QUANTUM WAVE

REAL WAVE, NOT BORN KNOWLEDGE WAVE.

Abstract: Quantum Waves are real. Because the alternatives are unreal. On the way I make a drastic epistemological critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (“CI”), and its modern aspect, QBism. (For a general introduction, one can consult Nature’s March 26 2014 lead editorial: ”Be here now.” http://www.nature.com/news/be-here-now-1.14922.)

***

Quantum Physics, as usually formulated, uses “observers” and “measurements”. That approach was the invention of Bohr and his flock. It was celebrated by giving the Nobel to Born (a friend of Einstein) for making Quantum Waves into “Probabilistic Waves”.

Quantum Interference Gives Birth To The Universe

Quantum Interference Gives Birth To The Universe

As Nature’s “Be here now” puts it: “Bohr and Einstein argued about whether quantum mechanics allowed any room for the idea of realism — of an objective world that exists independently from our efforts to observe and measure it. Bohr insisted that physics was concerned with what we can know, and was silent on the matter of ‘how things really are’. He, Born and Heisenberg made claims about quantum theory’s challenge to causality and determinism that today look like a bit of an intellectual stretch.”

QBism (for Quantum Bayesian), Nature magazine sings the praises of, brings nothing new to CI. Bayesian probabilities (developed mostly by Laplace!) modify the ingredients of a probability computation to get a better fit to what’s observed.

Far from being sophisticated, I would argue that the probabilistic approach to Quantum Physics, although effective, is primitive. It is what I will call, a typical first order theory of reality.

Indeed thinking from “measurements” and “observers” is exactly the way a scary smart prehistoric man who knew nothing about a subject would proceed. As he would try to be as objective as possible. And make no mistake: today’s civilization rests on countless scary smart prehistoric men, some living hundreds of thousands years ago, and maybe more.

Confronted to the unknown phenomenon, the first thing prehistoric man will notice is that situation depends upon observer and measurement, causality and determinism are not in evidence. In other words, scary smart prehistoric man would be baffled, just the way Niels Bohr and his followers (Heisenberg, Born, etc.) were baffled.

However scary smart prehistoric man did not just stay baffled, as most physicists have resigned themselves to be. Instead scary smart prehistoric men built up meta-theories, that is all encompassing brain networks that made a given phenomenon into one. (It could be a theory of Tarpan Horse hunting, or of spring floods, bad weather incoming, or the local volcano.)

The probabilistic approach, “just shut up and calculate”, CI, is only a first approach. Real science substitute concepts with a life of their own to raw data. (That life is the appropriate brain machinery set-up to organize the data; that’s what causality is.)

Even human beings (“savants”) who are natural born computers, those who can tell you instantaneously what day of the week was February 17, 1924, adorn numbers with smells, texture, colors and personalities. Numbers become personalities in a landscape.

General philosophical metaprinciple out of that? Acquiring dimensionality is acquiring reality.

(This advanced remark is an allusion to the fact full Quantum wavefunctions can be arbitrarily high dimensional, and that has nothing to do with String Theory’s pitiful 11 dimensions. Ironically, that has been the main objection against the Pilot Wave Theories.)

For example, take the Moon. Try to be objective, while playing prehistoric man. What do you observe about the Moon as Homo Erectus? (Or equivalently, Arab in the desert, 20 centuries ago.)

The Moon? A white disk, sometimes a crescent, when most of the disk is obscured. If one wants to be objective, as a Prehistoric Man, nothing more. No proof, whatsoever, for a Prehistoric Man, that the Moon is a physical object. You can’t go there, you don’t have a rocket, and you cannot see mountains on the Moon, and their shadows, you don’t have the eyes of an eagle.

So, all right, for prehistoric man, the Moon is this whitish crescent-disk, and all you can do is measurements with what you have, the appearance of the thing.

One can measure the monthly appearances of the Moon by comparing it to the Solar Year, seasons, what not. Notice things come back in cycles, but not quite.

Maybe the Moon is the language of the gods, trying to talk to us? That was the interpretation made in Antique Mecca (with its 360 gods, but with the Moon dominating). So then, obviously the Moon was a message from God, observed the Muslims, and they believe in that to this day.

This is what Bohr’s CI and his modern imitators, the QBists, achieved. They have numbers, don’t understand where they come from, and made a cult around them.

When they claimed that one could not go any further (as Von Neumann stupidly claimed to have proven), deeper thinkers smirk.

The correct scientific approach is to go beyond numbers (this, by the way, is what inflationistas have done, with their Cosmic Inflation theory; and now everybody is excited about them). Sit down, and ponder: what could the Moon be? Could it be a real object?

What’s a real object? Answer: something endowed with more than the first set of numbers we got to know about it.

Of course, the first time scary smart prehistoric man comes across a situation he did not understand, but a situation that seems to reproduce itself, again and again, he set-up an experiment, hopefully a simplified version of what he observed. OK, so a horse fell from the cliff. Excellent meat for all for a full moon. Horse flees from man, so maybe man can make many horses fall off cliff, as needed.

Arrogant twerps who believe that modern man, preferably talking the Anglo-Normand dialect, invented the experimental method, know nothing of man.

Ever since man is man, man has found out about reality with experiments to observe how nature works. Quantum Physics is not any different.

Yes, the experiments depend upon the observer. So what? It dos not mean that all that could be observed has to be experienced. Quantum Interference is everywhere, it’s the essence of creation, and men observe it on a countable set, of measure zero.

Primitive Men Believe The Universe IS All About Themselves

Primitive Men Believe The Universe IS All About Themselves

Quantum Interference Does Not Depend Upon Man

Quantum Interference Does Not Depend Upon Man

The reality the experiments are after do not depend upon the observer. That Bohr and company could not figure it out, and, instead, started to dissect and not dissect the same cat, is a monument to the frailty of human intelligence.

John Bell (inventor of the Bell Inequalities to help check that Quantum Physics is non local) was ironical about this subject. He said:“What exactly qualifies some observer to play the role of ‘measurer’? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some better qualified system… with a PhD?”

Or, even better, a Nobel prize?

Of course not. (Unfortunately, Bell, the head theorist at CERN, was felled by a heart attack at the age of 62, before he could debunk more of the orthodoxy.) As I said above, believing that what we observe depends upon the observer is the most primitive objective approach. In first approach to knowledge, it’s objective to admit one’s subjectivity.

Can the “wave function” in Quantum Physics be a real object? Of course yes. Go back to the Two Slit Experiment. (Feynman correctly pointed out that the entire mystery of Quantum Physics was within the 2-slit.)

All the appearance of what we observe, when conducting a 2-slit experiment, for example between our eyelashes, observing the pretty color patterns, is that wave interference is causing the apparition of photon(s) of light in some places (where the waves interfere positively) and not in others (where waves interfere destructively).

Those waves, between our eyelashes are as real as waves in a port, no matter what a thousand Nobel laureates in physics may want to bleat about. (Lay on your back in the sun, and look through your eyelashes as you close them: this is my portable version of the 2-slit experiment.)

So what are these waves?

Above I shot down the subjective-knowledge theory of Bohr-Born-QBism. They reason from the first appearance, and forgot that experiments require, they always did, a carefully contrived measurement process, and an observer. They went prehistoric, and don’t know about it.

What’s left to understand Quantum Physics? Only two classes of theories are left.

One of them is the maniacal “Multiverse” “theory”. That insanity claims that any fundamental process generates as many universes as there are possibilities for it to evolve into. It’s an attempt to “save determinism”.

Unfortunately, the madness is infecting physics; just when we thought physics was ruled with not too smart a theory, an insane one comes to dominate. (The Multiverse was invented partly because of confusion about Schrodinger cats, as I hinted above: lack of philosophical sophistication killed the cats.)

What are we left with? De Broglie’s Pilot Wave theories. (In Anglo-Saxonia, this is known as “De Broglie-Bohm” theory, because that makes the Anglo-Saxon equal to the French, but, truly, De Broglie invented it all by himself.)

My own theory is a sci-fi version of the Pilot-Double Solution theory. It predicts Dark Matter readily (as very low mass, very weakly interacting particles, so it definitively makes falsifiable predictions).

Some will say that I am absurd, and, instead, should learn the “Standard Model” (SM) of particle physics. SM and Quantum Theory are the most successful physical theories ever, with incomparable precision.

Yet, that precision is an illusion. Theories explaining everything with 100% precision have existed in the last 25 centuries, at least (say the geocentric theory, viewed as correct, and unique, from Archimedes to Buridan, that is for 16 centuries). OK, some of those champions of the past turned out to be wrong (outside of the realm in which they had been initially checked). What’s the difference this time?

The difference, this time, is that we know that the Standard Model is wrong (Whereas the Greeks, 18 centuries ago thought the geocentric system was 100% right). Why? It explains at most 4% of the matter-energy out there (and even then with three dozens fundamental parameters!). At least my inchoate theory explains readily 30% of what’s out there in the Cosmos.

Anyway, there is no much choice for the foundations of Quantum Physics. It’s either the Schrodinger cats, simultaneously skinned and not skinned, or its deranged contradictor, the Multiverse shall rule over the mental asylum… Or the Pilot Wave theories will finally emerge.

This ship needs a pilot, to steer among the waves. As we will see in the future, this has tremendous consequences, be it only for the theory of “The Now”, as Einstein called it (and for which he had nothing to propose, although he was very worried by it, as Nature points out in “Be here now“).

Let’s conclude with a piece of ancient hanse wisdom, as it used to be written:

FLVCTVAT NEC MERGITVR (It Fluctuates, Never Sinks; Paris’ 2,000 years old motto.)

Patrice Aymé

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

104 Responses to “QUANTUM WAVE”

  1. gmax Says:

    Bohr and company sound increasingly silly. Big talk, little to go by. Somewhere else you said most of basic QM was in De Broglie thesis, care to develop that?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Interesting subject. I should write something about that, because it shows one can go a long way with the waves. Indeterminacy is immediate. Bose and Fermi statistics also comes easily from waves. Schrodinger equation too. Etc.

  2. Alexi Helligar Says:

    The prevailing consensus is that the Standard Model is not wrong but incomplete; especially without an accounting for gravity. The geocentric model is correct for certain measurements and observations. Our models are never a complete account of reality.

  3. Alexi Helligar Says:

    “Quantum Interference is everywhere, it’s the essence of creation. Men observe it on a countable set, of measure zero. So much for Homo’s hubris.”

    Alexi Helligar This is a very interesting idea which seems to resonate some recent thinking I have been doing on the nature of counting.

  4. red Says:

    can you tie this to your “infinity” article ?

    does this wave theory “save determinism” too ? i hope we are not living in a non-deterministic world (how does science/experiment work then). Though i do believe in anything is possible (there’s that infinity), leave it to the lord (so to speak).

    nature is of countless possibilities.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Red! Thanks for the interest! Excellent question! I did not really think of it as worth asking. But you are right, there is a strong connection.

      Pilot Wave theories are fully deterministic (yet non-local). They also deal with just one universe. (My own version builds up space and introduces a speed 10 to the 10 at least the speed of light… But that’s besides the point.)

      The Multiverse is extremely high infinity. In its initial version (Everett), it created constantly the highest order of infinity imaginable. In more recent versions (since 1990s, Stanford’s Linde and al.) it violates energy conservation… infinitely.

      I am very conservative. I like energy conservation. It immediately throws infinities out (mostly)…. Although they have a back door through entanglement. In any case the infinities of the Multiverse spurred me into action about the connection between the concept of number and energy.

      So that’s the connection: I don’t like CI: too prehistoric. But then I don’t go Multiverse, because I am not insane. It’s insane to believe one can generate infinities all over, instantaneously. What’s left? Pilot Wave. Then local energy content within the event horizon is finite. Thus so are the integers.

      That all makes sense, differently from the infinitely-saddled Standard Model.
      PA

      • red Says:

        Thanks PA for tying it all together. Indeed understanding it in terms of “energy” is beautiful (numbers, infinity). It takes into consideration the observer’s limitations too.

        Though, I believe its a moving target. I mean, lets say you found that non-infinite largest number, it may be true (thus proving your no-infinity theory) with our current context- scope-moment (“energy” collectively), but it may not be true in future. Just like human species/mind evolves (its scope of understanding and the change in “observer’s capacity”), the non-infinite limit you propose will “evolve” too. Just imagine human organism few million years ago, and now imagine Einstein. The observer’s change in capacity is mind(no pun) boggling.

        In other words, we can only observe (find, experiment, calculate etc.) , what most we can “now”. It may change, evolve in “future”. Or are you saying we live in a constant, finite world. Any time i hear “limits” i cringe. Why cant it be infinite, deterministic world.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Excellent point, and thanks for the understanding, Red! However, I think the infinity interdiction law is on a much better footing than, say, the speed of light. Einstein (HIMSELF) admitted that his so called “General Relativity” (it’s neither general, nor relative; Fock, of Fock space, a Soviet, rightly objected), violated the light speed limit (because light speed is an holonomic notion in SR, not GR).

          The Multiverse nuts say: infinite is energy. I say: in the exponential radius (a diff geometry notion), finite is energy. That’s all what matters.

          Actually I make the finite-energy-in-the-exponential a fundamental axiom, and apply it to both pilot wave and entanglement. Out pops my hyper speed TAU.

          Thus my anti-infinity axiom would still be valid, even if my completely sci-fi view of physics would come to be, it actually rests on it. And we are very far from that.

          Right now, it’s completely obvious that with the “BE HERE NOW” (see essay) confined at points, we absolutely do not have any notion of infinity at our disposal, for our number system. Just looking at a sea of galaxies, however impressive, does not help.

          (By the way the Olbers paradox,
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
          thus ties in, therefore, to number theory.)

          I hope that addresses all the questions…
          PA

          • Mr Me Says:

            Hiya Patrice,
            This quote made me think of something I wanted to ask someone (almost certainly) smarter than me;
            “do not have any notion of infinity at our disposal, for our number system”

            So the question is simply (but of course it’s not simple) whether you had any thoughts on the whole Euler/Ramanujan ‘sum of all natural numbers to infinity’ = -1/12 ‘thing’. I know…that’s a really open ended question so…it’s probably fairly annoying. It’s only something I was recently introduced to so i’m still in ‘mind blown’ state. I thought to myself, yep no notion of infinity whatsoever…but somehow we have an answer to the sum of everything ‘from here t…and including…infinity’. :-)

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I have blasted the notion of infinity. I studied infinity for decades, before realizing the whole thing was thoroughly idiotic. I have a number of essays on that. Ever since I have lived in glee, avenging myself inwardly of my ancient mathematical colleagues, and the young ones too, as I view all mathematical work depending upon infinity in a non reducible manner… FALSE.
              PA

  5. Alexi Helligar Says:

    Missing the mass is understandable given we are only recently able to measure the angular rotation of the galaxy and compare that to what it would take to keep the galaxy from flying apart. Each no simple feat.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      @ Alexi: Missing masses by a factor of ten in spiral galaxies and galactic clusters is about a generation old. I remember telling scoffing physicists decades ago that it was a serious problem. Now it has been more than extremely confirmed. And it seems that’s as Dark Matter, not MOND.

      The Milky Way’s bulk is something else: dust everywhere, etc.

      My own theory fits DM well. The apparition of Dark Energy spoiled the soup. As I pointed out in “100 billion year old universe”, if one has DE, one may not need anything else. Yes, I know about CMB, and now it’s wavy, blah blah blah. I just don’t get the basic logic (neither does my friend Penrose, for the same reason, BTW). SM predicted neither DM nor DE. I don’t know if I predicted DE (DE is too vague), but I sure did predict a DM effect, and have definitively prediction about its nature.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Universe: 100 Billion Years Old?
      patriceayme.wordpress.com
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/universe-100-billion-years-old/
      The basic reasoning establishing the Big Bang is of primary school level. And yet, from recent observations, it is probably erroneous. I propose that the universe is 100 billion years old rather…

      • Mr Me Says:

        Ok I gotta read this one. Sceptism switch to ‘on’ position…now.

        Joking :-)…I’ll keep an open mind.
        I mean it’s clear you have a towering intellect but I think you won’t think less of myself or anyone who brings a bit of scepticism along for the ride. In fact from what I have read here so far, I imagine you would probably feel cheated if I or someone else didn’t :-)

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Critiques, however acerbic, are more than welcome: thus thinking progresses. Although I have never censored anyone on this site (!)… Out of nearly 10,000 comments, I have been known to fire back, thus discouraging authentic Nazis, Muslim Fundamentalists, anti-Judaists, and other fanatics…
          PA

  6. Benign Says:

    I don’t have any trouble believing in pilot waves and non-local effects, having delved deeply into the remote viewing literature and being convinced of the “holographic universe” hypothesis in some sense. But I don’t quite see how pilot waves explain the observer effect in the dual slit experiment. Why should it be different in the two cases? Care to teach? In plain Anglo-NOrman? Thanks

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am more than happy to debate this. What is the “observer effect” in the 2-slit? The “delayed choice” style?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      In other news, as far as non local effects are concerned, they are proven, extensively. The only gripe has been that some claim to have observed that there may be no free will, and that physicists could just be robots long ordained by a deus ex-machina. I think it’s just appearance. Physicists are actually just robots driven by their careers.

      Some people at MIT had the silly, but why not, idea to suggest to use distant quasars to drive the non local experiments (thus explicitly excluding the observer). That can easily be implemented.

      As I basically said, to suppose that a zillion of Quantum Interferences per second per cubic centimeter require an observer is beyond mad. So the observer thing is a prehistoric naivety effect:” Me, Naoh, come over hill, and let there be cliff, just because I looked at it, and willed it!”

  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Big Think.]

    It’s funny to see the rabid anti-science types emerge in the comments. I know some otherwise intelligent and cultivated Europeans who are enraged against CERN’s LHC.

    This being said, High Energy Physicists invite this a bit on themselves, by forgetting to mention, and thoroughly explain that most of the mass in the Standard Model has already been figured out (from E = mcc). The particles (quarks, gluons) within the particles (nucleons) move with some much energy “E”, they create the mass “m”.

    Also Quantum Physics is not explained enough to people in terms they can understand, and Bohr and company attacks against causality and determinism did not help, as Nature magazine just said (March 26 2014 lead editorial). Much more on this is found in:
    https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/quantum-wave/

    • Guest Says:

      Guest > Tyranosopher • 2 hours ago
      I like science…
      http://www.thefreedictionary.c
      I don’t agree with most of the ideas they have today but that does not make me or anyone else anti-science.

      Example:
      The particles (quarks, gluons) may be complete fantasy.

      There is no such thing as energy in the way you describe. Please go here if you would like to debate and figure somethings out…
      http://drno.weebly.com/energy….

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Well, I know physics, “Guest”. Kinetic energy is what allowed Voltaire’s girlfriend to discover energy. Saying quarks and gluons may be complete fantasy is itself an extreme fantasy.

  8. Benign Says:

    Just to keep it simple, and I am drawing on memory, why should a single photon go through only one slit when “observed” and create no interference pattern, but the same single photon creates an interference pattern when not “observed.” How would the de Broglie hypothesis explain that?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Easy as pie. But I am travelling now, and I will go back to the subject, lest I be distracted by the latest gene developments on Neanderthals (which support my main line on that).

      Anyway, one has to be careful in this general area, considering the work of the Kastler-Broussel lab of the ENS in Paris on seeing undisturbed photons (Physics Nobel 2013). They use the world’s highest performing mirrors, and a completely new idea (seeing undisturbed light with phase shifted atoms).
      PA

    • gmax Says:

      There are two DIFFERENT De Broglie’s proposals. One was adopted by Bohm. Just one.

    • Ian Miller Says:

      @ Benign, the single electron, when not “observed” in transit still only records a single point. The diffraction pattern only arises from a statistical assembly. Same for the photon, except it is not so easy to detect a photon in transit, although it has been done (see Kocsis, S. et al. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173). As it happens, the fact that a photon can go through one slit and set up an interference pattern is one of the strengths of the pilot wave theory. The weak measurements of where photons went in the two slit experiment apparently complied exactly with that predicted by Bohm. That calculation depends on there being both a wave and a particle. As an aside, that does not prove the pilot wave, because to do that you would have to prove there was only one theory capable of predicting this, but at least it is supportive of the hypothesis.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Ian: You say:”to detect a photon in transit, although it has been done (see Kocsis, S. et al. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173).”

        They say:”For the experimentally reconstructed trajectories for our double slit (Fig. 3), it is worth stressing that photons are not constrained to follow these precise trajectories; the exact trajectory of an individual quantum particle is not a well-defined concept. Rather, these trajectories represent the average behavior of the ensemble of photons when the weakly measured momentum in each plane is recorded contingent upon the final position at which a photon is observed. The trajectories resemble a hydrodynamic flow with a central line of symmetry clearly visible: Trajectories originating from one slit do not cross the central line of symmetry into the opposite side of the interference pattern. Trajectories at the edges of bright fringes tend to cross over to join more central bright fringes, thus generating the observed intensity distribution because of interference. The trajectories cross over dark fringes at relatively steep angles; there is a low probability of finding a photon in these regions that correspond to postselecting on a state nearly orthogonal to the initial state of the system…”

        Personally, I was going to write an essay on this, but then it was not clear to me what the whole thing meant. And whether it was an advance or not (I wish it would be).
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.full
        PA

        • Ian Miller Says:

          Patrice, Once again maybe I was slack on what I mean. For this and everything else I write on quantum mechanics, I always imply that anything that resembles a trajectory is merely an average. Within my Guidance Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics the so-called “average trajectory” is the line that the crest of the wave follows, and the actual position of the particle deviates from this in the same way as given by the Born interpretation, or near enough. For me, position is not a well-defined property at the quantum level, but momentum is. The reason is, when we determine the action, we have integral p dq, but never q dp, which would not make sense. The Uncertainty Principle is derived from this, and in terms of making an observation, delta p and q appear the same, but it arises from the discreteness of action. It is only this discreteness of action from which, in my opinion, quantum mechanics differs from classical mechanics.

  9. Alexi Helligar Says:

    I would love to see a more systematic treatment on infinity is a hidden axiom. Perhaps such a treatment would improve on the work or Cantor.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Alexi: The infinite exists in practice. What I disagree on is that it needs to be practice of the theory. The infinity, according to me, is a hidden axiom. (Mathematicians believe, erroneously, that they proved it, 25 centuries ago.) Travelling now.

      Well I think my argument is pretty clear, actually, see my comment above on the latest Quantum Wave essay, answering benign.

  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    (Sent to “Of Particular Significance”, April 9.]

    Mermin’s analysis, indeed weak and uninspiring, as prof. Matt Strassler says, is best summed up by cubist painting accompanying it in Nature. QBism is just a fancy new term for the well known Copenhagen Interpretation (“probability is all there is to it”).

    From my point of view, there is a trilemma: Copenhagen Interpretation, the Multiverse hand-waving, and various Pilot Wave proto-theories (several of which are very different from the others).
    http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/quantum-wave/

  11. Ian Miller Says:

    I have yet a further variant on the Pilot Wave that, rightly or wrongly, I call a Guidance Wave. The basic requirement is that there is a wave and a particle, but the wave oscillates in an additional dimension and connects solely with our “domain” once a period. This leads to the primary premise: action is discrete in our domain. The wave amplitude represents the velocity of the particle, and the square of the amplitude represents the energy transmitted. If that is accepted, then the reason why electrons in atoms have stationary states and resist radiating as suggested by Maxwell follows, as does the Uncertainty Principle, the Exclusion Principle and the delayed choice two slit results. (I also stick my neck out and predict another two slit result, although it could be difficult to do.) Part of the reason that got me into this was the need to simplify the chemical bond – in this theory the bond strength of hydrogen, to a first order, is analytic – 1/3 the Rydberg energy.

    The wave is also local and deterministic. I know that will horrify everyone, BUT my argument is that experiments such as those of Aspect did NOT show deviations from Bell’s Inequality, the reason being there were insufficient variables. Either the photon field is rotationally invariant or it is not. If it is, the first polarizing detector always records the normalizing constant, and therefore is not a variable. If it is not, then assuming the Malus law, the not part will follow Bell’s inequality. Check it out.

    • Ian Miller Says:

      I forgot to check “Notify follow-up” hence this comment.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        dear Ian: I was out and about, contemplating a biological conference in a hotel at $300/night (when on sale!). It reminded me of the excesses that led to the cancellation of the SSC… I approved your comment immediately, and now it should be automatic.
        PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: Many ideas there. I believe in something of the sort. I need to write a Pilot, or Guidance Wave, article. The first divide is between theories that assume that particles exist (as De Broglie-Bohm), in some sense, and those which don’t (as De Broglie’s Double Solution, yours, or mine).

      By the way, Sheaf Theory (Theorie des Faisceaux) was invented by a number of (mostly) French mathematicians, precisely to blow up points into inner spaces. It begs to be used (although Grothendieck hated physics, who he assimilated to Hiroshima, something rather strange to be indignant about, as his father died in Auschwitz…) This to say that the “amplitude” you talk about can be thought as a “locally fibrant sheaf
      SUSY can be readily incorporated. (Make the fibers live in a Grassmanian.)

      And so on…It’s going to be fun when dynamic collapse is modeled…
      PA

      • Ian Miller Says:

        Patrice, one comment – I assume the particle does exist as well as the wave, and the two are united by the realization of quanta of action. (Words are a bit difficult here.) The major difference between myself and de Broglie/Bohm is that position is not an important variable. It is momentum/energy that is causal, and the wave guides the particle through the energy field associated with the wave. That is where the statistical nature of position arises.

        Who knows what is right? However, as you say, it is at least fun to explore rather than woodenly accept.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Hi Ian. thanks for the answer. In my perspective, both fields and particles give way to new notion. The De Broglie-Bohmian particle that exist does not hold water, as “empty waves” not only have physical influence, but can “catch” the “particle”, later on.

          In my view, the non linear wave is primary, and grows and die the way those do, non linearly (the highly non linear part is the “particle”).

          In the full version of my theory, deviation from QM should occur, at vast distances. Dark matter may be actually a manifestation thereof.
          Got to rush right now, but this subject lives in my core.
          I have more coming in that general area, such as “holonomic time” (a torpedo against the GR battleship!)
          PA

          • Ian Miller Says:

            Hi Patrice, Interesting comments. Perhaps I am a bit further from de Broglie/Bohm than thought, because since in my theory the wave transmits energy, it is not “empty”. The guidance part of the wave only occurs when the wave has to match action in both domains, i.e. once a period, at which point the quantum potential that Bohm was so keen on actually turns up as a localized energy field. Since the energy field attracts its own particle, I have played around with the concept that there might be residual small inertial interference at distances, which would suggest an origin for gravity, but unfortunately so far all I seem to have done is get myself into deeper problems.

            Good luck with your work. – Ian

  12. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Ian: My basic idea is that the linear part of the wave (the one Quantum Physics’ CI works with) exert guidance… Through occasional NON LINEAR effects.

    Non linear waves tend to blow up, this is the mathematical effect that is to be used.

    So, if the linear part’s positive interference gets a little add-on, the non linear singularity will tend to appear: the particle.

    That means in particular that, during dynamics, there are no particles.
    PA

    • Ian Miller Says:

      I think we may be at slight cross-purposes here. I am saying the wave is linear, but the position of the particle does involve non-linearity.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        From my point of view, there is no particle, except at the moment of interaction (to create more particle, or change its state, as a vertex in a Feynman diagram). The particle is the non linear part, exploding… where the linear interference part has made it possible.

  13. Physics: Just Warming Up… | Tyranosopher Overflow Says:

    […] http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/quantum-wave/ […]

  14. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Ian: The Quantum has two main components: discreteness of action, as you say, and the wave.

    CI does not tie those two, apparently opposite, characteristics.

    From my point of view, non linearity ties them both. And the non linearity is inherited from the linearity. Exactly like rogue waves at sea.
    http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/rogue-waves-2/

    • Ian Miller Says:

      Patrice, your comments on rogue waves and solitons strike me as being very applicable. The way I tie discreteness of action and the wave is that the two coincide at the wave crest (or the trough, but not both, uoess you have a stationary wave, and which depends on the direction of motion in your frame of reference). One problem in QM is that the wave must not attenuate as it progresses, nor spread indefinitely because the particle has to be able to travel in a straight line, like a laser photon. To do this, I have it re-setting itself once a period, when it feeds off wave parts that are too far away from the relevant location, because it has to maintain a constant amplitude at the highest crest. So far, I have arbitrarily said “it happens”, but your rogue wave formulation is interesting, and, as I am beginning to realize, what I am saying is that wave resetting is strictly speaking non-linear, even though the waves are linear when they interact with other waves in diffraction.

      As you have probably guessed, I do not believe CI is correct. My view may not be, but I like it better than CI.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        As I tried to argue, CI is exactly as a rigorous prehistoric man would have it: probabilities, observer based. See my further comment on the difficulty with lasers… It’s even worse with galaxies used as telescopes…

  15. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Ian: Yes, these problems are difficult.

    Take laser light, indeed. According to my theory, the photon ought to re-collapse on itself periodically, to avoid the problems you evoked.
    How could that happen? Well, there would be rogue elements in the way insuring an abnormal linearity, thus periodic re-singularizations (= re-collapse).

    That would mean that laser light would behave differently in different spaces (=vaccua).

    • Ian Miller Says:

      Yes, in my guidance wav theory, the wave regenerates itself once a period, which means it has to collapse and scavenge previous waves. That permits the laser photon, but it is rather difficult to think of an experiment that would prove this must happen. (Well, difficult for me anyway.)

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Ian: This is all very difficult to think of (that’s why the conversation was avoided by previous generations of physicists). I have a question for you: what happens with your periodic collapses in the case of diffraction?

        It seems to me that. when a particle, say a photon, diffracts through a pin hole, it can be “found” (probabilistically, CI fashion, but also experimentally!) thereafter on an outwardly progressing entire hemisphere…. That would seem to me to mean NO periodic collapse.

        (I have an internal space dynamics, amoebae like “model” of the wavicle geometrodynamics, but it’s inchoate; it would seem it can handle diffraction better than laser like linear progression, but that maybe an illusion. In my model, the wavicle has geometrodynamical inertia, and expands just as in CI: no collapse until the final collapse. When that happens at colossal, galactic sized distances, “Dark Matter” is created)
        PA
        PA

        • Ian Miller Says:

          Patrice, I have self-published an ebook called “Guidance Waves -an alternative interpretation to quantum mechanics” on Amazon, and this issue is, from memory, the second longest chapter in it. Basically, the answer to your question is in two slits, or two channels, the wave may go through/down both, but the particle only one. What goes on in the channel is unobservable, but assuming there is no external effect the particle resets the wave in its channel, which happens to remain identical to the wave in the other one. When they emerge, there is a diffraction pattern, but a change in path can only occur where the waves reinforce, which creates a greater intensity. (The particle is attracted to the wave crest through the energy field inherent in the wave.) If the particle coincides with one such reinforced crests, the reset collapses BOTH components and a new wave is created that progresses along the reinforced path. That is a pretty broad and unsatisfactory explanation, but it explains (I hope) the concept. The fuller explanation explains (I believe) everything so far about the two slit experiment, and predicts the possibility of one further variation on the two-slit experiment. It also makes a prediction the CI adherents will not like in the delayed quantum eraser experiments, which, if I am correct, were never quite carried out properly – there were at least two further experiments they should have done, but failed to do when they got the answer they wanted.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            What’s the deviant prediction on the delayed 2 slit? The proposed experiences that way I have see are so complex, it’s not clear what’s tested, anyway.

            • Ian Miller Says:

              You fire electrons towards the two slits, with a very strong light on the other side so you can detect which slit the electrons go through. Now either change the aim or move the slit so that electrons largely go through one only slit. The light will tell you whether that is working. Now turn off the light. You know which slit the electrons will go through (at least those that do) and you should still get diffraction, (in contradiction to the CI two-slit explanation) but it will not be the full pattern, but rather somewhat lopsided in favour of the slit the electrons went through.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Ian: I have mulled your description of your suggested experiment, but I still don’t understand it, 24 hours and a full red moon later…
              PA

            • Ian Miller Says:

              What I have tried to do is concoct a situation where the electron only goes through one slit but the wave goes through both. Now, according to the weak determination of photon trajectories, the photon never crosses into the bands on the other side, in which case in the two-slit experiment, the diffraction pattern is the sum of electrons that go through both slits. But if the left hand side of the pattern is always filled by photons from the left slit (the centre band can come from both), if you know which slit must be used and the other cannot be used, and as long as the wave still goes through both, you will get the diffraction pattern, but if the left slit was used, the right side of the pattern should be highly attenuated. Of course if the weak determination was wrong, my prediction could be in trouble.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I still don’t get it. Sending an electron at a time, automatically insures that the (ELECTRONIC) wave goes through both slits.
              Now I don’t get the (details of the) weak determination of photon trajectories yet (and still!), so I better stay silent at this point… ;-)

  16. Benign Says:

    What is clear to this non-physicist is that no one understands the foundations of matter, regardless of the efficacy of the ability of the standard model to calculate outcomes.

    Wave collapse without an “observer” suggests that we just don’t get it at all, and that there is a level of “causality” operating beyond the bounds of our understanding. Like perhaps our reality is just a projection in a few dimensions from under the quantum foam, and that there is a trickster down there messing with physicists’ minds. It may take many more entanglement experiments (can we actually do these?) to make any progress.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed to all. Entanglement experiments have been made for quite a while. Universite’ d’Orsay Alain Aspect got several prizes in connection with his entanglement work, such as the Bohr Prize, and the Wolf Prize with Anton Zeilinger (Austria), and John Clauser (USA)….

      Entanglement experiments have been carried on distances of up to dozens or hundreds of kilometers. I expect deviations at the scale of several parsecs.
      PA

  17. ianmillerblog Says:

    In my view, the problem with “wave collapse without an observer” disappears if we reject the CI interpretation that observation creates the outcome. If we adopt the Einstein approach that observation records what happened, while you still need a statistical outcome, the problem that everyone seems to get into a tangle disappears.

    Just to be on the record, in my view Aspect et al did not show deviations from Bell’s Inequality, because there is a logic error in their analysis. Specifically, they do not have the right number of true variables to use it. Just asserting that the number 1 is a variable does not make it so. If it never varies, how can it be a variable?.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: I don’t understand the objection you have against Aspect. From my point of view, the entanglement distances are just too small.

      As I tried to explain, believing that one’s observations depend upon one’s status is the classical prehistoric mistake.

      It’s completely obvious that, as Quantum Decoherence happens a zillion times by zillionth of a nanometer, it’s not observed by Nobel prizes systematically, in spite of their towering presence.

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Patrice, Bell’s Inequality requires three measurements at different values of some variable (in one example, Bell washed socks at three different temperatures), and at each measurement, you must get a plus or minus result, and the total results must total the number of measurements, i.e. the probability of an event must be 1. Now in the Aspect experiment, the second detector measures the number of photons that hit the detector and register that have the polarization in the frame of reference of the first detector. Therefore the first detector is not a variable, but rather it selects which half of the photons are relevant.

        Alternatively, to get the B+C- result, what Aspect did was to rotate the A+B- experiment. Assuming space is isotropic, rotating an experiment merely reproduces it, and does not produce the necessary additional values.

        I would predict if these sort of experiments were carried out using an entangled pair produced in a polarized down converter, so that the emitted photons all had determined polarization, the results would be in accord with Bell’s Inequality because now we would have the required 6 variables.

        I am sorry if this sort of post is too concentrated. I have written this in a chapter of my “Guidance Waves, an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics” – an ebook at Amazon.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Hmmm… My view of non locality is tied in to the Quantum Wave, which is non local. So non locality and collapse are roughly synonymous. Bell Inequality is precise, but hides that simple truth.

          • ianmillerblog Says:

            Yes, but you are assuming the wave is non-local. If the wave is local, and caused by the decay of the states of the Ca atom, then you still get Aspect’s results. Bell’s inequality is precise. My argument is that Aspect’s experiment does not provide the necessary number of true variables to use it, so it should not be used.

  18. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Ian: First the wave is clearly non local in Quantum Mechanics. And that cannot be questioned experimentally (even chlorophyll uses the non locality!).

    I never understood very well the Bell Inequalities (the elementary, but complicated math can be generalized in all sorts of ways, making the logic a bit uncertain).

    The best argument for non locality is the initial description of the EPR, using not spin, but position-momentum, as found in the original EPR paper.

    Even Einstein implicitly admitted that, as he spoke of “Spooky Action At a Distance”. That thought experiment is the key.

  19. ianmillerblog Says:

    Patrice, why do you say “the wave is clearly non-local”? The Copenhagen Interpretation assumes it by saying that the act of observation determines the outcome and thus requires the collapse of the wave function, but if the wave is real, the probabilistic outcomes do not require collapse because as Einstein put it, the act of observation records what outcome actually happened. The original EPR paper in fact argued against non-locality by pointing out that instantaneous action at a distance violates relativity. Einstein argued that QM as represented was incomplete.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Going to sleep here…. Instantaneous action at a distance does not clearly violate Relativity, only Einstein’s Interpretation thereof.
      I view the non locality as experimentally proven (it’s crucial to Quantum computing, inter alias).
      I believe in the realistic wave. However ALL & ANY WAVE IS NON LOCAL (ah hahaha).

      OK, we will ponder the one photon, 2 laser experiment, later, let alone the Poisson dot, on galactic scale…
      PA

  20. ianmillerblog Says:

    OK, we disagree. If observation at one point defines a value somewhere else, there has to be a means of the second point knowing what the first point did. Maybe we differ on what the meaning of non-locality is.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: Nobody knows what space is. There is no reason in the existing world of knowledge that space ought to be local. By using the real line as invented in the 19C, people make assumptions upon the nature of the universe that the Quantum seems to be disagreeing with.

      The real line is T2. The Quantum, T1 (at most). (I don’t expect normal mathematicians to even know General Topology… A fortiori not physicists…)

      I basically believe the non local waves fabricate the space (forget time!), in an entanglement. To make matters more complicated, there is a non local field. And I must confess that the overall picture works, locally, a bit like that famed multiverse (as framed by the non local field, which acts as dynamically controlled exponential domain).

      I despise the multiverse, but for me, it’s a tangential notion…

      I need to put out that NON HOLONOMIC TIME essay, that will help the debate…
      PA

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Dear Patrice, I had a feeling we were talking about different things. I was talking about events, not space, thus in the Aspect experiment, two polarized photons are either detected or not detected, depending on the angle of the polarizers. The usual interpretation of the entanglement being non-local is that the detection of one FORCES the polarization to be set on the other, even though no signal can travel between them within the speed of light. My interpretation is that the entanglement is local, because it was determined at the point of emission through the change of angular momentum of the p electron causing the photon to be emitted, and since both electrons start and end in spin-paired states, the second one must take the opposite circular polarization the the first. Each polarization is determined at the calcium atom, and not, as CI requires, at the point of observation. I am not sure what a non-local space means, so I shall avoid commenting on that.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Ian:
          The point, you make, I think, is exactly the one Einstein took as obvious.

          However, the problem, I think, is this. It’s not a matter of one polarization just being opposed to the other (as the implicit set-up in the original EPR set-up had it). Call the two particles (here photons) A and B. A’s polarization is measured in direction x, B’s polarization in direction y. You will agree that measuring in the direction x is the choice of the observer, and has nothing to do with the calcium atom.

          Now here comes the massive strike: the choice of x affects B’s polarization in direction y.
          This is the conclusion from CI that Bell drew. This is what Aspect and al. confirmed.
          This is why people are taking refuge in the Multiverse.

          In my own version, non locality has a (variable!) range (and that’s where I expect falsification/confirmation). The (sort of) Multiverse (I use) becomes local.
          PA

          • ianmillerblog Says:

            I only half agree. Measuring the direction x is the observer’s choice, BUT the calcium atom sends of photons with a full range of polarizations. The first detector selects those photons with polarization in the direction x, i.e. only half of the available photons (at least in theory – in practice nothing is perfect.) Accordingly, the first detector does not provide a variable for Bell’s inequality, since it always takes the same value. The requirement that only photons arriving within 20 ns of the first photon are counted ensures that only entangled photons are counted there. The calcium atom determines the polarization of the second by applying a conservation law to what the first one did, and that is local. What Aspect actually did was to prove wave particle duality to each individual photon.

  21. Benign Says:

    Still waiting for “OK, we will ponder the one photon, 2 laser [sic] experiment, later….”

    “Regional” non-locality? Kind of doubt it….

    Poetic interpretation: whack-a-mole theory, conservation of time and space spinning out of the Singularity (or Source, if you don’t like Big Bang). Somebody just wrote a paper arguing a tendency toward “quantum equilibrium” is the basis for Time… and thermodynamic equilibrium….

    But when stuff appears and disappears out of “nowhere” we clearly aren’t seeing enough dimensions.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      If Putin just let me work (I resent him for causing a new twist on the plutocratic mess, which was complicated enough already), I will publish my “Holonomic Time” today. Nobody knows what time is. Einstein himself did not like “space-time”. And Minkowsky description of it, which claimed space and time were equivalent.
      I agree with Einstein on that one. I’m sure Poincare’ would have, too.
      The “Universe Out Of Nowhere, For Nothing” is a dishonest sleigh of hand…
      PA

  22. Benign Says:

    There is also a new article somewhere on “biocentric universe ” if I recall correctly, basically saying that the Universe is the creation of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe).

    You physicists get involved with discussions of guide waves and wavicles without considering what dimensions these things exist in? How can all possible trajectories exist? Is probability a dimension? You see what I mean. Not to mention particles appearing out of nowhere, not from anywhere in “space-time” (or are they always coming out of a different time? I dunno).

    Dean Radin, the leading “parapyschologist,” has conducted replicated experiments on people’s (subconscious) ability to foretell the future. The experiment has them wired up and watching a randomized sequence of disturbing/not disturbing photos. The physiological responses reliably predict the pictures by big fractions of a second. Science journalist Lynn McTaggart has a nice book called The Field suggesting in a new-age kind of way that there is a consciousness field, but she is good enough to cite the now 40 year old creditable scientific literature on this stuff. Also the work of Jahn at PEAR on the random number generator eggs and mass consciousness events. Also William Tiller’s theories that consciousness inhabits all matter.

    I actually think that ultimately the consciousness angle will prove to the fruitful one in getting at the heart of quantum events. And I am speaking as a hard-nosed empiricist and skeptic. It was Radin’s presentiment experiments and their replication that brought me over. Very difficult angle to test, and one practicing physicists generally hold in contempt. Radin’s book is The Conscious Universe.

    cheers
    benign

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Benign: There are always charming, culturally senile types, who, obstinately want “consciousness” (whatever that is) to originate the world. The way the Copenhagen Interpretation has it, consciousness is too much in the mix: the wave is a knowledge wave (OK, probability, but that boils to the same). Hence the Schrodinger cat problem.

      I do believe that consciousness has a real explanation, but is an emergent phenomenon. If it emerged, it was NOT there before. For me, the wave is real, and I want to persuade people that we already have a proof of that (2 laser experiment, and violating Dirac’s stupid axiom in his famous book, does that!)
      PA

      • Benign Says:

        I just don’t get the impression the physicists have any idea what they’re talking about. What reality do probability waves exist in? To extend your ad hominem style of discourse, you need only extend your own egoism to a more general level to get this. Think about it: if there are nonlocal correlations all throughout matter/energy, why shouldn’t the universe be conscious in some sense, or our consciousness be involved (in a far more subtle way than “causing collapse”) in *everything*? I think you are behind the curve on this, actually.
        cheers

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      And, as far as believing predicators, don’t count me in!
      Even hedge fund managers score higher. ;-)

  23. Benign Says:

    Last comment and then I will shut up: EPR got it right, quantum theory is [still] incomplete. Look at Radin’s presentiment experiments which I understand have been replicated. Also many experiments have shown EEG correlations between electrically shielded subjects, etc. I do believe there is a “consciousness field.”

    http://deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2004Presentiment.pdf

    cheers

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Benign: With the enthusiasm you show about figuring stuff out, maybe you should have studied physics. Unfortunately, it cannot be done overnight. It takes at least ten years of hard, dedicated studies for young people to be able to read the research literature.

      • Benign Says:

        Patrice, I should have. Despite a natural aptitude for science I pursued literature (I was a teen in the Sixties), reversed course and got a PhD in economics, vomited after 15 years of teaching that corrupted discipline, went into banking, vomited when I saw how corrupt that was, got fired for anonymous blogging about it, and am now at liberty at 63 without a pension (10-15 yrs money saved, house paid off)! Woo hoo! However I have read deeply in the econophysics literature and through the graciousness of Gene Stanley have even been able to post a couple of papers on “animal spirits” at arXiv. See also “Freedom’s Sunset” on Amazon, which pertains to situation in Russia/Ukraine.
        cheers
        b

  24. Ian Miller Says:

    In principle, there is another physical possibility for precognition. As an example, suppose you can create a flatland, say on a piece of paper, with two characters, A and B. A wants to see what B is doing, but you stop him by drawing a pencil line between them. How does A get to see B? The simplest answer is to use the third dimension and see over the line. Precognition would follow if there was another temporal dimension normal to the usual linear time. The reason I can’t make a fortune from seeing the future is that I do not know (or have not got the ability) to use this extra dimension, if it exists at all.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: I am not too sure I understand. Einstein worried about “the now”. The idea was, I guess that A and B, if at the present time, “the now”, are always going to be space separated, so it’s impossible to define “the now” (in the Einstein Special Relativity mood). That’s where, from my point of view, the EPR/Non Locality/FTL, comes into play.

      Quantum Mechanics does not treat time as it does space (that’s one of the problem with spacetime). It’s more a one parameter group of transformation, mathematically speaking.
      PA

  25. Benign Says:

    Ian, that is true. Quantum new age thinking doesn’t apply in all cases. But the idea of all this nonlocal entanglement does poetically support the idea of a “holographic universe.”

  26. Ian Miller Says:

    Dear Patrice. A different version of what I was trying to say is that if A is now and B is in the future, on a linear timeline, A cannot see B because A + dt gets in the road and blocks it. But suppose there is an extra temporal dimension (and I am not saying there is; just that for the purposes of hypothesis, assume it to be) then if A can move normal to the AB line to a point C, then A can see C free from interference from events on the AB line. I am not saying it is so, but rather that if it were so, then precognition is possible.

    In this context, there are records of strange precognition. Recall the Delphic oracle. Nero asked the Oracle what he should be concerned about, so the Oracle said, “Beware the age of 72.” Since Nero was aged about 35 at the time, he went away feeling rather pleased with himself. He was then deposed by Galba, who happened to be aged 72. Lucky guess? It was a rather specific prediction.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: Tsssss… Really that’s the best you found to tell me the Delphic Oracle saw the future? Considering Galba’s past, that was… Anyway the deposition of Nero was long in coming. Yes, he was deposed (and condemned to die the “old fashion way”) by the Senate. Not Galba. Galba was still hesitating, out there in Spain, after Windex’s demise, in Gallia, when he learned Nero was dead.

      Much more impressive are all the lotto winners: obviously they saw the future.
      PA

      • Ian Miller Says:

        Dear Patrice, Sorry, I couldn’t resist it. Actually, as far as I can make out, Nero was not condemned by the senate, which was becoming fairly irrelevant anyway. I think he committed suicide because he was too frightened to do anything else. What would have been more interesting is had he gone east. Vespasianus was his general there, and I doubt Galba or any of the other four emperors would have lasted long against him. I don’t know about lotto winners – all i know is I am not one of them :-)

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I can’t resist either. Vespasianus was in Jerusalem, having transformed Jewish general Josephus in the family pet.

          Nero was all alone, and the only emperor duly condemned to death by the Senate (other got that retrospectively, with the Damnatio Memoriam).
          He put that stylus in his throat, because the Pretorian Guard was charging in, to execute the sentence, and being whipped to death naked while struggling with a fork around one’s neck, did not interest him, curiously, because it would have been the performance of a life, for a show man like him.

          That’s what he had been condemned to.

          Vespasian was dealing with the Jews, in part because Nero feared him so, and indeed, he was not the same personality at all.
          PA

          • Ian Miller Says:

            I am not convinced the Senate did condemn Nero to death. From what I can gather, they could not make up their minds, and Nero went before they could get around to it. Vespasian was dealing to the Jews because the Jews revolted, and Nero had his other best general, Corbolo, commit suicide because he feared Corbolo might try to be emperor, so he had run out of good generals. Vespasian was not one to tolerate revolting Jews, or anyone else who opposed him either (I did a small pen-portrait of him in my latest ebook novel that you may or may not agree with) but from what I can gather, he got on tolerably well with Nero, in part because Nero thought Vespasian had no thoughts of ever becoming emperor. Another example of failed prescience!

            The senate also killed a certain G Julius Caesar – OK, not exactly an emperor, but the next best thing.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Caesar was assassinated by a few conspirators in the Senate, that’s completely different. It was thought that if Marc Anthony had accompanied him, that day, the assassination would not have worked… I’m surprised you did not come across the condemnation to death of Nero by the Senate.

  27. Ian Miller Says:

    My reading of Tacitus’ Annals (from memory) was that yes, initially they condemned him to death, but then there were second thoughts. Those second thoughts, though, became irrelevant, as did the first thoughts because Nero killed himself.

  28. Nature Quantum Tunneling | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] the Quantum about? As I argued in QUANTUM WAVE, the Quantum is about emitting and receiving energy by packets, while transmitting it as […]

  29. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to LinkedIn question.]

    What’s the question exactly? Hidden variables, if any, are non-local (EPR, Bell theorem and its experimental proofs).

    • Ian Miller Says:

      The question is, is there any experimental proof of non-locality? My argument is, the experimental results of Aspect et al are equally in accord with the proposition that the polarization of the photons were determined by the calcium atom, and the law of conservation of angular momentum, provided you accept the Einstein interpretation that an observation records what happened, but does not cause it. The so-called deviations from Bell’s Inequality in this and similar experiments are wrong because there are insufficient true variables to put into the inequality, and if the source were polarized in only one direction, you would have enough true variables, but Bell’s Inequality should be followed. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has tried that experiment. (The problem is that the B+C- experiment is simply the A+B- experiment rotated by 22.5 degrees, and if the source is rotationally invariant, which it should be, it is the same experiment and not a different one.) In my ebook, Guidance Waves, I devote a chapter to this, which hopefully gives a fuller and better explanation.

      Another problem is the so-called delayed quantum eraser. This is almost incomprehensible at first sight without the CI, or even with it, BUT I argued that there were at least two additional experiments that should have been done. The problem seems to be that when experiments give what you want to see, there is a tendency to stop and not go further.

  30. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Ian: At this point, early in the morning, with a bad water problem, I do not understand the Quantum Eraser (I forgot what I understood about it, which is different from the usual interpretation; as you say one needs to believe CI first, so, if one does not understand CI, one does not understand what they don’t understand…)

    The Aspect’s experiment crux was the arbitrary changing of the polarization of the distant polarizer, not just the arbitrary change local polarizer, while the photons were in flight, with an electro-acoustic device of Aspect’s own making. That’s supposed to show the mysterious “spooky interaction at a distance”.

    Changing the local polarizer’s orientation changes what’s found with the distant polarizer. (The Austrians, Zeilinger and al. checked retrospectively that the changes had happened as predicted.)

    That’s the crux: if I change something here, and it does something THERE, outside the LIGHTCONE, I have spookiness, at least if I am Einstein.

    From my point of view, that all comes from the instantaneousness of the Quantum Wave, intrinsic to the present formulation of Quantum Physics (as distinct from C Interpretation).

    That’s why Aspect got the Wolf Prize in physics, and other decorations.

    • Ian Miller Says:

      Dear Patrice: There is no debate that the second polariser gave results in accord with wave physics, and those results REQUIRE the conservation of angular momentum, because otherwise the photons would not be entangled. This experiment, in my view, is one of the neatest experiment that I know about.

      It is ” if I change something here, and it does something THERE, outside the LIGHTCONE, I have spookiness, at least if I am Einstein” that I debate. First, (assuming equipment works perfectly) each polariser gets registers the same number of photons, which is exactly half to the total photons emitted that reach it. What the first polariser does is to select which half counts in this experiment (a polariser at right angles would get the other half). The second polariser registers only that which is entangled with the first photon, and not that which passes through it. So the first polariser is NOT a variable – it is a selector. Similarly, because the experiment has to be done with different settings, you could nominally “violate” the inequality by just running the last run 5 times longer. Of course Aspect did not do that, but the reason he did not is that the first polariser also normalises the count. Again, the first polariser is not a variable.

      My argument is not that the experiment is false – it was not, and intact I think it is the greatest example of wave particle duality that I know of, because it proves the duality for A SINGLE PHOTON, and not as a statistical outcome. However, it does not prove violations of Bell’s inequality, because it does not provide sufficient true variable to put into the inequality, Accordingly, it says nothing about non-locality. The same result is obtained if the calcium atom determines the polarisation of the photons, and the experiment merely observes what each atom decided.

  31. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent June 21, 14.]
    @FrankWilczek Indeed. The “Many Worlds” is just the refusal to envision the Quantum Wave. http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/quantum-wave/
    @FrankWilczek That the mind acts as a rolling local multiverse does not imply that physics is a permanent global multiverse.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 321 other followers

%d bloggers like this: