Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Conceptual variables and quantum foundationxf

[Mark Hadley]

Classical radio waves are a result of vast numbers of individual adsorption events.

Quantum theory describes the probability in any direction. That is the probability of a photon being detected in that direction. One photon interacts in only one direction. 

It's random. So a probability distribution for one photon, times billions of photons, gives a density distribution (intensity) that is described by classical EM. 

Yes it's weird. It's contrary to our classical physics intuition. But it's why we have quantum theory. It's why we need quantum theory. A hundred years ago it was being challenged, just like you are now. It's firmly grounded in experimental results and still inexplicable. 

Cheers

Mark

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, 09:51 Chantal Roth, <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Speaking of which :-), Wikipedia has a nice animation about radio waves:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Dipole_receiving_antenna_animation_6_800x394x150ms.gif/495px-Dipole_receiving_antenna_animation_6_800x394x150ms.gif

How do you explain this exactly with quantization?

Are you suggesting that there is a minimum that does not affect the elctrons in any way? 

Also, based on the "wave function collapse" logic, if any "photon" in that wave is able to move an electron, that photon wave function has "collapsed", and hence any other part of the wave that went in the opposite direction (of that circular ripple...) vanishes and is now also no longer able to do anything...

So in theory then, you could place a huge number of radios on once side of that "ripple" to "capture" all the photons :-), and then they would be gone on the other side... that makes no sense.

This sounds totally crazy to me...  it makes a lot more sense I think to consider that these waves are *not* quantized, and that an EM wave can move electrons anywhere (it it doesn't "collapse").

Or else, you would have to assume that the photons are not going all around in ripples but are more like localized wave packets, but then you run into the problem of that you are essentially makeing the wave discrete, which makes no sense either.

Thid is based on the claim was that even a single photon would form a "ripple" (going in all directions).

Any thoughts on this :-)?

Cheers,

Chantal

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023, at 10:14 AM, 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations wrote:

Dear Austin,

Yes, I meant the pattern, masses etc if the standard model. 

White light is not a problem. It's a continuum of radiation to satisfy Chantal. 

Alpha the fine structure constant is dimensionless. Independent of measurement units. It is universal. But it combines planks constant from QM with the discreet unit of electric charge. They must be related. I expect an explanation of QM will derive it. 

Yes, any U(1) theory has a mechanism for quantised charge. Usually regarded as magnetic monopoles. 

Cheers

Mark

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, 08:54 Austin Fearnley, <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark

Could you say more about the problematic issue of "particle spectrum" that you raised, as I am not clear what you mean?    You might mean something along the lines of the original Rayleigh-Jeans distribution; or perhaps why the Standard Model of particles is what it is, e.g. three generations; and you mentioned "white light" to Chantal as if that also was a  problem?

You also mentioned the problem of the "alpha that relates quantum theory to the unit of electric charge".  I have seen a Feynman video covering this, and the incredible precision in the calculation of alpha.  You have also mentioned this to me some time ago.  Not sure about the alpha calculation but I see a connection in principle between my preon model and quantised electricity. At the smallest level in my model, the components of matter are spaces.  Like Schrodinger's matter being knots in space, as quoted by Chantal (or was it only on Chantal's website), except Shrodinger presumably meant knots in our own space.  The spaces in my model are not our 3D space and are extra dimensions moving at c or near c speed compared to our space and that means we cannot get a full range of information from those spaces, merely one bit e.g. a click or not.  That quantises electric charge when electric charge is the content of another (compactified) dimension.  This is similar to the Kaluza Klein fifth dimension which contains electric content.  I learned about quantisation caused by relativistic speeds in Susskind's online lectures on string theory.

Austin

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 3:59:27 PM UTC+1 sunshine...@googlemail.com wrote:

Yes indeed.

To my mind the deficiency of Bohm is that it gives no origin to the pilot wave nor any reason why the particle velocity should be proportional to the gradient of the phase.

There is much to explain in particle physics. The particle spectrum and  alpha that relates quantum theory to the unit of electric charge.

I'm working on it. I expect something like Bohm trajectories will be an outcome. 

Cheers

Mark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/046C7307-5DC0-4F47-8B28-27028B4D710C%40gmail.com.

[Valeriy Sbitnev]

Mark,

All  OK. There is no contradiction to our classical physics intuition. Since an EM photon is a boson with integer spin then billions of photons represent the Bose-Einstein condensate where all billions of photons occupy the same state. 

Regards,  Valeriy

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo0gJ6y28VfU4FV0F-g6MQ1pV6i2k1ANxJjrmiBPG2f0DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Billions of photons are not a Bose-Einstein condensate. “A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter that is typically formed when a gas of bosons at very low densities is cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero”

I don’t think that the billions of photons in radio waves all occupy the same state.

Photons do exhibit Bose-Einstein statistics. And we see this in experiments with lasers. 

https://physicsworld.com/a/ultra-precise-test-confirms-photons-are-bosons/

[Chantal Roth]

My point is:

quantum theory works just fine even if the EM wave is continuous.

There is no reason it needs to be quantized at all.

Nothing breaks in QM if you assume quantization is due to emission/absorpion.

I don't see what the point is of claiming it must be quantized, when there is no reason for it - it only adds weirdness, I see nothing helpful about it.

So tell me, if we have an EM wave with the energy of 1 photon... what happens based on your best buess? Can it move an electron in a wire or not? Only in one place? Does this cause a "collapse"?

How can the wave move an electron at all if it is only a probability... 

Why should this be better than assuming EM waves only quantized because of absorption/emission, and that the wave is a "real" wave that can acctually move electrons?

Best wishes,

Chantal

Attachments:

• image.png
  

[Valeriy Sbitnev]

Richard,

It is a case when bosons are massive particles as, for example, atoms of helium 4. Yes, they need cooling up to low temperatures in order to avoid thermal fluctuations ~k(Boltzmann)T.

Regards, Valeriy

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a2e804ca-a3a5-4540-ae6c-12cfcd5c52e6%40app.fastmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Answers below 

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, 14:03 Chantal Roth, <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

My point is:

quantum theory works just fine even if the EM wave is continuous.

No it does not. That's why we have quantum theory. Look at black body radiation and photoekectruc effect for starters. Just like scuentisds did one hundred years ago. 

There is no reason it needs to be quantized at all.

Yes there is. 

Nothing breaks in QM if you assume quantization is due to emission/absorpion.

Light of a certain frequency is necessarily absorbed and emitted in units of h v. We cannot measure it in flight. 

I don't see what the point is of claiming it must be quantized, when there is no reason for it - it only adds weirdness, I see nothing helpful about it.

So tell me, if we have an EM wave with the energy of 1 photon... what happens based on your best buess?

I don't need to guess. We know. We solve the wave equation. That gives the oribabity if it being detected at different locations. 

Can it move an electron in a wire or not? Only in one place?

It can be absorbed by a single electron only. 

Does this cause a "collapse"?

I don't use the term collapse. 

How can the wave move an electron at all if it is only a probability... 

That's why wave theories have problems. 

The  electron interacts with a particle of light, called a photon. The wave equation gives the probability of that happening. 

Why should this be better than assuming EM waves only quantized because of absorption/emission, and that the wave is a "real" wave that can acctually move electrons?

Because that conflicts with experiment,  the photoelectric effect for starters. 

Cheers

Mark 

[Chantal Roth]

Re black body:

The black body spectrum can also be computed using phonons vibrating in a solid body instead of a “photon gas” in a box: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model

Also "No Evidence for Particles":

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.3930.pdf

"There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties.  Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone.  The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law. "

Re "That's why wave theories have problems."

... if they assume it is only a probability.

Wave theories that consider the wave to be real do not have such a problem.

I would love to know from anyone how a photon is suppused to move an electron in a radio wave :-).

Best wishes,

Chantal

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo0snjVagi8L%2BP4hOP-TkGRXTGU1OZ3Aa%2B9hEE_79Azhyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear all, 
Those who argue about photons, light quanta, should know that Einstein wrote in 1951, who invented these light quanta in 1905: “All 
these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 
‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken”. 
The attitude of the majority to photons is one of the evidence of the inability to think logically. 
The concept of light quanta introduced by Einstein to describe the photoelectric effect is logically 
and even mathematically contradictory. On the one hand, light quanta have a certain wavelength, and 
on the other hand, it is localized in space. But this is mathematically impossible, since only a 
pocket of waves with different lengths can be localized in space. 
	
The inconsistency of the concept of light quanta was so obvious that no one recognized it for 
almost twenty years, not even Bohr. Max Jammer quoted an interesting document which puts on 
record the reaction toward Einstein's notion of light quanta on the part of Germany's most 
prominent physicists. Four of the most eminent German physicists, Planck, Warburg, Nernst, and 
Rubens, submitted to the Prussian Ministry of Education a petition in which they recommended 
Einstein became a member of the Prussian Academy of Science in connection with the election on 
June 12, 1913. They described Einstein's work on the special theory of relativity, his 
contributions to the quantum theory of specific heats and his treatment of the photoelectric and 
photochemical effects. In concluding their recommendation, they declared: "Summing up, we may say 
that there is hardly one among the great problems, in which modern physics is so rich, to which 
Einstein has not made an important contribution. That he may sometimes have missed the target in 
his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light quanta, cannot really be held too 
much against him, for it is not possible to introduce fundamentally new ideas, even in the most 
exact sciences, without occasionally taking a risk" [1]. 
	
Light quanta, which have been called photons since 1926, were recognized only due to the rejection of realism by the creators of 
quantum mechanics, when waves began to be considered a description of the observer's knowledge about the probability of the results 
of an upcoming observation. Einstein understood that abandoning realism was a mistake. Therefore, he 
wrote in 1951 that he, unlike every Tom, Dick and Harry, does not know what light quanta is. 
Every Tom, Dick and Harry must finally understand that he is mistaken.

[1] Max Jammer, The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. McGraw-Hill book, 1967

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 21 июн. 2023 г. в 17:24, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com>:

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Chantal,

Without increasing your knowledge about history (Optics and Quantum Mechanics) you are not going to advance one inch outside of your classical background. 

There are even selected papers that may help you - but that needs hard study too. For Quantum Mechanics, there are thousands of books. For Optics and Quantum Optics, see for example, see the collection of papers

"Selected papers on Coherence and fluctuation of light", edited by L. Mandel and E. Wolf. This (Dover) collection spans from 1850 to 1966.

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Skype: geraldo.a.barbosa

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US)

[Richard Gill]

Chantal,

The paper by Casey Blood appeared on arXiv in 2008. It got once revised, in 2011. Has not appeared anywhere

He writes: the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.

Well, there you have it. According to the Many World interpretation, all there is is the deterministic evolution of the wave function of the universe. “Reality” is an illusion and MWI experts have not succeeded in finding a convincing derivation of the Born rule, which is actually the main empirically testable part of quantum theory.

Casey Blood went on to put out a few more preprints on arXiv in which, as far as I can see, he repeated himself a number of times. 

Yes, if nothing which we call real is actually real, then MWI theory does not predict anything, let alone explain anything. Hence one cannot refute it either. But I don’t think it is useful, except as a comfort blanket (or as others would say, as a religion, as a church.

Richard

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Chantal,

I'm not going to teach you the basics of quantum theory. By all means challenge traditional views but be aware of a hundred years of precise proven predictions before claiming to be better. 

Start with a first year undergraduate text. 

I've never even seen a consistent wave description  of the photoelectric effect. Much less been convinced by one.

QM can explain the whole of classical EM and much more besides. QM does not contradict classical EM in any way, it just allows it be extended low energy regimes. 

Cheers

Nark

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

You keep saying stuff like this but you seem to forget that quantum theory, whatever its defects, is very successful in predicting results of experiments and even in designing new technology.

You can complain about the decline of Western civilisation as much as you like. You can bemoan the rejection of realism. But you do not have an alternative.

I think that realism does not need to be rejected. Personally, I think that we should agree that experimental outcomes described in classical terms are real. QM tells us how to predict their probability distributions. 

Paul Raymond-Robichaud argues persuasively that quantum mechanics is local and realistic if one defines these concepts carefully, and while respecting two levels of discussion: phenomena observed in the lab, and elements of mathematical models which describe them. He does however choose to take the phenomena observed in the lab to be the (frequentist) probability distributions of observed data, and the mathematical theory to be a theory which predicts that distribution. How actual individual outcomes arise  … is not part of his story.

Zeilinger, Gisin and others think that irreducible randomness should be considered part of the foundations of physical reality. So the question of how the individual outcomes are realised is not answered, by choice.

Philippe Grangier also has careful definitions of fundamental concepts and comes to the conclusion that quantum mechanics in a formal sense is not complete. One may look for a completion. We know that several favourite completions have problems: nonlocality or superdeterminism or retrocausality. They do not make different experimental predictions so a person's choice can be a matter of personality and may become a religion or a cult. Some people like one of those three options. Others like to leave the matter where it is. We don’t have to solve the problem now. Karl Svozil believes we will only make progress in maybe a hundred years when we perhaps start to be able to observe new phenomena and need new theory to explain them. I believe I won’t be there in 100 years.

QBists, and Inge Helland, and others, are happy with seeing QM as describing what a particular observer or actor should bet on. I do not like that approach because (despite appearances) I do not like betting. (I only bet when I’m almost certain to win). So Alexei thinks this is terrible and marks the end of civilisation as we know it. Well, maybe civilisation as we know it is coming to an end, anyway (overpopulation, climate crisis, war because some groups feel they need to get control over scarce resources, getting scarcer because of climate change and overpopulation; new pandemics (watch out when bird flu jumps to humans).

Richard

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard,

Thanks for discussions in Växjö. Just a small correction to your last reply to Alexey:
Unlike the QBists, I do not at all like my arguments to depend on betting. Instead I take Hervé Zwirn's convivial solipsism as my basis. And arrive at a general epistemic interpretation, where QBism is a very special case.

I have now picked up some references on category theory, and I plan to learn at some time during the summer. I am also planning a longer appendix of my last paper, based upon category theory, and in this appendix I will certainly replace 'variables' with 'notions'. And thank you for the suggestion.

Inge

---

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 21 June 2023 17:36:25
To: Алексей Никулов
Cc: Chantal Roth; Mark Hadley; Austin Fearnley; Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations; Geraldo A Barbosa; Inge Svein Helland
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Conceptual variables and quantum foundationxf

 

[Chantal Roth]

Totally agree :-)

[Chantal Roth]

This reponse doesn't clarify anything...

It sounds like your interpretation of QM is essentially the "shut up and calculate" approach, which is of course valid, but it does not seem to attempt to explain anything..

There are quite a few researchers today that work on the wave model,I would recommend that you really read their work in detail and find flaws in it (including Robert Close, Ilja Schmelzer, Marek Danielewski, Donald Chang - and there are several more).

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo22gzeTYRKYNfCppqXuNmtBBAYX%3DfHBOhqoWJxGi%3DU2FA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Nobody understands quantum theory. But I do know the fundamental experiments and I do know the facts that prevent an easy explanation. 

I am looking for an explanation. 

I like models with a particle and a guiding wave. And I like the idea of particles being geometric solutions of a field equations. But these models are not delivering the goods yet.

Cheers

Mark

[Chantal Roth]

Here are two more papers that explain the photoelectric effect:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325749189_Classical_Field_Theory_of_the_Photoelectric_Effect

from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey-Rashkovskiy (whoi has also participated in this forum)

"We show that quantum mechanics can be constructed as a classical field theory that correctly describes all basic quantum effects. We construct the self-consistent Maxwell-Pauli theory, from which the correct spontaneous emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom follows. It is shown that many parameters, such as the spin and intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron, which are considered purely quantum properties of the electron and do not have a classical explanation, have a simple and clear physical meaning in the framework of the classical selfconsistent Maxwell-Pauli theory. "

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-74971-6_15

and

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19680009569/downloads/19680009569.pdf

maybe we should discuss one of them in detail to figure out what you don't like about it?

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Richard

I have written a half-page of my retrocausality new paper ['underwhelmed' emoticon]. As I have written before, I do not believe retrocausality is the correct term.  I am not going to be helped in writing the paper by some influence from the future wending its way backwards in time to help complete the job.  There are forwards-in-time efforts required in the writing and I can only work with those.  There is more of a similarity with Many Worlds rather than retrocausality.  I could maybe call my model Mini Worlds, or Compactified Worlds, or C-Worlds.  It was always difficult in the distant past to realise that we did not hold a central place in the universe and that problem possibly will still block acceptance of Mini Worlds. In my model we are not the only world.  Every particle in the 4D spacetime of the Big Bang universe has its own 3D space and individual time direction.  There are not billions of 3D spaces as identical elementary particles are accessing their own common space.

I have realised that predestination/superdeterminism are not big issues for my model. By analogy with 'bullets with my name on it' there is no unique wave heading back in time to me and only me to help me write a paper. An electron could have, say, one antipreon B' contained in it travelling backwards in our time.  But every interaction can replace that B' with some other antipreon, and that destroys any idea of predestination.  A weak measurement would change the phase of a particle while not affecting the preon content.  A strong or normal measurement or interaction would see some preons replaced.  So at any instant mid-flight, a supposed predestined influence from the future could be replaced by a different influence from a less distant future.

I am still trying to think how to test my model.  Sending instantaneous signals from Alice to Bob does not differ from QM.  But if Alice could receive a message now from Bob who does not send it until one minute into the future, then that would be useful.  However it all disintegrates when I looks at the details.  People would say Alice actually sent the message to Bob, and "now --> future" messages are ten a penny.  It is only in my model that I assume that antiparticles send the message, rather than receive.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 4:36:31 PM UTC+1 Richard Gill wrote:

....

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

I do not forget that quantum theory is very successful in predicting the results of experiments and even in developing new technologies. But you don't seem to understand that this is why the creators of quantum mechanics were able to mislead several generations of physicists. Not only a few critics, but also the majority would hardly have believed in this absurdity if it had not been so successful. You “think that realism does not need to be rejected”. But you have to understand that you have to reject Born's proposal in order not to reject realism. The probability of observation, which changes during observation, describes the knowledge of the observer. You know that the coin is lying face up with probability 0.5 before you see it and with the probability 1 when you have seen that the coin is lying face up. Your knowledge about the probability of observation changes in a similar way when you observe the spin projections of particles with spin 1/2.

The fundamental difference is that in the case of observing spin projections, one cannot limit oneself to changing only knowledge. Spin up will be observed along the z-axis with the probability 0.5, when the eigenstate of this particle is along the x-axis. The second observation of the same particle along the z-axis will give the observation of spin up with probability 1 only if the direction of the eigenstate changes from the x-axis to the z-axis. The necessity of a postulate about such a change in the quantum state as a consequence of a change in the observer's knowledge logically follows from Born's proposal. This postulate was proposed first in 1930 by Dirac and is known as the Dirac jump or wave function collapse.

The fact that most physicists not only do not understand, but also do not want to understand that a physical theory should not postulate a change in the state of a quantum system under the influence of a change in the observer's knowledge is one of the evidences of the crisis of modern physics. Another evidence of the crisis is the variety of opinions about quantum mechanics, only a small part of which you have listed: Paul Raymond-Robichaud, Zeilinger, Gisin, Philippe Grangier, Karl Svozil, QBists, and Inge Helland.

Following Jose Ortega y Gasset, I consider the crisis of physics to be a consequence of the decline of European culture. Two years ago, I wrote a review for an article whose authors decided to eliminate all the problems and contradictions of quantum mechanics. I quoted in the ‘Feedback for the authors’ Ortega y Gasset’s doubt that North Americans will be able to continue science if Europe disappears: “Blissful the man who believes that, were Europe to disappear, the North Americans could continue science!”, see attached file.

I have an alternative. My alternative is the pursuit of Truth. The truth can be unpleasant. The truth may be the inability of our reason for the cognition of all the phenomena of Nature. The undoubted truth is that most scientists are often mistaken. The truth is that some of the most successful physical theories of the 20th century, quantum mechanics and superconductivity theory, are based on obvious mistakes. Einstein, Schrodinger, and few others understood that quantum mechanics is based on mistakes. But no one has noticed for many years that the conventional theory of superconductivity is based on a mistake, although this mistake is more obvious. This mistake, which was made because of the faith in the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine, testifies to the important if not decisive role of faith in science. I wrote about this mistake in the paper [1] and said in the invited talk “The Centuries-Old Belief in the Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machine Provoked an Obvious Mistake in the 20th Century” https://energies-8.sciforum.net/ .

The mistake is so obvious that only the blind faith in the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine could force to make it. This faith prevents modern scientists from recognizing the evidence of this mistake. Scientists are sure that a perpetual motion machine is impossible even when they observe it. To overcome the centuries-old faith, it is necessary to make great efforts, especially now that science has become mass. I hope this goal will be promoted by the Special Issue “Basis and Soundness of the Second Law of Thermodynamics”, https://systems.enpress-publisher.com/si.php/index/detail?id=197&jid=34 .

[1] A. V. Nikulov, The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner Effect. Entropy, 24, 83 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/e24010083

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 21 июн. 2023 г. в 18:36, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Valeriy Sbitnev]

Alex, You wrote:
"You know that the coin is lying face up with probability 0.5 before you see it 

and with the probability 1 when you have seen that the coin is lying face up."

This phrase is not quite true. A true phrase has to read as follows:

You know that the coin is lying face up with probability 0.5 before you see it 

and with the reliability reading 1 when you have seen that the coin is lying face up.
In other words, as soon as you saw how the coin fell, you, in fact, performed the measurement. 

The results of the measurement were the collapse of the probability and the emergence of the reliability reading.

Best regards,  Valeriy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iKcz-Vs9mmX2D7qXPPXX91e%2BJ8PBk6J5Rq%3DiXCzzo%3DJDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

I really don’t care whether or not several generations were misled! Many generations have now struggled with QM. I’m interested in what QM successfully predicts, and how it logically may be interpreted. You keep bringing in Jose Ortega y. Gasset. I think it is clear that there are many ways to interpret QM and they all agree on the empirical predictions. Some people have a frequentist interpretation of probability, some have a subjective interpretation, but the behave the same and they make the same predictions. So now one is justified in saying that for the time being it doesn’t matter, but we should look out for experimental findings or astronomical observations which point to phenomena which we haven’t heard about yet.

The point which I keep trying to make to you is that it seems to me that you merely bemoan the present situation and blame it on the lack of education of the young. I remind you that one of the earliest clay tablet found in Nineveh was a letter from one scribe to another bemoaning the fact that the young no longer knew how to write grammatically. So your moans about the present generation do not help. They merely tell me that you are getting disillusioned and depressed as you get older. I can understand that. On the other hand, I get more and more cheerful as I get older despite all the growing infirmities, so far at least, I will carry on enjoying life as well as I can as long as it lasts.

But you do say one thing that I completely agree with. You say "The truth may be the inability of our reason for the cognition of all the phenomena of Nature”. Yes! I think that that is the case. And I think that is connected to the random sumps predicted by. QM. We cannot accept irreducible randomness, because our reason cannot accept it, but that does not mean it is not true. Why should we be so arrogant as to think that we can in principle ultimately understand everything? What we call “understand” simply means “interpret as common sense behaviour of macroscopic objects around us. Chairs and tables do not appear to make random jumps. We instinctively do know that witches and demons can make things happen by will at a distance. I know this is superstition, I know that we rational scientists of the 21st century do not believe this. Newton did believe it. Witches were burnt at the stake neurone up the mid 19th century and their trials and executions were run by educated people. I do not believe in witches and demons, nor in gods or angels, but I’m afraid that our basic instinctive reasoning does believe that everything has a causes and that true randomness does not exist.

Richard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iKcz-Vs9mmX2D7qXPPXX91e%2BJ8PBk6J5Rq%3DiXCzzo%3DJDg%40mail.gmail.com.
<MyReviewReportScientReports.pdf>