struck me as "Quantum Relativity", and I found it interesting.

I'm not convinced that QM and GR cannot be reconciled, and I think there are possibiliites for a layman's explanation connecting warped spacetime and particles. Let's give it a whirl:

Imagine a charged particle as a tent pole at one end of a "rubber tent" Universe, with another charged particle at the other end. Kick your nearest tentpole and a little rubber ripple of height variation shoots away in the direction of your kick. That's basically a photon. If it goes anywhere near the other tentpole it gets absorbed and vanishes, and you see the other tentpole moving like you'd kicked it directly. Or like you'd shot it with a bullet - which is why we think of the photon as a particle too. We think gravitons are similar, but we haven't found them yet.

 

[Ernies]

Why distinguish the charged particle as a solid object (i.e. the tent-pole)? They behave like waves too, under the right conditions, swapping their apparent qualities just like photons.
If charge is a fundamental dimension of the universe, how about parity, spin, and all the other qm properties? And I think it would be rather hard to fit gluons into the picture.
I am not dismissing the idea of reconciling qm and gr: only that I haven't met a convincing way of doing it.
Sorry if I sounded dismissive.

Ernies

 

[RandallB]

I'm afraid I must decline being termed 'expert'. I was fairly well up on cutting edge stuff until I retired, but now I can only hope to help people avoid already trodden dead-end paths.

Fair point – my writing “THE” expert may not be fair. But I do consider you “AN” expert, able to help us identify and ‘avoid already trodden dead-end paths’ for which I’m grateful for your contributions based on your experience.

And although I think Farsight’s moving charge applet is great.
I see no GR space-time curve "rubber tent" tentpole analogy there.
It is more an analogy of QM virtual particle paths extending from a newly created charged particle describing when and where they can be exchanged with some other charged particle to that they can become aware of the new charged particle and react to it, no GR required.

 

[Farsight]

Why distinguish the charged particle as a solid object (i.e. the tent-pole)? They behave like waves too, under the right conditions... how about parity, spin... gluons.

Ernies: I just thought it would be easier to start with the bosons. Parity is a flip, spin is a twist, gluons can be likened to photons. All warps of one kind or another. And perhaps fermions are more involved warps, starting with a moebius strip. I didn't think you were being dismissive.

Randall: the lines extending outwards from the charged "particle" are like imaginary stripes drawn on the rubber tent that let's us observe the motion of the rubber. IMHO they aren't particles, imaginary or real. And IMHO the "travelling warp" photon isn't a particle either, it's just where these lines move because a dimension changes. PS: the applet isn't quite right. You really need a fine grid, maybe in high intensity where the charge is greatest. Give the charged particle a shove and you'd see something like a pressure wave kicking out in the direction of the acceleration. Sorry if that sounds like ether.

 

[Ernies]

Ernies: I just thought it would be easier to start with the bosons. Parity is a flip, spin is a twist, gluons can be likened to photons. All warps of one kind or another. And perhaps fermions are more involved warps, starting with a moebius strip. I didn't think you were being dismissive.

My point about gluons is that the forces involved vary directly in some sort of power law--not inversely, as for other particles---with separation distance. I really don't see how that can be accommodated in your argument.Yet again, I cannot see how anything without edges can either 'flip' or 'twist' in GR. Non-relativistic QM uses these terms, but it is only really saying that the maths. is analogous.
As far as the Moebius strip is concerned, I thought at first that perhaps you were connecting it with the contentious 'loop gravity' hypothesis, but I now can't see that either. Was your use of the word 'dimension' merely a rather loose one? If not you are going to end up with more dimensions than even the string theory boys want. Their curled-up dimensions only work because they are down at the Planck distance size, as I understand it. I know Lisa Randall says different, but her book 'Warped Passages' did not convince me.

Ernies

 

[Farsight]

Ernies:

I'll get back to you later on gluons.
IMHO a flip or a twist (or a rotation) doesn't need edges.
A moebius strip is an everyday object with spin half.
I used dimension in its proper sense, a measure, not a spatial dimension.

To reiterate, Randall said Particle Exchange v Warped space-time are incompatible. I replied that a photon is a traveling warp rather than a particle, and this offers the start of a connection between the two.

Edit: I was looking for a paper by Paul Davies, but couldn't find it. The wife is calling so I have to go: I'll try later. Until then can I say that IMHO a quantum is an increment, perhaps in field excitation, perhaps in something else, and there is no justification for calling it a particle, or for then creating mysteries and problems because we cannot locate this "particle". Sorry, but that's dogma, not physics.