Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right

Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right

ABSTRACT: The selection-based Tempt Destiny experiment has provided evidence that the fundamental acts of selection are a dichotomy as are their effects. By applying this knowledge to evaluate the preliminary findings of the Higgs boson discovery, we find an omission error has taken place.

The peer-reviewed paper was published on December 24, 2012, by the International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences (IJFPS)

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/37-IJFPS_Dec_2012_44_47.pdf

Although quantum mechanics assumes all possible states, quantum mechanics is not the cause of them. In other words, counterfactual causality in not causality. This discovery has confirmed that Einstein was correct in his position that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looks good, reminds me of a conversation here with someone recently. They said on the face of it, quantum mechanics is pretty much random. I said it is only random because there is a limit on the amount of information we can extract from a system (through observations) not necessarily that the system itself is completely indeterministic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The existence or not of the Higgs has no more impact on Einstein's evaluation of quantum mechanics than the discovery of the proton, electron or neutrino.

You're essentially saying the information exists but we cannot measure it. This is known as 'hidden variables' and is experimentally disprovable within quantum mechanics through the Bell inequalities. The experiments lead to the conclusion quantum mechanics is causal or hidden variables exist. I think Einstein had more of an issue with causality violations....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More or less. It is impossible to extract all the information from a system, so it must be deduced that if the world is causal, then there are things happening under the surface we are unaware of. I do have a problem with causality violations (Or ''retrocausality'') in the sense that the arrow of time is an abused thing in physics. If you have a small enough system of particles in a box, with very small degrees freedom inside the box, after a lengthly amount of time it known that the atoms in the box will configure back to their original orientations. I know that the transactional interpretation actually favors retrocausality that the future may effect the present and the present may effect the past. I know Stephen Hawking also created an ''up-bottom'' model of physics with similar principles.

But today, as I said, the idea of retrocausality and the arrow of time (allowing negative time directions) is a well-abused topic in physics.

 

No, that isn't what the Bell experiments show. They show that if the universe follows the rules of quantum mechanics and obeys causality then there are not hidden variables. This means that our inability to exactly state what a particle will do is not because of some technological obstruction, ie imprecise measurements, flawed equipment etc, but because the world of the subatomic is fundamental stochastic. This is experimentally tested using the Bell Inequalities. When we measure certain quantities in a quantum system quantum mechanics plus causality says that they can take particular values while classical mechanics or hidden variables would imply a particular bound.

A simple example of this is to consider the following operator \(X = A_{1}B_{1} + A_{2}B_{1} + A_{2}B_{1} - A_{2}B_{2}\) where the values of the \(A_{i},B_{j}\) are either +1 or -1. If hidden variable theory is valid then each of the terms is assigned a hidden value, either +1 or -1. If you consider all possible combinations you can see that \(X \leq 2\). This is provable quickly by noting \(X = (A_{1}+A_{2})B_{1} + (A_{1}-A_{2})B_{2}\). If \(A_{1} = A_{2}\) the second term vanishes and if \(A_{1} = -A_{2}\) the first term vanishes and so the best we can get is (+1+1)(+1) = 2. If the terms are operators on a 2 state 2 paricle quantum system then you can show that the expected value of the operator can be as high as \(\langle X \rangle = 2\sqrt{2}\). This is therefore an example of a Bell inequality. We can then build 2 state 2 particle spin systems and measure the physical implementation of this system and when we do so we find the expectation value is indeed capable of exceeding the value of 2. The only way within quantum mechanics to allow this to also be consistent with hidden variables is to allow a violation of causality.

Within quantum mechanics you have to make a choice, throw out causality or throw out hidden variables, you cannot have both.

This isn't something unique to quantum mechanics, it is a well known result in ergodic classical mechanics for systems whose phase space evolution obeys certain rules. The Poincare Recurrence Time tells you precisely this, how long we can expect a system with a bounded phase space under certain evolution conditions will take before the system returns to the vicinity of its original configuration. In doing this it will also pass near pretty much every other allowable configuration too. This doesn't require a small number of degrees of freedom, it applies to things like trillions of gas particles bouncing around a box. This doesn't violate causality in any way.

I would say they are more an abused concept outside of the physics community where non-physicists do not understand the inner workings and methods of some of the more counter intuitive parts of physics and thus when they try to interpret them in terms of things they understand they are led to confusion and misunderstanding.

 

Read it again. I never bolded anything about Bells Experiments.

If I had, I would have spoke about it directly, which I haven't. Bolding is when you choose something from a particular paragraph such as

[this is what it looks like]

ps. If you rather me talk about Bells Inequalities like you seem to be eager, I can.

 

I want to say something so that my words are not confused, I said we cannot extract all the information about a system... if one interprets this as saying there are ''hidden variables,'' then so be it. When I said this, I was actually talking about the Uncertainty Principle and our incredible incapability of assessing all the information about a single quantum system. Knowing some of that information is at the expense of not knowing the other half.

I am however, confident that quantum mechanics is both casual and also has information written in quantum systems which can never be gathered or can be gathered, but at the expense of loosing information about other complimentary observables.

 

It isn't about our inability, it is about how the information just isn't there as there are no hidden variables.

Consider a particle in 3 dimensions. We have two operators, position \(\mathbf{x} = (x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})\) and momentum \(\mathbf{p} = (p_{1},p_{2},p_{3})\). We want to measure the expected position of the particle in direction i and expected momentum in direction j, ie we are interested in \(x_{i}p_{j}\). The commutation relations tell us that \([x_{i},p_{j}] = x_{i}p_{j} - p_{j}x_{i} = i\hbar \delta_{ij}\). If i=1 and j=2 then in principle we can simultaneously measure to arbitrary accuracy \(x_{1}\) and \(p_{2}\). However, if i=j=1 then we cannot, as \([x_{1},p_{1}] = i\hbar\). If it were some kind of technological problem then there'd be no difference between those two cases, our ability to measure things would be limited by the precision of our measuring devices. It is a demonstrated fact this is not the case.

Such a position is logically inconsistent. You cannot have both any more than you can have an integer which is both even and odd.

 

There is no such information to be accessed. And there is no other "interpretation" of thinking there is other than hidden variables.

 

Speaking about the uncertainty principle, it has everything to do with our inability to measure every part of that system. If you where a supercomputer capable of measuring every other outcome, say, positions when you have a certain momentum measurement capable, you would be in theory able to know everything about that system. But as is such the case with any limited measuring system like ourselves, we are incapable of knowing all the information about that system because we cannot measure any infinite degrees of uncertainty.

 

John S. Bell, BBC Radio interview with Paul Davies, 1985:

"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a
dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."

What appears to not be addressed in this conversation is how the evidence show that the acts of selection are "absolutely predetermined" as are their effectual states. This evidence is in keeping with Bell's example.

 

Looks good? Looks like complete crap to me. That's why it's published in a crank journal.

 

If I was to choose?

I'd say there is a superdeterminism.

 

I know I replied to this yesterday but I want to make another thing clear... the information is actually there. It is simply smeared over many possibilities. Saying it isn't there is very misleading.

 

Then present this "evidence".

No, it is the probability for any one result "smeared over many possibilities", not the actual, individual results. Each individual result, even for just one of a complimentary pair of physical properties, cannot be precisely predicted, because each result is, itself, determined by probability. Only a series of results can be found to approach the probability.

 

I don't really see what you are arguing here.

Whether or not a system of possible outcomes is determined probabilistically is not the point. Of course a system will be probabilistic if we cannot precisely predict it. That just stands to reason. This is why quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory. Your system can be thought of trying out every possible state before settling to the most likely state upon the collapse of the wave function.

 

No, it doesn't. You might interpret the uncertainty principle in that way if you didn't know any other quantum mechanics or relevant experimental data but when you then include that quantum mechanics also involves Bell Inequalities which are experimentally verified then you have to make the choice of either no such information exists (ie no hidden variables) or causality doesn't always apply within quantum mechanics. You're not looking at the bigger picture.

Firstly that isn't infinite degrees of freedom. The uncertainty principle tells you about what happens if you want to simultaneously measure two conjugate degrees of freedom. How many other degrees of freedom there are is irrelevant. As such it doesn't mean you know everything. Did you not understand the example I explicitly gave in my last post? I guess not. In my last post I gave an example of a system with 6 degrees of freedom (3 position, 3 momentum) and the UP only comes into effect if you want to measure position and momentum in the same direction. I even said it explicitly! If I want to measure \(x_{1}\) and \(p_{1}\) then the UP blocks perfect knowledge, regardless of the fact I don't know anything about \(x_{2},x_{3},p_{2},p_{3}\). If I want to measure \(x_{1}\) and \(p_{2}\) then I can, despite the fact I'm measuring the same number of degrees of freedom as the \(x_{1},p_{1}\) case.

I'll take it from that series of rather fundamental mistakes in your post that you are not familiar with the actual workings of quantum mechanics. I'd suggest that you rein in your assertions about something you don't know the inner workings of.

What information are you talking about? The system has a state and knowing that state would give you information about the system. However, the UP and hidden variables is about whether or not the system is in a specific configuration at a specific time.

A quantum state \(|\psi\rangle\) is a superposition of various 'pure' configurations, usually written in terms of the eigenstates of whatever observable \(\mathcal{O}\) you're interested in \(|\psi\rangle = \sum_{j}c_{j}|\phi_{n}\rangle\) where \(\mathcal{O}|\phi_{n}\rangle = q_{n}|\phi_{n}\rangle\). When you perform a measurement using \(\mathcal{O}\) you find the system in state \(|\phi_{n}\rangle\) with probability \(|q_{n}|^{2}\). Since this is probabilistic, from the point of view of quantum mechanics, repeated measurements on copies of a state \(|\psi\rangle\) will have the system bounce around different states. Over time you could, in principle, build up knowledge of the \(q_{n}\) coefficients and call this 'the information of the system'. Even if you had perfect knowledge of \(q_{n}\) you'd not be able to predict the state of the next measurement because it is probabilistic. You cannot even do this due to the 'no cloning theorem'. Hidden variables are a way of saying it isn't probabilistic but rather just a complicated deterministic system. Hidden variables are hypothetical parameters of a quantum system which if you knew them you could predict with certainty the state of the next measurement. Bell Inequalities and things like the Kochen-Specker theorem are ways of testing such a notion, despite hidden variables being defined as unknowable.

You are claiming that the system is deterministic, ie there are parameters which if you knew them then you can know the result of measurements with certainty before you perform them. That is the definition of a hidden variable. Now you've changed your tune saying they are smeared over many possibilities. But that means you cannot predict the system, it isn't deterministic. If the system is deterministic then you can determine the result of experiments given sufficient computing power to solve any relevant equations. The information 'smeared' over multiple states means you cannot do this, you cannot pin down the state an experiment will measure.

There is a difference between "This system is so complicated that I cannot solve the exact dynamics so I'm going to describe probabilities of outcomes" and "This system is fundamentally probabilistic, there are not exact deterministic dynamics". Brownian motion is just particles bouncing off one another in a particular way. You could therefore perfectly model how two gases mix together via Newtonian dynamics if you have enough computing power. However we don't so we often model some sampled particles using a Weiner process, which draws from a Gaussian distribution. We can even approximate that by modelling the gas densities as continuous fields, at which point the Weiner process on all the particles is approximated by a diffusion equation. Quantum mechanics is fundamentally different, we can't approximating the motion of an electron by a wavefunction because we cannot measure the deterministic properties, there are no deterministic properties to measure.

No, wavefunction collapse doesn't lead to the most likely state. The coefficients in a wavefunction define the probability amplitudes associated to that state. For example if a two state system had wavefunction \(|\psi\rangle = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}|0\rangle + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|1\rangle\) then although the \(|1\rangle\) is more likely repeated measurements of systems of that form will find 1/3 of the time the system is in state \(|0\rangle\) even though it is not the most likely.

You are obviously unfamiliar with how quantum mechanics actually works so can you please refrain from pretending otherwise. There's no problem with not knowing this stuff, the point of discussion forums like this is to help people understand. However, if you don't know but you pretend you do and give false information to people who also don't know but who cannot tell you don't know then you're going against the purpose of the forum to help people understand. If you don't know don't guess.

On the assumption it is just a coincidence that your user name, choice of discussion topics, general lack of knowledge, willingness to assert understanding where little exists and IP address all point to you being a sock puppet of the habitual liar and deluded hack Reiku could you perhaps be more specific about what quantum mechanics you are familiar with on a working level, so that the level of discussion can be tailored to be more suitable to you.

 

I don't have time to reply to everything...

I must say that I disagree completely. How has it not got to do with our inability to measure every observable of the system? Do you know what you are talking about?

You said it has to do with simultaneously observing two conjugate degrees of freedom... the point is you can't! Whenever you attempt to do this, you find a massive amount of uncertainty. The point is the more you try and observe a specific observable, the more another gets effected and you no longer can describe that system with complete accuracy.

Actually it could be any real number this is true, it is also a possibility a system can exhibit an infinite amount of positions due to a wave function. It was only an example.

 

Well of course... some systems will exhibit unlikely probabilities. It is like saying, what is the likelihood I will quantum tunnel and end up on the surface of Pluto? Maybe if I sat for a billion-billion-billion years then maybe (still very unlikely) I will end up doing just that. I think however the wave function prefers the likely probabilities to those not very likely.

 

Well done on managing to state a tautology, the wave function prefers more likely states. Of course, since if the state has a small amplitude then it is less likely. But what you said, which I corrected you on, was the the system will settle on the most likely. No, it will settle on a state with probability \(|q_{n}|^{2}\) (as defined in previous notation).

Going to such a ridiculous extreme is daft. It doesn't matter what the associated states actually physically mean, we're talking about the amplitude coefficients. Larger amplitudes means more probability the system will be measured to be in that state.

The UP applies to the simultaneous measurement of two observables, we don't have to even consider all observables. And it isn't just any two, the UP only applies when two operators are conjugate to one another, such as position and momentum. And even then it has to be position and momentum in the same direction. If we want to measure \(x_{1}\) and \(p_{2}\) then we are only limited by the sensitivity of our instruments. If we want \(p_{1}\) instead then we're blocked by the UP even though the system is still the same system and we're still only asking about 2 operators and we're still asking about one position and one momentum.

Yes. I've a particle physics background by education, doctorate and practical application, especially so in the area of Bell Inequalities. It is that which leads me to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd done any quantum mechanics you'd know what the UP involves, how it arises, where it applies, what observables are and how they are described in quantum mechanics.

Yes, what is what the UP says and what I've been explaining with specific examples. You reply in a way which makes it seem like you think I wasn't saying that. Pay attention to what I've been saying because I explicitly said all of that in the bit of my post you quoted!

The 'see-saw' effect of "If I know x better then I know p worse" is something fundamental to quantum mechanics. It isn't to do with technological obstructions in measuring the true exact state of the system, it is an inherently probabilistic construct. The parameters you claim are in the system but not measured simply aren't there, as that would be hidden variables, unless you're willing to throw causality out the window.

That doesn't mean it is an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The value of \(x_{1}\) is a single degree of freedom with values over \(\mathbb{R}\). You're showing you don't even know what a degree of freedom is. Now we're getting into mistakes of a high school nature.

I suspected you to be a Reiku sock puppet before you'd even got to 20 posts. The evidence is mounting.