The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It

a reply to: neoholographic

This all applies to quantum states of matter. For you and me, in the macro world, these laws don’t apply. Unless you want to crash into a wall that on a quantum level is not there.

Entanglement is real as in reel? Casting the line to reel it back in. Real time = Reel time.

The problem with this theory is that it's based on the idea that a photon or particle or whatever has no state until it is measured.

Which is nonsense.

Everything that exists has state, regardless of whether you measure it or not. The fact you know what it's state is doesn't mean it didn't have state before you knew.

Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead, regardless of whether you open the box or not. Opening the box doesn't make these things so.

Opening the box simply makes you aware of the state the cat is in at the time the box is opened. That's it.

My only point from earlier (the tree in the forest) is that a physical cause creates a physical sound wave, regardless if anything can hear it. If some living organism "hears" it, what they hear is a "noise". A noise is the product of an organism's nervous (or other) system responding to a stimulus. A sensory organ, like an ear, picks up the physical sound wave, transmits this to the brain and creates a neural pattern that we call "noise". Sound is an objective physical reality independent of the concept of noise inside the human brain.

What we think we know doesn't alter anything in the elsewhere.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
My only point from earlier (the tree in the forest) is that a physical cause creates a physical sound wave, regardless if anything can hear it. If some living organism "hears" it, what they hear is a "noise". A noise is the product of an organism's nervous (or other) system responding to a stimulus. A sensory organ, like an ear, picks up the physical sound wave, transmits this to the brain and creates a neural pattern that we call "noise". Sound is an objective physical reality independent of the concept of noise inside the human brain.

What we think we know doesn't alter anything in the elsewhere.

Your point is valid only if an underlying reality is assumed. The problem being addressed with the Nobel winning work is that if relativity and quantum mechanics are both assumed, then what happens in certain experiments is that a physically extended wave function must convert (collapse) into a different wave function in a way that violates the speed of light limit given by relativity.

What is done is a quantum state is produced containing two "particles" in an "entangled state". For a simple teaching example, consider a two-photon decay from a spin zero atom decaying into another spin zero state. The photons fly off back to back from each other. Their spins must be the opposite of each other to maintain zero total angular momentum, but quantum mechanics teaches us that nothing is exact. In quantum mechanics there is always a spread of results possible. Despite the spreads, when one photon is measured, the other one is always measured with the opposite spin. Including the underlying spreads, calculations show that this correlation must involve an effect on one photon that is caused by the measurement of the other. But timing of the measurements can be done in such a way that the two measurements are done so quickly, and so far apart, that the second measurement would experience that the first happened even though it would take light too long to get from one to the other.

When such experiments were done, the fundamental result can be summarized as:
1) Relativity. 2) Quantum Mechanics. 3) Local Reality.
Pick Two.

Both relativity and quantum mechanics have been tested to be correct over the course of decades of experiments. As a result, present dogma dictates that reality be set aside. However, as I mentioned in a comment above in this thread, we can instead set relativity aside. The precursor to special relativity, the Lorentz Aether Theory, results in the same equations as the special theory. I've recently produced a replacement for the general theory also, motivated in part by the need to retain realism in physics.

But if we go with present dogma, wherein reality is set aside, then it becomes the measurement itself that defines the state we are in. And in one variant of such dogma, there is a role of "an observer", someone who makes the measurement. In that dogmatic varaiant the question of whether or not a falling tree always makes a sound becomes worthy of pondering, and your simple decree falls into question.

As for me, I believe a falling tree always makes a sound, because I believe in a single reality and I accept an underlying reality as a starting axiom. I hope this explanation clarifies the discussion a bit more. Many bright people disagree with us realists, and their reasoning is sound - provided they are unwilling to move beyond an axiomatic acceptance of relativity.

Relativity needs to be set aside.

a reply to: rounda

What about superposition???

a reply to: TzarChasm

Schrödinger's cat is Perturbed by this Thread ..........

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
So if you can't observe something, or sense it in some way, it doesn't exist?

I think this is the same analogy as the tree in the forest; if no one is around, it doesn't make a sound. I'm pretty sure the tree still makes a sound, there is just no receiver to pick the sound up, like eardrums. It's also much like Schrodinger's cat. Is it dead in the box or alive, no one knows if they can't see it? Logic suggests that if you leave the cat in the box long enough...it's dead, the smell would give it away too. That said. I'm pretty sure that space and all of its wonders are not predicated upon my receiving my attention. This is literally a theory of the Universe revolving around oneself.

a reply to: DeplorableDereliction

As Pais indicated, the majority view of the quantum mechanics community then and arguably to this day is that existence in the absence of an observer is at best a conjecture, a conclusion that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Copied from Wikipedia - If a tree falls in the forest.

a reply to: DeplorableDereliction
There might be just the one observer.......seeing and knowing and present everywhere.....and without it nothing could appear.

originally posted by: delbertlarson

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
My only point from earlier (the tree in the forest) is that a physical cause creates a physical sound wave, regardless if anything can hear it. If some living organism "hears" it, what they hear is a "noise". A noise is the product of an organism's nervous (or other) system responding to a stimulus. A sensory organ, like an ear, picks up the physical sound wave, transmits this to the brain and creates a neural pattern that we call "noise". Sound is an objective physical reality independent of the concept of noise inside the human brain.

What we think we know doesn't alter anything in the elsewhere.

Your point is valid only if an underlying reality is assumed. The problem being addressed with the Nobel winning work is that if relativity and quantum mechanics are both assumed, then what happens in certain experiments is that a physically extended wave function must convert (collapse) into a different wave function in a way that violates the speed of light limit given by relativity.

What is done is a quantum state is produced containing two "particles" in an "entangled state". For a simple teaching example, consider a two-photon decay from a spin zero atom decaying into another spin zero state. The photons fly off back to back from each other. Their spins must be the opposite of each other to maintain zero total angular momentum, but quantum mechanics teaches us that nothing is exact. In quantum mechanics there is always a spread of results possible. Despite the spreads, when one photon is measured, the other one is always measured with the opposite spin. Including the underlying spreads, calculations show that this correlation must involve an effect on one photon that is caused by the measurement of the other. But timing of the measurements can be done in such a way that the two measurements are done so quickly, and so far apart, that the second measurement would experience that the first happened even though it would take light too long to get from one to the other.

When such experiments were done, the fundamental result can be summarized as:
1) Relativity. 2) Quantum Mechanics. 3) Local Reality.
Pick Two.

Both relativity and quantum mechanics have been tested to be correct over the course of decades of experiments. As a result, present dogma dictates that reality be set aside. However, as I mentioned in a comment above in this thread, we can instead set relativity aside. The precursor to special relativity, the Lorentz Aether Theory, results in the same equations as the special theory. I've recently produced a replacement for the general theory also, motivated in part by the need to retain realism in physics.

But if we go with present dogma, wherein reality is set aside, then it becomes the measurement itself that defines the state we are in. And in one variant of such dogma, there is a role of "an observer", someone who makes the measurement. In that dogmatic varaiant the question of whether or not a falling tree always makes a sound becomes worthy of pondering, and your simple decree falls into question.

As for me, I believe a falling tree always makes a sound, because I believe in a single reality and I accept an underlying reality as a starting axiom. I hope this explanation clarifies the discussion a bit more. Many bright people disagree with us realists, and their reasoning is sound - provided they are unwilling to move beyond an axiomatic acceptance of relativity.

Relativity needs to be set aside.

If the General Theory of Relativity is set aside then you must make room for variable light speed theories. Are you prepared for it? There have been attempts before as you know. But they didn't go ahead.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

My alternative to General Relativity is a theory wherein light is a wave within the aether. The aether is a solid substance, and it is well known that solid substances are capable of supporting transversely polarized waves, such as light. It is possible the aether itself could move, and with the speed of light fixed with respect to the aether, that would result in the speed of light changing as measured by us. While I did consider that issue, it is not one of the critical ones. The critical issues were dealing with all classical tests of General Relativity as well as arriving at some predictable differences. Everything is in good shape on those points I believe.

The theory does other nice things as well, such as deriving the Lorentz Force Equation, having a unified underpinning of electricity and magnetism and gravity, and explaining the origin and location of dark matter. And an aetherial replacement for relativity also allows us to return to the classical understanding of time and space, which is the point of relevance to this thread. Because once we have classical time we have well-defined simultaneity and well-defined instants of time. So we can have an instantaneous collapse of the entangled wave function over its entire length, and then the Nobel winning results become completely compatible with an underlying reality.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My alternative to General Relativity is a theory wherein light is a wave within the aether. The aether is a solid substance, and it is well known that solid substances are capable of supporting transversely polarized waves, such as light. It is possible the aether itself could move, and with the speed of light fixed with respect to the aether, that would result in the speed of light changing as measured by us. While I did consider that issue, it is not one of the critical ones. The critical issues were dealing with all classical tests of General Relativity as well as arriving at some predictable differences. Everything is in good shape on those points I believe.

The theory does other nice things as well, such as deriving the Lorentz Force Equation, having a unified underpinning of electricity and magnetism and gravity, and explaining the origin and location of dark matter. And an aetherial replacement for relativity also allows us to return to the classical understanding of time and space, which is the point of relevance to this thread. Because once we have classical time we have well-defined simultaneity and well-defined instants of time. So we can have an instantaneous collapse of the entangled wave function over its entire length, and then the Nobel winning results become completely compatible with an underlying reality.

What is the mathematical framework of this theory?

In general relativity for example we use differential geometry and objects called tensor fields defined on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.

There is a 'slightly' different approach once we modify Einstein's Field Equations, getting what is now called modified theories of gravity in which you may not even need dark matter or dark energy.

Do you have any paper with the mathematics of the Aetherian framework?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What is the mathematical framework of this theory?

In general relativity for example we use differential geometry and objects called tensor fields defined on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.

There is a 'slightly' different approach once we modify Einstein's Field Equations, getting what is now called modified theories of gravity in which you may not even need dark matter or dark energy.

Do you have any paper with the mathematics of the Aetherian framework?

A paper concerning the aether model is on my website. It now shows up on page one of a google search of "quantum luminiferous aether". Click on the result "1998 - A Two Component Solid Aether". Then once on my site, click the link to Download the PDF.

The aether model is a physical model and the math is that of a vector field theory. Vector calculus, ordinary calculus and a lot of algebra is used to derive Maxwell's Equations, the Lorentz Force Equation, Newtonian gravity, perihelion advances, and dark matter effects among other things.

The paper focuses on what happens to a simple quantum aetherial cube under the forces of tension, quantum pressure, flow forces, and two new forces dubbed the delta and gamma forces. (See the full paper for details.) It would be great to get validation of the correctness of the math. I believe this is a work of some importance.

a reply to: gortex

Yes , it All Makes Sense Now..........

a reply to: gortex

They make this too complicated.

It's just proving quantum entanglement is real with application in quantum computing and data transfer security.

And quantum entanglement does certainly violate local realism. Every story I've read on this attempts to put people into a solipsistic nightmare that unmakes reality.

One time Einstein was wrong. He thought they'd disprove it eventually.