Referring to Quanta, foundations of physics expert Dr. Ian Miller said in a comment on this site: “What the particle does it will do irrespective of whether you wish to try and calculate it.” 

This is, rephrased, an affirmation of LOCALITY found in Einstein’s famous EPR paper of 1935 [1]. Let’s try to dispose of it.

The “particle” “is”/or is “guided by”… a wave W… Of this all those who passed a course in Quantum Mechanics agree. Basic QM consists in computing amplitudes of complex probability waves W.

That W is the Quantum Wave appearing all over Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. Right, the nature of the wave W will change according to what Quanta we consider… Let’s neglect this for a moment.

[[In SQPR, the quanta is a nonlinear wave with a linear tail, expanding and contracting at a quasi-infinite speed (that allows SQPR to quasi-duplicate Bohm’s quantum potential)… But this is irrelevant here for the most general argument. We only need the concept of a wave.]]

Now if one sets up an experiment E, wave W, being a wave, will interact specially with E. The point is that (W,E) is different from (W, E’), if E is different from E’. Niels Bohr made, basically, that argument to Einstein, who couldn’t understand it… (Nor could I, for the longest time!)

But SQPR makes clear why that’s true… And, even simpler, so does the simplest wave mechanics, as long as the wave interferes with the environment. But that matter wave interferes with the environment, we know, and have known for a million years, because light coming out of a hole diffracts, or makes rainbows coming out of eyelashes…. Diffraction patterns are everywhere.

More sophisticated, and for spin: Stern-Gerlach magnets…. Which shows that spin measurments don’t commute, and “which path” information is crucial… The “which path” data is itself nonlocal…

We know of “the particle” W because we put some experiment E in its way. W is different from the entangled pair (W,E). This is the core of what Einstein didn’t get. The biggest notions in physics are the simplest [2].



So the argument was disposed of, and Einstein instructed…I agreed with Einstein for years before realizing my mistake, and that Bohr was right.

However, classically inclined skeptics will moan, what is this W? 

Well W, the Quantum Wave, is all we have to compute with. W “IS” the Quantum.

W could be the Dirac wave representing the relativistic electron, W could be the wave of the W boson, whatever, they are in different spaces. And they all need to be “renormalized”, right… because the fields self-interfere (“fields” and “waves” are the same things)

But that greater complexity doesn’t change the simplicity of the argument above. It actually makes it even more powerful. Indeed W is truly a wave in the appropriate Hilbert space, itself revealed by the nature of the experiment E one intends to reveal W with…

If I remember well, Niels Bohr made that argument to Einstein, but in a more obscure way, and he aggravated his case with some philosophical mumbo-jumbo…

The point remains: what we want to measure, the Experiment E that we have in mind, determines the grossest mathematical nature of the wave W.  W does not just interfere with E, E creates the grossest nature of the W to start with (for example Dirac wanted a first order PDE conserved by relativity to depict the electron; out of that requirement popped out spin and antimatter… Among other things…)

Patrice Ayme


P/S: Some want to grab the wave W, and complain they can’t, because W lives in “phase space” (aka the Hilbert Space which is the experiment E. But that’s misunderstanding about how thinking works: One can’t decide the universe, and all its objects are three dimensional, when we have plenty of forces, and, as Riemann more or less pointed out, each of them brings us one or more dimensions, each of them potentially (joke intended) in a fancy space (for example so-called Clabi-Yau manifolds…) 


Diffraction Pattern. This shows that a light wave interfere with its environment, E (in this case a hole). In QFT, one has an evolution equation on one side, and a space dependent energy term on the other, plus a potential A. The A represents the environment E. In the grossest analysis, the situation is the same as above.


[1] Einstein used that point, that the particle was always there, untouched, to affirm that, thus, there were HIDDEN (from Quantum Mechanics) variables. It’s not really an argument, because it’s the reaffirmation of the same point. Alain Aspect’s experiment for which he got the Wolf and Nobel prizes in physics, disposed of that the “particle” was TOUCHED… demonstrating that god refused to listen to Einstein.

[In SQPR, there are hidden variables, however they are, de facto nonlocal, as they change at speed in excess of 10^23c. Thus SQPR doen’t contradict the prohibtion against “LOCAL” hidden variables. Anything above c is “nonlocal”. As in “NONLOCAL hidden variables”. We know from experiments (Aspect, Zeilinger, labs in China, etc.) that the QUANTUM NONLOCALITY proceeds at speeds orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light…]


[2] E itself is typically NONLOCAL (for example two arms of an interferometer…

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “WHAT EINSTEIN DIDN’T UNDERSTAND: W Is Different From (W,E)!”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    Patrice, my comment ““What the particle does it will do irrespective of whether you wish to try and calculate it.” is not so easily disposed of. What I am trying to say is that nature cares not for what we try to calculate or how we try to calculate it. If observations disagree, nature is right and we are wrong. Feynman said more or less the same thing many times.

    I am also on record as stating that the Aspect experiment did not demonstrate violations of Bell’s inequality, and merely demonstrated wave-particle duality to a degree far better than any previous effort. The award of a Nobel Prize to Aspect would appear to be a certificate of validity of the conclusion, which would be embarrassing for me, so I have asked the Swedish Academy why my argument that the conclusion violates Noether’s theorem is wrong. I await an answer, and one way or the other I shall report what happens on my blog. However, I have to be patient because they probably have more important things to deal with right now than validating their decision.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmmm…. I have yet to devise a clear Stern-Gerlach style argument to show that measuring Spin of P1 at A has an effect upon Spin measurement of P2 at B. When P1 and P2 are Spin entangled (say with total Spin zero).
      The point I am trying to make is that the property does not exist before it has been measured. The Nobel Com actually made it exactly. And I add; it’s because the “particle” is actually a WAVE, and the wave gets measured through interference with environment. So the measurement process creates the wave’s exact appearenc during measurement…


      • Ian miller Says:

        That is a philosophical comment with which I disagree. The property does exist before it is measured. If something causes a particle to be emitted, it travels in a straight line (more or less because it can be through a tube) then ends up somewhere else with conserved angular momentum and linear momentum, I find it unbelievable that it did not have those properties in transit. But I guess I am just disagreeable.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I reply in kind that to assess that the property exists before it is measured is an A PRIORI philosophical position, an axiom imposed on nature.
          How can we know something exists, which has not been seen, heard or interacted with?
          Yes, the famous tree in the forest certainly collapses with a thud. But an elementary particle is not a tree. This assertion can be mathematized by considering the ENTANGLEMENT HORIZON.
          Niels Bohr and company tentatively, and even the quasi-Nazi Heisenberg, understood this, that what has not been measured does not for sure exists. I believe that was the point Heisenberg tried to make to Einstein… Werner telling Albert that he learned that trick from Albert himself…

          Einstein believed “elements of reality” (as he said in EPR paper) existed independently of measurement. For years I agreed with him. As I dug deeper into SUB QUANTUM possibilities (aka NONLOCAL hidden variables), I ended up, ironically enough, under Bohr rather than under Einstein’s god (to whom Einstein had told too much what to do, according to Niels Bohr, who was also of Jewish origin).
          However my own theory is fully deterministic, and why measurement creates existence is fully explained.

          There are good reason to believe properties are measurement dependent. A refined analysis of Stern Gerlach magnet behavior, with three in succession, shows this.

          There is a CLASSICAL MODEL for the mysterious Quantum MEASUREMENT CREATES EXISTENCE.
          Consider TSUNAMIs.
          “Tsunami” means PORT WAVE.
          Not sea wave. Port wave. The (geometry of the) PORT CREATES the tsunami wave. The long linear wavelength oceanic wave enters the port, and it is changed into short frequency, NONLINEAR wave by the geometry of the port.
          [This is exactly what SQPR does, except that the entire power of the linear wave ends up concentrated in a particular port.]


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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: