| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
24 May 2005 01:20:54 AM |
| Object: |
Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005
I am glad to say that I managed to circumvent some of the blocking by
arXiv due to my downloading too many papers (welcome to the
Know-Nothing Party!) by stumbling into Citebase and pressing the pdf
button. This worked at least for Raymond Y. Chiao's 2003 paper
relevant to this topic, although I can't say that it will work even for
every paper on Citebase.
I was rather surprised to find that PI is at least conceptually allied
with General Relativity (GR) and Special Relativity (SR) in favoring
Locality, that Chiao in his 2003 paper seems to be half for locality
(in GR) and half for nonlocality (in QM etc.), that David Deutsch and
the Multiverse theorists are on the side of locality while David Bohm
and Sir Roger Penrose and various advocates of superluminal actual
signals including Professor Nimtz of U. Cologne/Koln basically take (or
in the case of Bohm took) the nonlocality position and that quantum
computing is considered usually to take the nonlocality position.
Take a look at Raymond Y. Chiao's (Berkeley) "Conceptual tensions
between quantum mechanics and general relativity: are there
experimental consequences?" arXiv:gr-qc/0303100 v2 7 Apr 2003, and I'll
try to continue soon. If this thread gets buried (since it's late in
the evening here), I may restart it under a new name with one initial
word changed.
I should add that my impression of those quantum theory advocates of
nonlocality who are basically Bohm hangers-on from Jack Sarfatti onward
(at least as I understand him) is roughly equivalent to my impression
of Flatlanders who, upon seeing a pencil tip punch through their flat
land, conclude that flatland contains virtual particles and
antiparticles that make point or circle object and then cancel each
other out. Welcome to monkeys typing Shakespeare along with artificial
(really artificial!) intelligence!
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI |
24 May 2005 01:36:28 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Is it possible that "real" Technocrat progress (i.e., in technology
with or without science) requires not just an accumulated "social body
of literature in the hard sciences and technology" but also certain
ways of thinking (cognition) and perceiving beyond
"theoretical/experimental science"?
Well, let's look at what's been holding up the Technocracy in the
subject of nonlocality. A bunch of physicists with almost no
comprehension of probability and statistics not to mention psychology
and biology, namely Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Bohr, whom
we have already seen spending decades in a "Man From La Mancha" series
of battles on probability versus statistics versus GR versus QM in
which none of them was armed to fight, suddenly discovered Quantum
Strangeness whereby double slit quantum interference appeared to depend
on the wave-particle's or field-particle's prior "knowledge" of which
hole(s) the experimenter left open. So they essentially declared this
all "nonlocal", not having really understood what was local in the
first place (except perhaps the local bar?).
I'll try to be right back.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI |
24 May 2005 02:08:33 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
But is there an alternative to "nonlocality"? Surely a small
neighborhood of a point or little string no longer explains what
happens in quantum strangeness?
But an idea like "follow the money" will give us a clue. Notice that
the boys from nonlocal don't ever entirely abandon particles or little
strings entirely. They'd like to, but then their results would
conflict with the subconsciously Holy Grail of Elementary Particle
Physics - which latter actually is more often correct than they are,
methinks. But if the particle or little string has to be in the
wave-particle or particle-field combination or concatenation, then
maybe the particle or little string plays a role, somewhat like a gene
in microbiology which has now advanced beyond only genes to genes +
enzymes + genotypes + phenotypes?
So what am I trying to say? Well, the particle or little string plays
a key role, not just an accidental role.
Just as quarks don't appear in isolation (at least so far), so a
particle and its associated wave or field (I'll refer to wave for
simplicity here) don't appear in isolation. The wave is a "pure
energy" part of the combined object, while the particle (little string)
is a "pure matter" part of the combined object. Matter is usually
visible optically, while energy isn't necessarily and quite often
isn't.
So there's an "energy animal?" If so, does it have constituent points
geometrically? Why not? It's extended through space, so why not
regard it as being "composed of points" geometrically? The usual
answer is that we wouldn't get discrete eigenvalues for energy and
similar things if it were a continuous object with points.
So it all boils down to justifying discrete eigenvalues? Heck, look
at biological membranes, e.g., among human beings, through which
digestion occurs from one region/phase to another. Doesn't that remind
you of holes passing objects of the right size (filtration) through
phase barriers? Does that make either side/phase outside the membrane
discrete? No.
Add expansion-contraction of the wave/field, possibly different in
speeds and magnitudes in different directions, and the whole
locality/nonlocality distinction becomes silly.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI |
24 May 2005 02:27:06 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
But there aren't trajectories, only probabilities over volumes of space
and fields over volumes of space(time)! Not quite. The Schrodinger
Equation was correctly called the wave equation by Schrodinger.
There's nothing in probability that prevents a trajectory for a mass or
even a "moving point/little string". We may not necessarily know the
trajectory, but the appearance of a probability doesn't rule one out in
the slightest! In fact, probabilities for continuous random variables
turn into probability density functions (pdfs) and cumulative
distribution functions (cdfs) which have very similar properties to
probabilities with a slight exception and in fact cumulative
distribution function (cdfs) are always probabilities.
What about the "quantum jumps"? Has anybody actually seen one? If
you could see it, it wouldn't be discrete or discontinuous anymore.
How do I know all this? Well, there aren't any discrete eigenvalues
in PI. There aren't even any in conditional probability or independent
probability if we don't start with discrete random variables.
Moreover, there are only 3 types of fuzzy multivalued logics which are
analogs of the three respective probability types: Lukaciewicz
propositional logic or Rational Pavelka predicate logic, Product/Goguen
logic, and Godel logic. They all have continuous implications x-->y
with x, y having values in the interval [0, 1]. "There ain't no
jumping animal," as they said back on the farm. Oh, one qualification:
Product logic can't have x = 0 in y/x.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI |
24 May 2005 02:48:37 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I'll try to reply to Nick tomorrow since it's 12:32AM here.
I notice that in the locality-nonlocality literature, Rudolf Haag and
A. Wightman's Quantum Algebra is placed in the locality camp. The
nonlocality people, especially the David Bohm camp, then typically go
on a tirade against quantum algebra for "producing no verifiable
results." This is actually the Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) mentality
disguised or "hidden" as David Bohm (Hidden Variables, recall). Or
maybe it's Bohmians disguised as LQGs. Wait a minute, I better not get
started on that again. I can just see it now: the Bohmian-LQG-PI
thread! It's enough to summon aliens from outer space.
What am I doing defending the quantum algebraists if I attack the
algebraic geometers and algebraic topologists for going around in
circles? Well, life is a learning experience and we're all here to
learn, not to BS, I hope. Not all the Germans were Violence-Oriented
paranoid-schizoids. A lot of the German and Austrian Jews (who were
usually very assimilated) weren't, and some of the German Army leaders
in WWII couldn't stand Hitler, and Schrodinger couldn't stand him
either and left Austria to spend WWII in mostly Ireland, while Kurt
Godel left Austria even though he wasn't Jewish and stayed with
Einstein at Princeton Institute. Austrian Catholic farmers especially
disliked Hitler, as did some German Catholics including those in
Bavaria.
Good night until (hopefully) tomorrow.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI |
24 May 2005 02:21:58 AM |
|
|
If light is redshifted enough it can be of an arbitrarily
large size.How would a light years wave come into
existence? Would we have to wait for it to expand
into that size?
If its local how can it come all at once?
Also the original mass of the universe if it was singular
would be a black hole without the possibility of expansion.
I believe the original energy that made matter was spread
out. It was nonsingular. When mass was created it also
was spread out.
There is an original expansion from a space-time singularity.
But matter is yet to be created. When it is it is spread
apart and gravity is finite so expansion-inflation can take
place.
Gravity is finite.
Thanks oscher
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
