Philosophically speaking Newton:

*It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro’ a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.*^{[5]}

— Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3

Laplace did the obvious a century later: assume that gravity was a field propagating at a finite speed (18C) [1]. Next *Poincaré* realized that gravitational waves had to travel at the speed of light (1905 CE) [2].

The argument can be made that Quantum observations are actually Quantum INTERACTIONS. Bohr basically said this. Then (Popper-)Einstein counter-observed that if that were true, Quantum Interactions would be spooky instantaneous interactions at a distance.

Indeed.

As observed since (by many experimentalists).

This means that the “QUANTUM COLLAPSE” really happens. Conventional Quantum Theory has no description of it. It is just assumed to be INSTANTANEOUS, and that is ABSURD .

So, experimentally, there is such a notion as Quantum Collapse, and it goes faster than light. Now a simplistic, and erroneous, interpretative conclusion of Special Relativity, sauce Einstein, is that no interaction can go faster than light. The reasoning of Einstein is somewhat erroneous (he applies a formula which cannot be applied), but its strict conclusion has been enunciated as a divine principle since (although Einstein’s exact formulation was very careful, and he explicitly did not exclude absolutely the possibility of Faster Than Light, FTL). So the notion of no FLT has led physicists to not see that there is such a thing as a Quantum INTERACTION (since no interaction goes FLT, says the chorus of parrots, but something does, indeed, go FTL, then it’s not an interaction… while, their god, Einstein, himself called it an “interaction”).

Solution of this conceptual mess: pontificate that this **Quantum interaction is happening at a finite speed. We already know it is much higher than the speed of light, by a multiple of 10^23**.

That would seriously change the Standard Model, especially cosmologically.

A finite speed Quantum Interaction is the basic axiom of Sub Quantum Physical Reality.

**Out of SQPR Dark Matter pops out effortlessly… but then Dark Matter becomes an emergent property** modifying the ΛCDM Lambda Cold Dark Matter model of the universe… which is giving different local and global expansion speeds at this point….

All this can be tested experimentally. For example SQPR predicts Dark Matter, and Dark Matter is observed [4]. This being said, SQPR does not violently contradict known theories or experiments (whereas MOND, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics does), It basically conceptually curve Quantum Theory, which stays tangentially valid, just as conventional gravitation is tangentially valid relative to General Relativity…

Some may scoff about splitting hair with Quantum Physics: what is it relative to starvation in Niger for children with 12 brothers and sisters? Or relative to Dylan’s gutter poetry? But this sort of inquiry is fundamental to all thinking. Not only we learn about reality, but we also learn about how we think, because we learn about the errors of our most splendid predecessors, trying their best. Take the Uncertainty Principle: why should it be necessary? What is its proof? Well, turns out much of the “proof” is a whole system sort-of-proof: The Uncertainty Principle is true, because, if it were not our beautiful Standard Model would not work, but it does, so the UP has got to be true. It is a bit like saying that there are beautiful cathedrals in Mexico, and they resist earthquakes, therefore Bible-God exists.

In truth, as Einstein pointed out in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox (EPR), it looks like one can know at a distance the momentum and position of an object. Well, it has long been demonstrated that we know those retrospectively. But what about directly? Could we contrive something? I have seen well known physicists chuckling, yet confusing the absence of mechanism, with a mechanism of absence. Same general concepts, different logical recipe.

Now finally some clever experimentalists have found ways around the Uncertainty Principle, well below the Standard Quantum Limit. This demonstrates that traditional Quantum Axiomatics may not be fundamental.

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Laplace then found gravitational waves (the math is immediate). That did not please everybody…so he cancelled the waves from subsequent editions; *Poincaré* rolled them back out a century later (Einstein fanatics attribute erroneously the wave discovery to Einstein).

***

[2] If gravitation went at a different speed from light, once one has realized that inertial mass was convertible in (light) energy, one could make energy out of nothing (not that this would stop ΛCDM devotees.

***

[3] If two particles, A and B are entangled, acting on A will affect B without any cause penetrating the spacetime and phase space spheres around B. So the topology of spacetime and any phase space would be NON SEPARATED (non T2) in a dynamic way.

***

[4] As SQPR would be a gigantic advance, it contains many potential axiomatic universes. SQPR in its simplest form uses Euclidean distance in the Euclidean (2n+1) space in which n dimensional space time is embedded. An initial objection to pilot waves models has been that they would happen in “phase space” (the basic Hilbert space which is the arena of any Quantum experiment). SQPR can hijack that objection and turn it into a virtue: a more subtle approach than Euclidean distance would be to use a limit on the number of cycles the Quantum wave can undergo (that would reduce to creating an Euclidean distance limit for the most common frequencies; so this is more general than the most simplistic SQPR theory). That cycle limit would create energy limits on the Standard Model spacetime foam well before the Planck limit kicks in. It may be the problem with the Muon magnetic moment.

Tags: Collapse, Quantum Interaction, SQPR

May 8, 2021 at 12:33 am |

ianmillerblog

on May 7, 2021 at 11:29 pm said:

Ha, Patrice, you are goading me. I am sure you know that I do not accept that faster than light quantum entanglement has been proved at all.

In my opinion, nobody has demonstrated without flaws anything interacts faster than c

LikeLike

May 8, 2021 at 12:34 am |

Yes, well, Ian, I confess to various shortcomings, from goading to sincerely not understanding your argument about the EPR experimental demonstration, due to my daft nature.

I wish I could understand your objection. I tried, but failed.

For me it’s very simple various little drawings I made on my site shows: the wave is spread out, then it singularizes as a particle. If the wave is spread over a light year, clearly something FTL is going on, as the singularization takes a very short time. Retrospective instantaneous localization was demonstrated… and it better be true, or well-known laws would be non “conserved”.

The UP, the Uncertainty Principle, is failing for large objects, as expected. That was just published. Two different groups, it’s in Science.

I have that in my essay just published extending the previous comment.

By the way, I tried to order your book on pilot waves but failed for reasons relating to Amazon refusing my location (pun not intended!)

LikeLike

May 10, 2021 at 1:32 am |

ianmillerblog on May 8, 2021 at 9:59 pm said:

Patrice, The simplest explanation I can think of regarding the violations of Bell’s Inequalities in the Aspect experiment is this. You need three separate determinations A B and C which can have plus or minus values. In his explanation, Bell used washing socks at, from memory, 25 degrees, 35 degrees and 45 degrees C, and then doing some test. Now in the Aspect experiment, A+B- was in one configuration, B+C- was exactly the same, but rotated 22.5 degrees. From Noether’s theorem, you can’t get new results from rotating the apparatus provided the source is rotationally invariant any more than you can by coming back tomorrow and repeating the same configuration. Aspect simply did not have sufficient independent variables to put into the inequalities.

The wave question you mention bothered Einstein, at least in terms of the Born interpretation. As he wrote to Born (if memory serves me correctly) if you fire a particle through a pinhole, diffraction of the wave spreads it out in all directions, BUT the particle is always observed at a point. My answer is the probabilities merely reflect what could happen, not what must happen. The article more or less follows a trajectory, as is shown in the following experiment: Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173.

Amazon refused your location?? [I am tempted to say you obviously had no momentum]. However, for me this is disturbing. If Amazon is doing this sort of thing, I shall have to do something.

LikeLike

May 9, 2021 at 1:15 am |

Beautiful painting. So the argument is basically philosophical. It’s spread all over, then jumps to one point.

So what say you about the argument held by De Broglie of just one particle, guided by a wave?

LikeLike

May 9, 2021 at 1:25 am |

I was going to ask the same. What about pilot wave? De Broglie.

LikeLike