In 1964, John Bell became fascinated by the EPR paradox, an idea that Einstein had dreamt up to highlight what he saw as a major flaw in quantum mechanics.
The paradox (called EPR after Einstein and his mates Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen) is a thought experiment involving two particles that share the same quantum state. The particles become separated. Then a measurement is made on one particle which immediately determines the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them. This, said Einstein, violates special relativity and is in an act of “spooky action-at-a-distance”.
For thirty years or so, physicists ignored this paradox, all that is, except Bell, a physicist at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva.
Bell developed a set of inequalities that could be tested against experiment. If violated, Bell’s inequalities would prove that quantum mechanics and relativity really were at odds.
At first everbody ignored Bell’s ideas but in 1984, a French team succeeded in showing that quantum mechanics did violate the inequalities. Today Bell’s inequalities are routinely violated in quantum laboratories all over the world, leaving little doubt over the issue.
Except for Joy Christian at the University of Oxford, who says that Bell’s inequalities ought to be violated on a macroscopic scale as well as the quantum level.
His assertion is based on an argument about the topology of space. In particular, he relies on a bizarre property of space that, like the EPR paradox, physicists have tended to ignore. It is this: turn an object through 360 degrees and it returns to its starting position, right? Actually, no. Not if you’re dealing with fermions such as protons and electrons which have a 720 degree symmetry. To get back to the start, you actually need to rotate them through two full turns.
Christian’s argument is that Bell’s inequalities take no account of this property, which he likens to taking an image apart pixel by pixel but without numbering them and then trying to put them back together again. He says this is the reason why Bell’s inequalities are violated, because they do not take account of the toplogy of space, not because of any spooky action-at-a-distance (although this doesn’t rule that out).
He suggests a somewhat tricky experiment that could be done on the macroscopic scale which would also violate Bell’s inequalities as strongly as on the microscopic scale. It involves measuring how balls pop apart when they’re heated, like popcorn (this is not a joke, see the paper for full details).
So is Christian implying that there’s nothing strange about the quantum world that isn’t also strange about the macroscopic world? And that perhaps Einstein was onto something after all?
Obviously, we need to take a closer look at this “macroscopic world” everybody is talking about.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078: Can Bell’s Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
His says that a macroscopic test of Bell’s inequalities and today he explains why.
Reference one of this paper sounds really solid. This could be hot shit…
By Aether Wave Theory the quantum mechanics is simply Newtonian mechanics of multicomponent systems. Some macroscopic experiments are demonstrating this interpretation already.
http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html
If so, which mechanical analogy of quantum entanglement can we use for explanation of non-locality of entangled particles? For example, we can imagine the pair of entangled photons as a pair of levitating superfluous droplets, which are prepared by splitting of single undulating droplet into two halves by thin wire. During this action the surfaces of resulting droplets will remain undulate “in phase” with respect to common center of mass, so they can fuse & recover the original droplet without lost of information after occasional contact. From certain perspective, these droplets are having a rudimentary “memory”, as they’re “remembering” their common origin, despite of their mutual distance (“spooky action at distance”) and as such they’re forming the separated piece of Universe (the reminiscence to Everett’s “many words” concept is apparent here). Note that the undulation frequency and amplitude itself aren’t sufficient for complete restoration of the original state of droplet. The phase of quantum waves serves here as a “hidden variable” – it’s required for complete description of system state, but it’s unmeasurable by common techniques. This is because every attempt to detect/measure the phase of surface undulation will result into desynchronizing of the surface undulations under the lost of entanglement of the original droplet pair (this is the principle of “quantum cryptography”). By AWT the real particles are formed by complex dense clusters of quantum fluctuations with many surface levels (“droplets of droplets”), so they can be entangled in many hidden dimensions at the same moment.
Um, isn’t there like a gigantic hole in this idea: which is that violations of local realism are thought to hold for objects above and beyond spins?
There is nothing in this world so helpless and depraved as a man in the depths of a luminiferous æther binge.
Other than that, what Dave Bacon said.
Dave: can you explicitly give one? The only thing that comes to my mind is decay products. From the CoM frame, they should have equal and opposite momenta, and at a fixed time t later equal and opposite positions. I haven’t worked out the math to show that this will violate bell’s inequality, and it seems like measuring at an “angle” that’s not 90 degrees would be difficult.
Can we make a non-spin analog of the GHZ state?
Re Blake: Forget the impertinent “Aether” word and try to answer simple question for yourself: “In which extent the pair of droplets undulating “in phase” differs from pair of photons entangled “at distance”?
It’s as easy, as it is.
How we can understand the sentence “…by providing a purely classical, topological explanation for the EPR-Bohm type spin correlations, it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated in the manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as strongly as they are in the microscopic domain”?
By AWT the Aether motion inside of particles is simmilar to “boiling fluid”, where the virtual particles are moving along nested spiral paths, fullfilling the SO(3) conformal symmetry of half-integer insintric spin. This enables the particle to behave like two-axis gyroscope with respect to the rotation in every direction (compare the Fig1 from article discussed). This behavior follows from the fact, the surface of every particle/dropplet is formed by density gradient of vacuum, where the environment has two degrees motion freedom.
http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/mass_energy.gif
http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/gyroscope.gif
If we consider the presence of “surfaces”, maintaining the undulating/spin state of particles, we can explain the entanglement by “purely classical way” – i.e. by Newtonian/Aether mechanic way without tachyon based “action at distance” and other mysterious interpretations. And this is exactly, what Joy Christian has said. It doesn’t mean, the other explanations are wrong, they’re simply dual/plural to classical explanations – which can be usefull sometimes, sometimes not.
QM does not require action-at-a-distance (that would violate an uncertainty principle). It is classical mechanics that does. The ordinary analysis is full of mistakes and misunderstandings. See the QM,QFT book for detailed analyses (and classical experiment showing this?). Let us stop all this nonsense.
Click on
Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com
Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
Acronyms(details below)
OAIU;
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely
GTFQM;
Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
MRPG;
Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group
QM,QFT;
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory
geometry, language, logic
QFT,CGT,CFT;
Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory:
GT:IA:
Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach
PG,SG;
Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans
extraordinarily unlikely
R. Mirman
iUniverse, inc. 2006
May be ordered from booksellers or http://www.iUniverse.com
1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)
For special prices for class adoption, other discounts and information contact book.orders@iuniverse.com; 800-288-4677, ext. 501.
An exploration of the precise conditions required for the existence of humans in the universe. … the author does an admirable job delineating the laws of physics without becoming too bogged down in complicated jargon, and he maintains a sense of wonder about the unique and random nature of the universe. He repeatedly celebrates our highly improbable achievements as a species, marveling at our ability to use the language of abstract mathematics to unravel the mysteries of existence. … the prevailing tone of the narrative is clear and confident, marked by a meticulous attention to detail. A[n] … often fascinating journey through the history of the universe and mankind. — Kirkus Discoveries
Existence, of the universe, structure, life, intelligence, is unthinkable, really impossible. Incredibly, intriguingly, we are here. From the universe itself to humans, that we are, what we are, what we have accomplished, we find implausibility upon implausibility making us as reasoning beings (at least almost) unique in the universe, quite fortunate, but quite dangerous. SETI is nonsense. Reasons range from mathematically rigorous — unavoidable — to extremely strong to highly likely. These force the question: does the word God exist?
This discussion is aimed at all interested in not only science, but in the world in which we (strangely can and do) live, the laws of nature, in what humanity is and why. It has in addition much material of value to specialists, and because of its breadth and coherence, its attempts to provoke thought, it, besides being a popularization, should be an excellent text for courses in science for non-scientists and as a (perhaps necessary) supplement for science courses.
I. IS OUR UNIVERSE REALLY POSSIBLE?
Existence is the greatest mystery, not only that it is but that it can be. Conditions are too many, too strict, too conflicting. Outlandishly we are, yet that we are impose upon us the responsibilities of loneliness. Horrendously our most basic need is to hate, hurt and kill, to horribly misuse that awesome, and likely unique, gift of intelligence — destroying, dishonoring, the most magnificent constituent of nature.
II. MYSTERIES OF THE MERE NUMBERS THAT GIVE US LIFE
The most elementary arithmetic, just counting, should make a universe impossible. Why then does one actually exist? Just counting, not even concepts of numbers and arithmetic are needed, just nothing, but in that nothing there is so much, so much that is so necessary. Nothing, but that nothing gives everything, existence itself. Why can, why should, our invention, mathematics, tell nature that it can be, what it must be? Is it counting or is it physics? Is it physics or just mere numbers? Yet mathematics extends almost infinitely beyond numbers, our mathematics that we create. That is the strangest part of being human: we can — and do — create rules for nature. And nature obeys. There is no reason that we should even have mathematical talent, no reason for it to have developed. Humans have immense, but quite unreasonable, talents not only in mathematics — totally unreasonable but true. Why? And they work.
III. SPACE: THE COMPLEXITY AND WORTH OF EMPTINESS
We look, we see, but do not notice. The nothingness that is space much requires noticing — the opulent structure of the emptiness is essential, even for just a universe. There is so much to see, especially because there is nothing to see. We should learn, and we should look.
IV. HOW TURNING AROUND CREATES SPACE AND TIME
What do we mean when we say that space is 3+1-dimensional, that the space part of space is 3-dimensional, and that there is also another dimension, time? Couldn’t we say that space is 3-dimensional and that time is an independent dimension? Why do we even say that space is 3-dimensional rather then space having 3 independent dimensions? And why is temperature not like time? So we have to consider how to turn around, even between space and time. If space is 3+1-dimensional some distances, and masses, are real, some imaginary. There must be a boundary: the boundary cone, unfortunately called the light cone. Light and gravity (these only) travel on it and only on it. Why?
V. WHY THE WORLD MUST BE UNCERTAIN
Atrocities nurtured by twisted views of the universe emphasize that they are not merely wrong but deeply malevolent, deeply malignant, and the overriding moral imperative of correct understanding and acceptance of the realities of nature. What are these realities, what are physical objects including people? Not particles, not waves, meaningless words here. However unpleasant it is, we must accept what all objects, all people, must be, whether we or nature wishes it so. Thus nature must be quantum mechanical, probability, uncertainty, are inherent, unavoidable. Yet it is causal, quite sensible, quite understandable even elementary. And physics must have axioms: physical objects. Quantum mechanics emphasizes how dangerous language is.
VI. OUR UNIVERSE IS — JUST BARELY — POSSIBLE
It is simple to show that physics, a universe, could not exist in any dimension but 3+1, little more than counting. Yet only because of a set of numeral accidents is 3+1 possible, thus that any dimension so any universe is possible at all. Change any number, even by 1, then nothing, no universe could exist. But that universe allowed by arithmetic, barely much more than numbers, is the unique one allowing structure, galaxies, stars, atoms, certainly life. And these requirements have nothing to do with ones leading to the dimension. Satisfying any one does not mean any others can be, certainly not that all can be, that all are. So many conditions, it is just a freak that any are satisfied, thus extremely implausible that all can be, all are. Yet they are. Life is impossible, it really cannot exist.
VII. LAWS OF PHYSICS LOVE US
Why is the universe not concentrated in an immensely small region, or is not huge and practically empty, with nothing but a few useless particles? Why can it have galaxies, stars, light, people? This analysis of a broad range of laws of physics (and mathematics) amazes, that our universe can be possible, and more that it is true, and is what it is. These laws, what they are, their form, how many, the numbers, all the very, very little details — if there were even the most minute difference then essentially nothing. Laws must prevent a realistic universe, yet actually allow it.
VIII. WHY ON EARTH?
Because it is so special, and in so many ways. Yet it is not just that it is special but that it is possible at all seems so implausible. Physical laws, and the vagaries of chance, conspire to allow it — quite, quite difficult — and then to make it true, and thus very special.
IX. WHY LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT
To emphasize our implausibility and our peril, our dangerousness, we must consider the often immensity of the most minute, so the moral and ethical implications of mathematics. From the most fundamental laws of nature to the distribution of dirt on asteroids, the slightest change and we would not exist, perhaps intelligence would not exist in nature. Chance has been very kind. We are children of chance.
X. LIFE — WAS IT REALLY NECESSARY?
Life is a precarious balance between altruism and selfishness. The necessity for both, from the beginning, emphasizes how difficult it is for life to arise. A review of the complexity, the intelligence, the linguistic ability, required of even the simplest cells, of what life is, shows that it, even the most primitive, is very likely extremely rare. We see also the absurdity of the concepts of genetic determinism, nature vs. nurture, even survival of the fittest. Looking at the huge number of potential forms of life, and of the small number of actual ones, emphasizes the immense improbability of a specific type, like one with intelligence, especially humans. We should be thankful to the universe for allowing life (seen clearly dreadfully hard), and to chance for actually creating it, and humans.
XI. IS BEING SMART REALLY A VERY STUPID THING TO DO?
Intelligence is rare — is it toxic? These arguments, including what nerves and brains are like, show strongly why it is, why it is so disadvantageous. The evolution of humans, even intelligence, emphasizes the huge number of accidents, the luck, needed. It is clear why only (placental) mammals have even hope of thought: MOTHERS.
XII. DOES THE WORD GOD EXIST?
The vast implausibility, yet actuality, of nature and of humans seem to have implications. Can there be any? To study this we must consider not science, not religion, but language. That is definitive. Inability and refusal to accept reality, to accept what humans are and our place in nature, and our egomania, megalomania, helping to cause these, has led to vast evil. Science is rejected, since it shows that evolution leads to morality, and because people cannot tolerate the truth about reality, about themselves, causing great suffering, much abominations.
XIII. A UNIVERSE OF WONDER
Our universe is a strange and wonderful place, almost impossible, as are we. But we do not care about these great gifts given us by the unbelievable beneficences of chance. We apply them, not gratefully, but to destroy and diminish, to show our contempt for that life likely so rare, perhaps unique. Our gifts are used not to enhance this life with such incredible talents that we are part of, but to satisfy what is so clearly the most basic human needs, to hate and to kill — hatred, this cancer of the human soul, is fundamental. We are part of a universe of great rationality and grandeur, exceedingly kind and exceedingly cruel, that has made us, and made us what we are. We should be thankful, yet are contemptuous.
A. DOES SPACE MATTER FOR MATTER?
Laws of physics are (perhaps completely) consequences of geometry. Nature, God and we are all governed by geometry. Some of those that we are most aware of, like conservation of energy (with obvious major effects on daily life), are required by geometry (and its monotony). Why? How does geometry enforce these; what do they mean? And how does it restrict turning around?
B. ASTONISH PEOPLE WITH YOUR BRILLIANCE BY BABBLING
See how to impress your friends with your mastery of the secrets of the universe without really knowing anything, especially by misusing language. There are many reasons for the strange stupidity of the errors about quantum mechanics, including often saying it requires that which it forbids (as with wave-particle duality and the vacuum). A major one is that words are not only wrong, meaningless, misleading, but say just the opposite of what we think they say. Quantum mechanics makes complete sense; often language makes none and makes it seem that quantum mechanics (even nature in general) is weird. Language is very dangerous. Weirdness is a confession of incompetence, or dishonesty. It is an interesting psychological question why so many physicists feel so compelled to flaunt their incompetence and complete misunderstanding of their own field.
C. HOW WE DEVELOP (HOPEFULLY CORRECT) BELIEFS ABOUT NATURE
Our world is vastly complicated. Biological objects, especially humans, have developed ways of coping, thus telling much about biology and us. In their most formalized forms they are called science. Which are the best scientists: bacteria, trees, worms, bees or birds? Among humans, babies. For biology, even at its most elementary, science is necessary. What is science, what is a scientific theory, why? What is required of these? Why can a theory be indispensable even if absurd? We see that evolution is scientific; (blasphemous) proposed alternatives are nonsense.
D. LIBERATING ARTS OF SCIENCE
Physics is the most valuable liberal art, but too often quite poorly taught. Here we consider some rules for one aspect, problems. The educational system in general is too often not only poor, even counterproductive, but dishonest, unethical. Emphasis on this can help, but it is only a start.
E. IS MODERN “PHYSICS” A SCIENCE?
It is shocking to see what leaders of the “physics” community, from the top universities, whose work appears in the leading journals, are working on, supported by taxpayer money. Do “physicists” really believe that an object (including a “physicist”) can be in two places at the same time; that “physicists” are so extremely important that just by looking at something they cause the entire universe to split into many universes; that gravity can leak out of the universe; that our universe was started by “another universe” smashing into it (perhaps periodically); that part of the universe is rolled up into a tiny tube and that the dimension is actually 10 or 11 rather than the obvious (and necessary) 3+1; that 1 can have different values in different parts of the universe or at different times; that particles pop out of the vacuum to change solutions of equations; that the vacuum has energy; that a function (which depends on space so has different values at different points) equals a constant (which has the same value at all points); that they are melting the vacuum? Does the American Physical Society advocate that its member lie to Congress to get money, showing deep contempt for Congress, taxpayers, physics and honesty, or do they claim that they have crystal balls in their offices? Evidence is compelling. IS IT ALL A DELIBERATE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD? Taxpayers should be concerned.
by R. Mirman
Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach
(Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1995)
Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
(Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 1995; republished by Backinprint.com)
Classical physics is inconsistent, impossible, quantum mechanics probability, dimension 3+1, and spin-statistics coming from geometry, are necessary.
Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group
electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry
(Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 1995; republished by Backinprint.com)
Geometry requires general relativity, which is thus the quantum theory of gravity. Trivially the cosmological constant is 0 as are the reasons for gauge transformations and CPT.
Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules
(Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1999)
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory
geometry, language, logic
(Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2001; republished by Backinprint.com)
Properties of (badly, misleadingly, named) quantum mechanics are required (by what?). Language, names, are dangerous. Waves, particles are meaningless. Weirdness comes only from incompetence and dishonesty. Properties of quantum mechanics and their reasons are necessary and clear.
Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory: Mathematical and conceptual foundations, physical and geometrical applications (Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2001; republished by Backinprint.com)
The conformal group is the largest invariance group of geometry. Group theory is richer than realized. The proton can’t decay, obviously. What is the significance of the mass level formula?
Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc., 2006)
Backinprint is an imprint of iUniverse, Inc.,
iUniverse
2021 Pine Lake Road, Ste. 100
Lincoln, NE 68512
http://www.iUniverse.com
1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)
Jesus, why are there all these cranks?
Blake: Nice Fear and Loathing reference 🙂