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

[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.

 

[Hurkyl]

A moebius strip is an everyday object with spin half.

No, it's not; it has spin 2. If you rotate it 180 degrees, you get the original back.

If it had spin half, then a 360 degree rotation would just reverse it.

(This is, of course, all just an analogy)

 

[Ernies]

Ernies:

IMHO a flip or a twist (or a rotation) doesn't need edges.
A moebius strip is an everyday object with spin half.
[endquote]
Perhaps a fixed rotation does not, but a continuous rotation in space--or your rubber medium?
A moebius strip is indeed an everday object, but when you say it has 'spin' one half you make 'spin' static. I cannot see the mathematics of a moebius strip in GR with no edges.
Maybe I'm being dim.
Ernies.

Edit: I should hav sais ' a continuous rotation of space-- or your rubber medium"

 

[Ernies]

Ernies:
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.

I like Paul Davies ideas in general. Have you read the book he edited of BBC broadcasts in which about half a dozen eminent physicists gave their interpretations of QM? All except one said "There is only one interpretation of QM". Trouble is they were all different.

I have no objections to dogma, provided it is admitted as such. Just call it an axiom to be agreed or disagreed with. I wish all contributors could recognise the distinction.

Ernies

 

[Farsight]

Ernies: Sorry, I'm not clear on your question. I was just trying to illustrate that many subatomic properties can be considered as geometrical transformations, and that these offer a connection to bridge the gap between the quanta of QM and the warp of GR.

No, I haven't read that book. I'll look out for it.

Dogma is never admitted as such, Ernies. Never. Please try to replace the word particle with entity.

Hurkyl: you have to go round twice to get back to where you started.

 

[Careful]

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.

There is no issue of non-locality, neither is there a problem for realism. It is perfectly possible to construct locally causal, realist theories in which nonlocal correlations between ``particle-events'' can be measured. So all Bell's theorem shows it that if you take particles to be fundamental degrees of freedom *and* insist upon local causality then QM is outside this class. It is of course a very different matter to construct such theory which reproduces QM, but yes an ideal Bell test does not even refute local realism (actually it seems the latter class contains QM). If you drop the requirement of local, then I guess S. Adler has already given evidence of this. If you want to have a reference for this opinion, check out the papers of 't Hooft.

Careful

 

[Careful]

There is no issue of non-locality, neither is there a problem for realism. It is perfectly possible to construct locally causal, realist theories in which nonlocal correlations between ``particle-events'' can be measured. So all Bell's theorem shows it that if you take particles to be fundamental degrees of freedom *and* insist upon local causality then QM is outside this class. It is of course a very different matter to construct such theory which reproduces QM, but yes an ideal Bell test does not even refute local realism (actually it seems the latter class contains QM). If you drop the requirement of local, then I guess S. Adler has already given evidence of this. If you want to have a reference for this opinion, check out the papers of 't Hooft.

Careful

To clarify this : the particle assumption is actually hidden in the Kolmogorov assumption (factorizing of probability). The intuitive justification for this assumption is that particles with opposite spin traveling in opposite directions shall always exist and more or less follow the classical path at speed less than the speed of light, making interaction impossible if the detector settings cannot be communicated (again limited by the speed of light). However the latter assumptions do not hold in ordinary QFT (particles can be annihilated while other particles reappear at spacelike separated distances), where particles are local excitations of the field. By seeing particles as a statistical (coarse grained) property of the field, it is possible to mimic particle creation/annihilation in a deterministic, LOCAL theory ( --> violation of Kolmogorov assumption). This is, I think, a part of the possibility expressed by 't Hooft.

Here is a useful reference : http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0403/0403692.pdf by Peter Morgan of Yale. This is about stochastic models, in which 't Hoofts determinism fits in nicely : basically, it is impossible to write down a deterministic equation for the ``particle'' so that the particle dynamics is effectively stochastic. It is cute to notice that the Bell limit for stochastic modes exceeds the one for QM.

Careful

 

[RandallB]

To clarify this ... (particles can be annihilated while other particles reappear at spacelike separated distances), where particles are local excitations of the field.
By seeing particles as a statistical (coarse grained) property of the field, it is possible to mimic particle creation/annihilation in a deterministic, LOCAL theory ...

BUT your "mimic" can not be completed without using the annihilation to creation steps with the "statistical (coarse grained) property", AKA particles, reappearing as you have described "at spacelike separated distances"!

That means they have changed location FTL - how much more NON-LOCAL can you get.

Your own explanation and clarification falsify this idea’s (not even a theory) initial premise that “There is no issue of non-locality”. Clearly your solution is non-local.

 

[Careful]

BUT your "mimic" can not be completed without using the annihilation to creation steps with the "statistical (coarse grained) property", AKA particles, reappearing as you have described "at spacelike separated distances"!

That means they have changed location FTL - how much more NON-LOCAL can you get.

Your own explanation and clarification falsify this idea’s (not even a theory) initial premise that “There is no issue of non-locality”. Clearly your solution is non-local.

No, I have not changed location FTL : there is even no deterministic law for the change of particle position (even position is a coarse grained concept) - it could even be that a particle dissapears and two of them appear at the same time at spacelike separated distances. The proposal (of 't Hooft and many others) is entirely local, you might want to think about that - anyway have to go now.

Careful

 

[Farsight]

That means they have changed location FTL - how much more NON-LOCAL can you get.

By not starting off with particles in the first place? By considering that the entities we are dealing with are simply not point particles? How can I put it? Sorry to be cynical, but how about this:

The quantum of water in a fireman's hose is the gallon. But a gallon isn't all in one place. Which means it's in two places at once. Therefore Parallel Universes, Many Worlds, QED.

 

[RandallB]

No, I have not changed location FTL : ...
a particle dissapears and two of them appear at the same time at spacelike separated distances.

Once again, self defeating and contradicting statements – this time inside a single sentence.

Non-Locality does not go away by waving your hands over the useful simultaneous forming of particles at space-like separations (i.e. information being shared FTL) and just claiming: “This is Local, not Non-Local, it just has no local explanation of how it correlates perfectly with the Non-Local assumptions of theories like QM (probabilities) and BM (guide wave) etc.”

So NO-Dice, I don’t accept this as a “Local” solution, invalidating Non-Local Theories!
I’ll look at QM and BM as legit competing non-local theories, even though I’d prefer a local one that works. But this thing whatever you call it; is ether an ill formed idea, or gross misinterpretation of a 't Hooft Non-Local concept.

 

[Careful]

By not starting off with particles in the first place? By considering that the entities we are dealing with are simply not point particles? How can I put it? Sorry to be cynical, but how about this:

Dear Farshight,

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you could politely ask me or you could at least try to read the papers I mentioned above. A certain class of toy models in which you can achieve this are cellular automatons.

Careful

 

[Careful]

Dear RandallB,

The same comment applies to you.

**
Once again, self defeating and contradicting statements – this time inside a single sentence. Non-Locality does not go away by waving your hands over the useful simultaneous forming of particles at space-like separations (i.e. information being shared FTL) and just claiming: “This is Local, not Non-Local, it just has no local explanation of how it correlates perfectly with the Non-Local assumptions of theories like QM (probabilities) and BM (guide wave) etc.” **

I do not contradict myself in any way and if you find any self defeating sentences of mine you are welcome to report them to me.
If a particle dissapears somewhere it simply does not exist anymore (period) - so you clearly did not understand this sentence.

BM has the wrong starting point, it starts from non relativistic QM and not QFT. What 't Hooft basically says is that the dynamics at the Planck scale is deterministic, local and chaotic; particles are hughe collections of these Planckian vibrations. The idea is that if you look at the effective dynamics at the scale of the particles, then you would have (to an excellent approximation) a stochastic theory (in which you can treat the particles like points). Stochastic theories can violate the Bell inequalties (actually the normal limit is 2, QM = 2 sqrt(2) and stochastic is 4).

references are : quant-ph/0212095 and http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub/DiceWorld.pdf

And who said that this option INVALIDATES non local theories (?), you are imagining things I have never said and cannot read the things I say. I said there is no ISSUE of local realist versus non local (realist or not) in the context of Bell experiments, at least not on the simplistic level you are talking on - it might be on a much more sophisticated level, but that is unknown. Anyone who can read the latter sentence knows that it means : measurement of an EPR state is not the way to refute local realist theories.

On the other hand Zapperz raised valid comments on another thread : interpretations of QM, what is nature really like ?

Careful

 

[RandallB]

The same comment applies to you.

You need to be more specific.
Which comment applied to what claim of mine?
If you can be detailed here I’ll try to clarify what ever it is I claimed that you don’t understand.

And who said that this option INVALIDATES non local theories (?), you are imagining things I have never said and cannot read the things I say. I said there is no ISSUE of l...

In post 106 you claimed “There is no issue of non-locality, neither is there a problem for realism.” QM claims and depends on Non-Local being a fact, managed by HUP. If as you say there is no issue of non-locality than that is claiming that QM is wrong.

Did you miss the point that Farsight was supporting your position and trying to resolve my complaint. His “Quantum Gallon” can be as large as he likes and contain the action of a particle or a pair of entangled particles. I’m satisfied that he is correct that is a fair way and a fair analogy of what your describing that does provide a solution to Bell.
My problem is I cannot accept that as a “Local” and “Real” solution until the action inside that “Quantum Gallon” (Farsight likes using descriptive names for a particle or ‘entity’) is clearly defined in descriptive local terms. - Random chaotic stochastic assumptions taken to an “to an excellent approximation”, so that ‘a particle disappears somewhere’ while at the same time at space-like separation something can appear retaining correlating information from it, is just not good enough to be defined as LOCAL.

Mind you proving the world is Local is my own goal and belief, but I won’t claim or accept it without a complete and convincing LOCAL explanation.
Non-Locality as needed by QM and others is an acceptable real issue, not a non-issue.
Not until you, Farsight, myself or someone can do that, will we be proving QM wrong.

 

[Farsight]

Dear Farshight,

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you could politely ask me or you could at least try to read the papers I mentioned above. A certain class of toy models in which you can achieve this are cellular automatons.

Careful

Farshight?

Please can you repost a link to one selected paper along with a very brief restatement of what you're saying.

 

[Careful]

**
If you can be detailed here I’ll try to clarify what ever it is I claimed that you don’t understand.In post 106 you claimed “There is no issue of non-locality, neither is there a problem for realism.” QM claims and depends on Non-Local being a fact, managed by HUP. If as you say there is no issue of non-locality than that is claiming that QM is wrong. **

I don't know your level in physics (my answer would depend on that, no offense ), but fine. First of all, it are the Copenhagen, Bohm-de Broglie and spontanious collapse model (let me restrict to the realist interpretations) FORMULATIONS which are non-local; this does not imply that the predictions of QM necessarily emerge from a non-local theory. As to my physical intuition, I cannot imagine a theory which is neither realist, neither local and I have met nobody who can make sense of that. It is my deep conviction that ultimately the laws in physics for the CORRECT fundamental degrees of freedom are local, therefore I think the current FORMULATION of QM is incomplete : this is far from saying that QM is wrong.

You need to take as starting point quantum field theory where particles get created and annihalated, these are all local processes: to mimic this you can can start from a theory containing more fundamental degrees of freedom. I am currently not going to give more details of the specific automaton model I have in mind; but the references I provided should give enough hints.


**
Did you miss the point that Farsight was supporting your position and trying to resolve my complaint. His “Quantum Gallon” can be as large as he likes and contain the action of a particle or a pair of entangled particles. I’m satisfied that he is correct that is a fair way and a fair analogy of what your describing that does provide a solution to Bell. **

He was not helping me, he thinks in terms of parallel universes and all that nonsense - this is not what I was talking about at all.

**
My problem is I cannot accept that as a “Local” and “Real” solution until the action inside that “Quantum Gallon” (Farsight likes using descriptive names for a particle or ‘entity’) is clearly defined in descriptive local terms. **

The whole point is that the effective action for the particle is not (necessarily) local(ly stochastic) - while the dynamics for the true degrees of freedom is.

** Random chaotic stochastic assumptions taken to an “to an excellent approximation”, so that ‘a particle disappears somewhere’ while at the same time at space-like separation something can appear retaining correlating information from it, is just not good enough to be defined as LOCAL. **

But it is (!), you still do not understand what I am talking about. As a *simple* example, imagine yourself a particle (momentum p, spin s) which moves to the right at t = 0. At the same time, a particle - anti particle pair can be created at x = L > 0; the particle having momentum close to p and also spin s. The first particle and the anti-particle will meet approximately at L/2, they disappear and you are left with a perfectly correlated particle at x = 3L/2 !

The thing I try to learn you is that local realism is not necessarily in conflict with QM if you try to understand the correct theory, which is QFT. Really, read the papers of 't Hooft... I think I said in one of my first posts here that QM is an emergency solution; it is of course much easier to construct a nonlocal theory accounting for appearantly non local phenomena when you add a rule of thumb without further explanation (the famous reduction). However, one must REMEMBER one did not have a better idea at the time instead of looking for science fiction explanations to promote the ignorance as newly acquired deep understanding - although it is deep in the sense that it beautifully fits with experiment.



Careful

 

[RandallB]

Careful

As I read your last paragraph your saying hooft claims that his interpretation of QFT indicates that local realism might not necessarily be in conflict with QM.
I have no problem with that -- I disagree with the idea, but it is a good bit short of declaring that "There is no issue of non-locality" as being a settled issue.
If it was successful in settling the issue; I'd expect to see a GUT and likely a TOE come from the theory rather directly.

I understand the anti-particle idea being used here.
And I disagree about Farsight - his is not MWI and a fair view that can use what you are saying here in trying to resolve the GR vs. QM issue. I actually think his Quantum Gallon analogy is a rather good one -- BUT still: the instant jump from L/2 to 3L/2 is FTL; & with no reason for the pair at space-like separated L to start off as a match to the particle at 0, this is filled with non-local issues.

As a local realist myself, I believe a local theory will ruin QM and non-locals. Maybe the math of QFT may well remain as a description of something else not currently understood.

My standard for confirming "LOCAL" is very high - I see it as the only way to avoid and move on from crackpot local ideas and those that are in realty non-local. This one, for me at least, falls into the latter.
I don't expect any Mentors or Advisors to step in and say the scientific community accepts this as settled; So let's leave it that it doesn't work for me.

 

[Careful]

**
As I read your last paragraph your saying hooft claims that his interpretation of QFT indicates that local realism might not necessarily be in conflict with QM.
I have no problem with that -- I disagree with the idea, but it is a good bit short of declaring that "There is no issue of non-locality" as being a settled issue. **

No, it is not : there exist examples of local, classical theories which reproduce EPR correlations; however these can fairly be dismissed as being conspirational. The point about locally stochastic theories is that they can violate without problem the various forms of Bell's inequalities and do so in a *natural* way. So, there is in no obvious way an issue of non-locality in the sense that BOTH viewpoints appear to be possible so far. But I can hardly think of a *fundamental* stochastic dynamics for the universe too.

**If it was successful in settling the issue; I'd expect to see a GUT and likely a TOE come from the theory rather directly. **

Right, that is it's aim - although it is not that easy (computationally).

**
-- BUT still: the instant jump from L/2 to 3L/2 is FTL; & with no reason for the pair at space-like separated L to start off as a match to the particle at 0, this is filled with non-local issues **

No, it is not - it is just about the statistics of the vacuum (L is to be interpreted statistically of course). As far as Farsight goes, I don't know him, neither his opinions, therefore one should avoid metaphors.

**
As a local realist myself, I believe a local theory will ruin QM and non-locals. Maybe the math of QFT may well remain as a description of something else not currently understood. **

So, you are betting all your money on a perfect Bell test never being done and keeping particles as fundamental degrees of freedom ? Or are you in the locally stochastic camp ? Moreover, I disagree with you when you say that a local theory will ruin QM : as I see it, IF QM is RIGHT predictionwise, then any such local theory is much more complicated and the formalism of QM will certainly remain as a very useful tool.

I don't see any point in discussing about locality versus non-locality as is done here: local realism is not ruled out in any obvious way, so it is up to local realists to offer an alternative theory; all the rest is blabla.

**
My standard for confirming "LOCAL" is very high - I see it as the only way to avoid and move on from crackpot local ideas and those that are in realty non-local. This one, for me at least, falls into the latter. **

It is clearly local, except that you refuse to see particles as emergent properties. So, I assume you have no desire to reproduce particle creation/annihilation ?

Careful

 

[RandallB]

it is just about the statistics of the vacuum (L is to be interpreted statistically of course).

Sure --- very much as a HUP non-local uncertainty.
And I do trust your explanation of this one to know it is not one I need to dive into deeply - so thanks.

So, you are betting all your money on ...

No, - I'm am betting.
But on my terms and on my expectations, not yours or your assumptions.
Any good solution will be simpler and more fundamentally clear than what we see today not more complex.

 

[Careful]

**Sure --- very much as a HUP non-local uncertainty.
And I do trust your explanation of this one to know it is not one I need to dive into deeply - so thanks. **

Huh ?? It has nothing to do with HUP (!), it is merely classical statistics.

**
But on my terms and on my expectations, not yours or your assumptions.
Any good solution will be simpler and more fundamentally clear than what we see today not more complex.**

You do not say anything here, neither do you answer any of my questions and neither do you tell us how you are going to try to avoid clashes with Bell inequalities. So, I ask you again, what is your point of discussing all this ??

Careful

 

[Farsight]

Careful:

I'm not somebody who thinks MWI is the correct picture of reality. I'm somebody who thinks that there's confusion between a quantum and a particle, and this may be the root of QM interpretation problems. For example:

You need to take as starting point quantum field theory where particles get created and annihilated