Sign in to follow this  
libertarianbob01

A Refutation of The Theory of Elementary Waves

Recommended Posts

http://www.runslinux.net/~jeff/tew_refutation2.txt

(Part I written April 2000, Part II Oct 2000)

Well, the time has finally come. I have completed the second more general

disproof of TEW. In this one all parameters are left open for how the

particles will "jump" onto different elementary waves when the polarizers

are switched. This amounts to 16 separate variables, and the only

constraints used are basic laws of probability and agreement with the photon

counts at each detector as predicted by standard Quantum theory. As I show,

even though there are only 6 constraining equations the system as a whole has

*no* solution regardless of what parameters are used. It is the framework

that is flawed, the experiment simply cannot be explained using reverse

waves which travel from the detector to the source.

I am including the "part 1" again along with the new "part 2" because all

the equations of part 2 depend on the framework established in part 1,

and I refer back to specific tables. Also, I found several serious

numerical errors in my original part 1 refutation which I have corrected

here so I would like this to go on record as replacing the original one.

(The numerical errors were a result of miscopying my scrawlings which

at the time were a loose collection of notes and tables in an attempt

to simplify what I had discovered as much as possible before posting it).

So if you are just going to skim this and you already have the gist of

the first part of the argument you can skip down below to where it says

"Part 2" to read what is new. But it will still refer back to a lot

which is in part 1.

An original copy of this document can be found at:

http://www.spoonless.net/tew_refutation.html

(This is a broken and bad link, but this is a Network Solutions whois search for spoonless.net.)

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/resu...n=spoonless.net

A Refutation of The Theory of Elementary Waves

-------------------------------------------

TEW was formulated by Dr. Lewis Little to be a local deterministic alternative

to Quantum Mechanics, where particles follow paths and have a definite

position and momentum all the time, regardless of whether they are being

measured. This is similar to David Bohm's theory, except that Bohm's is

non-local. Accordingly, Bohm predicts exactly the same experimental results

as standard Quantum Theory, whereas TEW disagrees with Quantum Mechanics about

some predictions.

The circumstances where TEW disagrees with standard QM are the circumstances

which have been in the spotlight for debate ever since non-locality arose

as an issue in Physics (dating all the way back to the EPR paper published

in 1935). Standard Quantum theory predicts non-local interactions in all

EPR experiments--but it is only in cases where the decision of which angle to

measure the particles at both ends of the experiment is delayed until it

is too late for a signal to travel between them that it is necessary to invoke

a non-local theory to duplicate the predictions of QM theory.

It is these situations--called double delayed choice experiments--where TEW

and QM disagree about the outcome of the experiment.

When it was first realized that these experiments proved or disproved the

non-locality of nature itself, an effort was sought to perform one of these

experiments, forever proving whether the non-local Quantum theory which had

been around for years was correct about its predictions.

The effort to perform the experiment culminated in what is now known as

the A. Aspect experiment, performed in 1981.

This experiment was and is globably accepted as having conclusively shown,

that any theory which involves particles having complimentary properties

like position and momentum at the same time *must* be inherently non-local.

Dr. Lewis Little claims, however, that he has found a loophole in the Aspect

experiment, something which all scientist who performed it and have ever

read about or studied it overlooked.

In order to continue reading this document, it is highly advisable to first

read the following text written by Little on the mechanism by which he

believes TEW can escape the accepted non-local consequences of the Aspect

experiment:

<a href=http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/InnsbruckNote.html>"Notes on the Aspect and Innsbruck experiments"</a>

Before beginning my refutation, I will quickly review both the experiment

itself and Dr. Little's explanation of how TEW gets around it.

The Aspect experiment involves a generation of a pair of photons

with a special relation to each other (to be described further on). The

photons are sent out in oppositte directions. On each side, the photon is

measured with a polarizer oriented at a chosen angle.

Now, at each side half of the photons will pass through the polarizer and

half will be blocked. But even though each photon has a 50 percent chance

of passing through its own polarizer regardless of what the angles of the

polarizers are, the two photons are related to each other.

In fact, for a particular pair of photons, if the polarizers are set at

exactly the same angle and the photon on one side passes through, the one

on the other side will always be blocked. (Their anti-correlation is 100%).

This is not true, however, if the polarizers are set to different angles.

If they are measured at different angles, then the probability that they

both pass through is given by the sine squared function:

P(same) = sin^2(alpha)

and the probability that one passes through and the other is blocked is

given by cosine squared:

P(different) = cos^2(alpha)

(Notice these probabilities add up to 1)

...where alpha is the angle between the two polarizers. To find the

correlation between the two results, you simply subtract these two numbers:

E(photon A passes, photon B passes) = sin^2(alpha) - cos^2(alpha)

which simplifies mathematically to: E() = -cos(2*alpha).

Notice that if the polarizers are at the same angle, alpha is 0 and the

correlation is -1, (-100%), which as I mentioned is an anti-correlation

of 100% (the percentage of time they disagree).

Now, the above mathematics is what QM theory predicts for the measurements

of how many times on average the photons passing through will agree and

disagree, regardless of how far apart the two polarizers are placed *and*

regardless of how late the angle measured at each end is chosen.

According to TEW, these equations work as long as one polarizer's

angle is fixed (either doesn't change or ends up at the same angle it started

while the photons are "in flight"). But if both polarizer angles are changed

after the photons are generated but before they reach their destinations,

then TEW predicts different results.

The experiment was performed and a mechanism was used to switch the angles

of the polarizers randomly at a time interval corresponding to less than

the time it takes the photon to travel from its source to the polarizer.

The results observed in the experiment were exactly consistant with the

equations I have listed above; however, Dr. Little's complaint is that

only certain angles were used and that for these particular angles it is

possible to add certain assumptions onto TEW to make the results come out the

same as what was observed (and what QM predicts for those angles). He admits

that this is not possible to do for any angle in general, but I shall show

here that even with the angles used, the added assumption needed to make TEW

consistant with the results is contradictory to TEW itself!

I'm sure that there are much more elegant and simple ways of showing this

mathematically, but instead I am going to present the following argument in

terms of extremely basic numbers, angles, measurements, and grade school

algebra. The reason for this is to make it clear to anyone patient enough

to read it carefully (I do stress carefully) what the argument is saying and

how it is connected with reality, rather than presenting a mess of equations

and subscripts only familiar to those who have dealt with this for years.

Also, it is much easier to do slight of hand with correlation equations,

and probability distribution integrals than it is with just measured values.

I will refer to the two polarizers used in the Aspect experiment as the left

and right polarizer (even though this distinction is arbitrary as it depends

on which side of the experiment you're standing on). The left polarizer

is switched randomly between 0 and 45 degrees. The right polarizer is

switched randomly between 22.5 and 67.5 degrees.

I am going to walk through the experiment for various cases, from within

the framework of TEW.

According to TEW, two reverse photon waves at each end travel to the source,

one polarized parallel to the polarizer and one polarized perpendicular to

the polarizer. Each photon emitted from the source follows one of the

two reverse photon waves on its side back to the polarizer and either passes

on through it to the detector or is blocked, depending on which wave it

was following. If the polarizer angle of one end is changed in mid photon

flight, the photon particle will jump onto one of the two new reverse waves.

In other words, whether the right photon particle passes through the

right polarizer is determined only by the initial orientation

of the left polarizer (at the time of the photon emission) and the final

orientation of the right polarizer (at the time the photons reach their

polarizers). Conversely, whether the left photon passes is

determined only by the final orientation of the left photon and the

initial orientation of the right photon.

The reason the final orientation of the right polarizer can not affect

the left photon's behavior is TEW's locality assumption: the information of

what the final orientation of the right polarizer is does not have time to

travel over to the left photon before it reaches its destination (as

mentioned, the switching rate of the polarizer orientations is fast enough

to ensure this). The reason the initial orientation of the left polarizer

does not affect the same (left) photon is that if it did it would disagree

with not just the results of this experiment, but single-delayed choice

experiments as well. Anyway, QM and TEW agree on this second assumpion, but

disagree on the first assumption (in QM, whether each photon passes is

dependant instantaneously on the final orientations of both polarizers).

That said, we move on to the observed statistics. I will use square brackets

[] to denote polarizer orientations, and parenthesis () to denote the

polarizations of the two photons in the experiment. If the polarizers are

not changed during photon flight, the statistics are the same for QM,

TEW, and what is measured all the time in normal experiments:

Polarizer orientations: Percentage of photon pairs passed/blocked:

[left, right] (left, right) %

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(passed,passed) 7.3%

[ 0, 22.5] (passed,blocked) 42.6%

(blocked,passed) 42.6%

(blocked,blocked) 7.3%

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(passed,passed) 42.6%

[ 0, 67.5] * (passed,blocked) 7.3%

(blocked,passed) 7.3%

(blocked,blocked) 42.6%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(passed,passed) 7.3%

[45, 22.5] (passed,blocked) 42.6%

(blocked,passed) 42.6%

(blocked,blocked) 7.3%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(passed,passed) 7.3%

[45, 67.5] (passed,blocked) 42.6%

(blocked,passed) 42.6%

(blocked,blocked) 7.3%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.1

This table can easily be calculated from the cos^2(alpha) formula mentioned

previously. Notice that the statistics for the first, third, and fourth cases

are the same, This is because the statistics depend on alpha, the *difference*

between the left and right polarizer angles. The second case, marked with

a [*], is the only case where alpha is 67.5 rather than 22.5 so the

statistics are different.

Side note: all the numbers in the table are rounded to the nearest tenth of

a percent. I will continue to do this throughout the rest of the refutation,

but keep in mind that the real values are irrational and could be calculated

to much higher precision.

According to TEW, which reverse-waves the photons follow are chosen

at the time of emission, and in the case where the polarizer angles are not

changed they stay on the same path throughout the experiment. The chosen

wave's polarization is either parallel or perpendicular to the

polarizer on its side. With this in mind, here is the last table redisplayed

in terms on TEW and which reverse waves the particle is initially following

when the experiment begins:

Initial polarizer Percentage of photon pairs initially

orientations: following waves of these polarizations:

(left, right) (left, right) %

------------------------------------------------------------------------

( 0, 22.5 ) 7.3%

[ 0, 22.5] ( 0, 112.5) 42.6%

(90, 22.5 ) 42.6%

(90, 112.5) 7.3%

------------------------------------------------------------------------

( 0, 67.5 ) 42.6%

[ 0, 67.5] ( 0, 157.5) 7.3%

(90, 67.5 ) 7.3%

(90, 157.5) 42.6%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

( 45, 22.5 ) 7.3%

[45, 22.5] ( 45, 112.5) 42.6%

(135, 22.5 ) 42.6%

(135, 112.5) 7.3%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

( 45, 67.5 ) 7.3%

[45, 67.5] ( 45, 157.5) 42.6%

(135, 67.5 ) 42.6%

(135, 157.5) 7.3%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.2

The above table summarizes the statistics for which wave polarizations the

left and right photons will follow based on the initial angles of

the polarizers. If the polarizer angles are changed afterwards, the

photons will jump to follow new polarizations in response.

The polarizer on each end can be switched back and forth between their

2 possible angles any number of times during the experiment but the only

angles which matter are what they start out at (initial angles) when the

photons are emitted at the source, and what they end up at (final angles)

when the photons reach the polarizers.

This possible because of the determinism of TEW, and helps with agreement

with experiment.

Of all the possible combinations of initial and final left and right

polarizer orientations (16) we will only need to look at 3 of them. I

will introduce the notation [a,b] -> [c,d] to mean that the left polarizer

has initial polarization angle a, and the right polarizer initial angle b,

and their polarizations are changed in mid photon-flight to end up in

final polarizations c and d respectively. The 3 cases I will analyze here

are as follows:

case 1: [0,67.5] -> [45,67.5] [left polarizer is changed]

case 2: [0,67.5] -> [ 0,22.5] [right polarizer is changed]

case 3: [0,67.5] -> [45,22.5] [both polarizers changed]

All three have the same initial polarizer orientations, but then one or

both of the polarizers end up switched by the time the photons reach

their desinations. The fourth case involving an initial [0,67.5]

polarization is [0,67.5]->[0,67.5] which has already been covered and

isn't difficult to explain in terms of TEW as the photons simply end

up in the same polarizations they started in. Of course there are also

12 other cases corresponding to different initial polarizer orientations

which are similar to these 4 through various symmetries. These cases are

not of interest to the present discussion.

For case 1, the left photon will begin in a polarization of either 0 or

90 degrees and jump to a polarization of either 45 or 135 degrees. The

statistics for the final polarizations of the photons must match the

measured percentages of how many are blocked versus passed through the

polarizers. These statistics are the same ones shown above in the

[45,67.5] section of Table 1.2. We end up with a relationship between

the initial right polarization (which remains the same) and the final

left polarization (where the left photon ends up when it jumps).

Initial photon Probability left photon will jump onto:

polarizations: 45 degrees 135 degrees

(left,right) % %

------------------ ------------------------------------------------------

(?,67.5 ) 14.6% 85.3%

(?,157.5) 85.3% 14.6%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.3

The ? indicates that so far the angle the left photon jumps to does not need

to depend on what it started out at. It may depend on this, or it may not.

For example for the first line, the chances of the left photon jumping

to 45 degrees may be different for initial polarizations of (0,67.5) and

for (90,67.5) which both have different weights to begin with; but the

average number of left photons ending up at a 45 degree polarization must

come out to 14.6% for those two cases combined.

A similar situation exists for case 2, where the right polarizer is changed

causing the right photon to jump to another polarization. The corresponding

statistics for its jump this time depend on the initial polarization of

the left photon:

Initial photon Probability right photon will jump onto:

polarizations: 22.5 degrees 112.5 degrees

(left,right) % %

------------------ ------------------------------------------------------

( 0, ? ) 14.6% 85.3%

(90, ? ) 85.3% 14.6%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.4

Now, in order to represent the statistics for case 3 where both photons

jump we need a slightly bigger table. Now there are 4 possible outcomes

of the jumps and 4 possible initial photon pair polarizations.

The statistics listed in the [ 0, 67.5 ] and [ 45, 22.5 ] sections of

Table 1.2 are listed on the left column and right heading of the following

table. If one takes the assumption Dr. Little has made in the "Notes on

the Aspect/Innsbruck experiments", then transitions corresponding to photons

jumping in oppositte directions are forbidden. These transitions are marked

here with 0's. (Note: later, I will show that even if one does not take this

assumption, there is still no way to make the theory self-consistant but for

now we will assume the original assumption made by Dr. Little). The rest of

the statistics for the jumps can be anything as long as the rows and columns

sum to 100 percent...

Initial polarization state: Probability of final polarization state:

7.3% 42.6% 42.6% 7.3%

% (left,right) (45,22.5) (135,22.5) (45,112.5) (135,112.5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.6% ( 0, 67.5 ) 0 100-x x 0

7.3% ( 0, 157.5) 100-y 0 0 y

7.3% (90, 67.5 ) y 0 0 100-y

42.6% (90, 157.5) 0 x 100-x 0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.5

With the 0's placed in this way, the probabilities along the top and along

the side match up regardless of what is chosen for x and y. So case 3 is

in agreement with experiment. But now let's look back at what happens in

the first two cases.

Consider what happens to the left photon as the experiment progresses. It

is influenced by any change in the left polarizer but cannot know whether the

right polarizer is changed (because this is outside of its lightcone during

its journey). Therefore, what it does must be the same whether the right

polarizer is changed or not. This means that the x and y values from the

above table also apply to the table for case 1. But now its jump depends

on more so Table 1.3 must be expanded and the values from Table 1.5 filled

in:

Initial photon Probability left photon will jump onto:

polarizations: 45 degrees 135 degrees

% (left,right) % %

------------------ ------------------------------------------------------

42.6% (0 ,67.5 ) x | 100-x

7.3% (90,67.5 ) y | 100-y

------------------------------------------------------

7.3% ( 0,157.5) 100-y | y

42.6% (90,157.5) 100-x | x

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.6

The four quadrants in the above graph correspond to the 4 probabilities listed

in Table 1.3 (14.6%,85.3%,14.6%, and 85.3% going clockwise from the upper-left

quadrant). The initial polarizations have different weights, but when

averaged together it has to come out to the value from Table 1.3. We end

up with the following new constraints on x and y:

.853x + .146y = 14.6 (from upper left quadrant)

.853(100-x) + .146(100-y) = 85.3 (from upper right quadrant)

.853x + .146y = 14.6 (from lower right quadrant)

.853(100-x) + .146(100-y) = 85.3 (from lower left quadrant)

The coefficients shown here come from the 7.3%'s and the 14.6%'s in the

lefthand column of Table 1.6, doubled because it is only out of the

2 possible initial polarizations in that particular quadrant rather than all

4 possible initial polarizations; and expressed as a decimal rather than

a percent so that the multiplication is clearer.

The first and third equations are the same equation, as are the second and

forth. Furthermore, the second/forth equation also reduces to the

first/third:

.853(100-x) + .146(100-y) = 85.3

85.3 - .85.3x + 14.6 - .146y = 85.3

-.853x - .146y = -14.6

.853x + .146y = 14.6

So all four equations simply say

.853x + .146y = 14.6

which still doesn't pick out values for x and y, but does restrict them

a bit.

Now let's look at what happens when the right photon jumps. It has no way

of knowing whether the left polarizer is changed so its statistics must be

the same for case 2 and case 3. Expanding Table 1.4 with the same x's and

y's gives us:

Initial photon Probability right photon will jump onto:

polarizations: 22.5 degrees 112.5 degrees

% (left,right) % %

------------------ ------------------------------------------------------

42.6% (0 ,67.5 ) 100-x | x

7.3% (0 ,157.5) 100-y | y

------------------------------------------------------

7.3% (90, 67.5) y | 100-y

42.6% (90,157.5) x | 100-x

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.7

And the corresponding constraints on x and y from Table 1.4 are:

.853(100-x) + .146(100-y) = 14.6

.853x + .146y = 85.3

.853(100-x) + .146(100-y) = 14.6

.853x + .146y = 85.3

which reduces to the single equation:

.853x + .146y = 85.3

Unfortunately (for TEW), this contradicts the previous sum which has

the same righthand side but a different constant on the lefthand side!

85.3 is not equal to 14.6.

And there you have it folks. If you add the assumption to try to

explain case 3, then it has contradictory consequences on cases 1 and 2.

In fact, any 2 of the 3 cases can be made consistant by adding the

appropriate assumptions to TEW. However, it is *impossible* for TEW to

explain the results seen in all three cases without contradicting itself.

The reason for this is simple. The Aspect experiment set out to disprove

local theories. It succeeded. Dr. Little cannot get around the facts

of the experiment, and TEW is no better at explaining reality than any

local hidden variable theory.

==========================================================================

Part II

---------

The above was originally written by myself in April 2000, and submitted to

the TEWLIP egroups list, dedicated to discussing the Theory of Elementary

Waves. Since then, I've found several errors in it and have gone back and

corrected them. Some were typographical errors, some were a misuse of

language concerning the theory, and some were errors resulting from

miscopying variable names between written tables. I apologize for these

errors, which may have severely hindered the original reception of my point.

The result of the proof, however, remains unchanged, and is now correct as

written to the best of my knowledge. Dr. Little has acknowledged the error

in his original assumption and retracted what is still on his current webpage,

and has posted a preliminary alternative explanation which he believes may

save TEW after all. Some of the numerical errors I found in my refutation I

didn't realize until after this retraction. At that point I didn't bother to

repost these corrections since all relevant parties agreed that there was at

least some contradiction in Dr. Little's original assumption. So now here

(above) is the corrected version of the proof, and now as promised I shall

expand this to be a more general disproof of TEW regardless of what

assumptions are used...

Refer above to Table 1.5, which represents the 16 probabilities involved

in the 3rd (double delayed) case discussed. Without any a priori assumption

of what these probabilities are, this is a 4 by 4 matrix leaving us with

16 variables which I'll label as the following:

Initial polarization state: Probability of final polarization state:

7.3% 42.6% 42.6% 7.3%

% (left,right) (45,22.5) (135,22.5) (45,112.5) (135,112.5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.6% ( 0, 67.5 ) x_11 x_12 x_13 x_14

7.3% ( 0, 157.5) x_21 x_22 x_23 x_24

7.3% (90, 67.5 ) x_31 x_32 x_33 x_34

42.6% (90, 157.5) x_41 x_42 x_43 x_44

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.1

And there are several sets of constraints on these variables. First,

the rows must sum to 100%. Second, the probabilities much match the

headings of the vertical columns (agreement of case 3 with experiment).

And third, certain weighted sums of probabilities must agree with the

block probabilities for cases 1 and 2 (from the basic probability law

that the sum of the probability of several independent events occuring

must equal the probability of at least one of the entire set of events

occuring). I will show that even though all these constraints amount to

less than 16 equations, they still contradict each other and thus have

no solution.

But before I do, let me note that Dr. Little's second attempt at explaining

TEW (the alternative assumption posted after the retraction) corresponds

to setting the following probabilities equal to 0: x_12,x_13,x_21,x_24,x_31,

x_34,x_42,x_43. These are the probabilities corresponding to the photons

jumping in the same direction (exactly the reverse assumption from the

first one shown in Table 1.5). This does not agree with the probabilities

in the vertical column headings which are the probabilities of observing

a photon at one or both of the detectors predicted for case 3 by QM.

(There has been some argument now as to whether these probabilities were

actually measured but that will be dealt with later). Just as an

example though, to show where these probabilities disagree, here are

the equations which would need to be satisfied in order to agree with the

QM prediction of what photon ends up where (for case 3, simply read off

of Table 2.1 above):

.426 x_11 + .426 x_41 = 7.3

.073 x_22 + .073 x_32 = 42.6

.073 x_23 + .073 x_33 = 42.6

.426 x_14 + .426 x_44 = 7.3

so combining the first and last equations,

and combining the middle-two equations:

.426 (x_11+x_41+x_14+x_44) = 14.6

.073 (x_22+x_32+x_23+x_33) = 85.3

But all the rows must sum to 100%. With the current situation where

the x_?? values not shown have already been set to zero, we have:

x_11 + x_14 = 100

x_22 + x_23 = 100

x_32 + x_33 = 100

x_41 + x_44 = 100

which means:

.426 (200) = 14.6

.073 (200) = 85.3

neither of which is true. These equations all worked out fine for

the original assumption but they do not for the new assumption.

However, this was just an example to show how these equations are

being used. For the general case, it will simplify things for me

to define a few more variables:

let a = x_11 + x_44 , let b = x_41 + x_14

let c = x_22 + x_33 , let d = x_23 + x_32

let y1 = x_12 + x_43 , let y2 = x_13 + x_42

let z1 = x_21 + x_34 , let z2 = x_31 + x_24

let y = y1 + y2 , let z = z1 + z2

In order to visualize this the following table may help:

[ a y1 y2 b ]

[ z1 c d z2 ]

[ z2 d c z1 ]

[ b y2 y1 a ]

But don't be confused by each variable above being in two places. I'm

*not* saying it is equal to the probability at both of those positions,

I'm saying let it equal the *sum* of whatever those two individual

probabilities is.

So if we add the first and forth rows together, because each row adds to

100%, we have:

a + b + y = 200

Similarly, if we add the second and third rows together, we have:

c + d + z = 200

We will use these facts later. That's all we need for the first set of

constraints.

The second set of constraints is that the case 3 probabilities work out.

The sum of the probabilities in each column of Table 2.1, where each

probability is weighted by the multiplier in parenthesis to the left

of its row, must add up to match the number listed at the top of the

column. This amounts to 4 equations, but if the two middle columns

are added together as well as the two outer columns we can express this

as two constraints on our new set of variables:

.426 (a+B) + .073 z = 14.6 ( outer columns ) [Eq 2.1]

.073 (c+d) + .426 y = 85.3 ( middle columns ) [Eq 2.2]

And finally, the last set of constraints is that the probabilities from

tables 1.3 and 1.4 match the sum of the four weighted probabilities in

their blocks. This corresponds to agreement with the experimental results

for cases #1 and #2 (single delayed switch cases). If we sum the 2 blocks

which are to add to 14.6 for each case, and sum the 2 blocks adding to 85.3

for each case as well, we obtain 4 equations:

.426 a + .426 y2 + .073 z2 + .073 c = 14.6 (case #1) [Eq 2.3]

.426 a + .426 y1 + .073 z1 + .073 c = 14.6 (case #2) [Eq 2.4]

This is all the constraints we need for the purposes of showing a

contradiction.

If we combine Eq 2.3 and 2.4 by adding them we get:

.853 a + .426 y + .073 z + .146 c = 29.3

And then, from the rows-sum-to-100% constraints we can replace y

with an expression in terms of a and b, and z with an expression

in terms of c and d:

.853a + .426(200-a-B) + .073(200-c-d) + .146c = 29.3

which simplifies down to:

.426(a-B) + .073(c-d) = 70.7 [Eq 2.5]

Now, let's save this result for a second and go back to

look at the case 3 constraints. Eq 2.1 can be expressed

entirely in terms of a,b,c, and d if we use the sum-to-100%

rule of c+d+z=200 in order to eliminate z:

.426(a+B) + .073(200-c-d) = 14.6

which simplifies to:

.426(a+B) - .073(c+d) = 0 [Eq 2.6]

Now we are almost finished. It's not obvious yet but Eq 2.5 and 2.6

are not compatible with each other. To see this, we can subtract

Eq 2.6 from Eq 2.5 to cancel out a and d:

-.853b + .146c = 70.7

which when solved for c can be rewritten as:

c = 483 + 5.83b

However, since b must be non-negative, this would imply that

c >= 483

but c is the sum of only two probabilities. It can be at most 200; 483

is far outside of the highest value c could be. In fact, if taken with

the sum-to-100 equations, it also implies that d+z is negative! Therefore,

the original assumption (TEW) was false. No matter which parameters TEW

uses to describe the jumping between waves, it has no way of replicating

the predictions for the appropriate number of photons to be detected at

each detector when all cases are considered together.

-

The only other issue to be dealt with is what exactly has or hasn't

been measured. TEW has been proven here to be incapable of predicting

the same results as QM, even for the angles used in the Aspect and

Innsbruck experiments; and even if it is modified by any change in its

parameters not involving non-locality. It is now undeniable that the

physical measureable results of the theories are different. But were

these differences measured in any experiments to date? Stephen Spiecher

has raised the point that not all of the numbers which disagree here were

measured. It seems only the photons passing through the polarizers were

detected and measured. The reflected photons were not registered at all.

But both QM and TEW predict that exactly half the photons will pass

through each polarizer. This has always been observed to be the

case in any experiment involving unpolarized light regardless of

what angles the polarizers are switched to or whether they are

switched. In fact, the photon on one side must pass through its

polarizer with 50% probability regardless of what happens on the

other side. So if this probability were somehow different for

the double delayed case, it would also have to be different for

the single delayed case, and even the case where neither polarizers

are switched. But there have certainly been plenty of experiments

done in these latter cases and the 50% rule has always held true.

Therefore it must be true for the double-delayed case.

This means that for every photon which is detected as having passed

through on one side there was (on average) one other photon which

was reflected from the same side without being detected. Therefore,

due to symmetry, a measurement of only the photons passing through

is sufficient to obtain values for all of the statistics involved

in this refutation. Because the Quantum statistics are implied by

the results of the measurements in the Aspect experiment, and the

Quantum statistics have been shown here to be unproducable

under TEW, TEW cannot account in any way for the results of the

experiment.

Edited by libertarianbob01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since TEW cannot account for the A Aspect data, TEW does not have greater explanatory power than the standard QM model. Thus reality is amendable to change by the action of consciousness at the quantum scale as shown by double slit experiments.

There are further problems with TEW as noted at http://www.bip.wur.nl/UK/education/Quantum...ves/default.htm

"Maybe the most important problem of this interpretation is the fact that it is not entirely clear how the elementary wave should contain multiple properties of different elementary particles. Also the fact remains that even though the probability of for example the emission of a particle depends on the intensity of the elementary wave, it is still a probability. As long as it is only possible to make predictions in the form of probabilities there is no chance of a deterministic theory, which many people regard as a flaw. TEW as problems with explaining the "double-delayed choice experiment as well. In this experiment the spin of the correlated photons is measured by using polarisors. The orientation of the polarisors is determined after the photons have been emitted. It turns out that the predictions of TEW for this experiment are not consistent with standard theory and experimental results. Little is working on an improved version of TEW."

Additionally, Tom Radcliffe's essay points out yet more problems with TEW.

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/es...cliffe/tew.html

****************************************************************

Consequently, the Objectivist is not warranted, let alone justified, in using the Primacy of Existence Principle to refute the existence of gods or the supernatural. But as a strong atheist, I'm confident that The Argument From Non-Cognitivism found at http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...noncognitivism/ is sufficient to refute the existence of any gods defined in a self-contradictory manner. Its comforting to know that all the traditional arguments for gods fail and are refuted as is shown in fine books such as "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith, and "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" By Dr. Michael Martin, and others ( http://astore.amazon.com/skepticsannotate/...UTF8&node=8 ). But the fact of wave-particle duality means there is no ideal observer continuously monitoring the states of all quantum objects. The distinction between particle or wave depends not on the presence of any actual observer, but rather on the possibility of observational facts being integrated as knowledge. Since we can distinguish duality, there is no possibility of a cosmic consciousness ontologically capable of being aware of position and velocity of all instantiated quantum objects. It is impossible that omniscient god(s) have instantiated status as things that exist.

Despite the indeterminacy of nature at the quantum scale, Objectivism remains a fine philosophy to use as a guide for living. Its commitment to reality qua reality, to proper and correct reasoning, to a healthy balance between empiricism and rationality, its good and useful epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and a logically derived rational morality makes Objectivism an obvious choice for living a better life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the fact of wave-particle duality means there is no ideal observer continuously monitoring the states of all quantum objects. The distinction between particle or wave depends not on the presence of any actual observer, but rather on the possibility of observational facts being integrated as knowledge. Since we can distinguish duality, there is no possibility of a cosmic consciousness ontologically capable of being aware of position and velocity of all instantiated quantum objects. It is impossible that omniscient god(s) have instantiated status as things that exist.

Despite the indeterminacy of nature at the quantum scale, Objectivism remains a fine philosophy to use as a guide for living. Its commitment to reality qua reality, to proper and correct reasoning, to a healthy balance between empiricism and rationality, its good and useful epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and a logically derived rational morality makes Objectivism an obvious choice for living a better life.

Thank you for the essay.

I asked the late Stephen Speicher, an advocate of Little's theory, while he was still with us, why, if Little's theory is true, do we need a flashlight or other lamp to see in a dark room. The "elementary waves" flying from our eyes to the walls, should release a shower of photons into our eyes. I never did get a straight answer from him.

In any case, the fact the Little was never able to predict a thing that ordinary quantum theory predicted left me dissatisfied with his notion. Also he never did show the math or the work. He, instead, made some rather grandiose claims.

Radcliffe and Norsen have also deconstructed Little's nonsense.

Quantum physics has yet to be falsified, even though its premises are quite at odds with the Aristotelian metaphysics, beloved by Objectivists.

Here is the bottom line: Objectivism is no guide to constructing a physical theory. In fact, it is an impediment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the bottom line: Objectivism is no guide to constructing a physical theory. In fact, it is an impediment.

If it's used as an impediment. Objectivism isn't really Objectivism if it puts itself ahead of truth seeking, it is only a religion or a dogma that way. To ask if something is factually compatible with Objectivism begs the question of whether it is real. We cannot know Objectivism truths any more absolutely than we know scientific or any other truths. Objectivism needs the scientist's inherent modesty about what he knows. If it had that rational people wouldn't run away from it as they run away from faith, dogma and religion.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the bottom line: Objectivism is no guide to constructing a physical theory. In fact, it is an impediment.

If it's used as an impediment. Objectivism isn't really Objectivism if it puts itself ahead of truth seeking, it is only a religion or a dogma that way. To ask if something is factually compatible with Objectivism begs the question of whether it is real. We cannot know Objectivism truths any more absolutely than we know scientific or any other truths. Objectivism needs the scientist's inherent modesty about what he knows. If it had that rational people wouldn't run away from it as they run away from faith, dogma and religion.

--Brant

So why do Pope Leonard and David Harriman give courses (and charge a lot of money) to tell us how dreadful modern physics is?

Even a smart man like the late Stephen Speicher (whose brains I admire) could not disentangle his philosophy from scientific issues. He was completely sucked in by Little's theory. Stephen used to chide me for my skepticism. (But I never took offense).

Here is my rule: whenever philosophy collides with fact, ditch the philosophy. It is dead weight and it most go overboard.

Facts Rule. Theories Serve (sometimes).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite the indeterminacy of nature at the quantum scale, Objectivism remains a fine philosophy to use as a guide for living. Its commitment to reality qua reality, to proper and correct reasoning, to a healthy balance between empiricism and rationality, its good and useful epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and a logically derived rational morality makes Objectivism an obvious choice for living a better life.

Physical Science has no guidance whatsoever to offer us in ethical or political matters. Physics deals with What Is, not with What Ought to Be. Physics is about matter, motion, space and time. Biology deals with living things as material entities. Vital Essence has been purged from biology in much the same way as Aether has been purged from physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...the fact of wave-particle duality means there is no ideal observer continuously monitoring the states of all quantum objects. The distinction between particle or wave depends not on the presence of any actual observer, but rather on the possibility of observational facts being integrated as knowledge. Since we can distinguish duality, there is no possibility of a cosmic consciousness ontologically capable of being aware of position and velocity of all instantiated quantum objects. It is impossible that omniscient god(s) have instantiated status as things that exist.

God exists!...only in the imaginations of people. I agree with your conclusion but not your argument. In the introduction to your thesis in post #1 you mention that Bohm's is a non-local theory and so, is able to maintain consistency with standard QM theory results. Disproving Little's theory is not the same as proving existential dualism. If Bohm's hidden variable theory is a possible alternative to standard theory, and does not assume substance dualism, then I suppose some imagined cosmic consciousness could see the actual trajectories of particles and the influence of Bohm's quantum potential.

A belief in the existence of God and an over attachment to local causation are, I think, both signs of one's intuitive thought being trapped at a level of complexity that cannot match the complexity of reality. Bohm explored some very strange cosmic ideas himself with his implicate order and super-implicate order, which took him back toward the idea of a universal consciousness. I don't buy into this stuff but he did present a very interesting and more complex concept of causality in his hidden variable theory...the idea that the greater energy of a local particle, with a very real trajectory, can be directed by a much lower energy non-local wave or quantum potential. This is a leap in complexity because it requires one's intuition to try to grasp the complex dynamics between the parts of a system and the system as a whole, whereby the whole system shapes the action of the parts and the parts give rise to the shape of the whole system. Bohm's is an attempt to model this reciprocal part-to-whole dynamic causally while acknowledging the reality of non-local events. The weakness of Bohm's view lies in the fact that he has no mechanism, even in principle, that can account for non-local causation. If he had found such a mechanism, we would no longer be talking about standard QM theory as evolved from the Copenhagen interpretation, other than in terms of history.

As it stands, we are measuring everything against a standard QM theory that is founded on substance dualism, uncaused non-local effects and an illusory local causation. Not surprisingly, many have been trying to revert back to local monistic explanations. This won't work. As Bell's Theorem and Aspect's experiment shows, existence does contain non-local events. If standard QM theory is to be bettered, then a theory of non-local causation has to be developed. Little's work is unimportant because it has nothing to contribute here...nor does God!

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a very straightforward refutation (nay! deconstruction) of TEW, see http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/es...cliffe/tew.html.

Tom Radcliffe blows TEW to shards. And it is done empirically, not philosophically.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it stands, we are measuring everything against a standard QM theory that is founded on substance dualism, uncaused non-local effects and an illusory local causation. Not surprisingly, many have been trying to revert back to local monistic explanations. This won't work. As Bell's Theorem and Aspect's experiment shows, existence does contain non-local events. If standard QM theory is to be bettered, then a theory of non-local causation has to be developed. Little's work is unimportant because it has nothing to contribute here...nor does God!

Paul

We measure everything against experimental fact. The way to kill a generalization is a true counterexample. Notwithstanding the fact that experimental test is theory laden to some degree or other, a scientific theory must first and foremost be compatible with observation and experiment.

The reason why QM is so beloved is not that it makes sense (i.e. squares with intuition) but because it predicts with great accuracy. This is the Instrumental view of what a scientific theory is. It drives ontological realists and the physicist David Deutsch crazy. It looks like scientific precision and philosophical purity are somewhat incompatible. Given a choice between getting The Right Answers (in the empirical sense) and being philosophically satisfied, I vote for getting the right answers.

As to finding Causes, that is a habit and a custom, just as Hume said. Humans are just not happy scouts if they cannot come up with Causes. Causes are an itch we are bound to scratch.

Facts Rule, Theories Serve -- sometimes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivism needs the scientist's inherent modesty about what he knows.

If it had that rational people wouldn't run away from it as they run away from faith, dogma and religion.

--Brant

Az die Bobbe wolt hat baytzim, solt gevayne a zede.

(Polite Translation: If grandma had 18 wheels, she would be truck).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this