🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct4.223546.9969@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> Paul Budnik writes:
>...
> >I should not have said `my formalism'.
> 
> Yes, that was my point.  I think your ideas are interesting enough
> without having to oversell them.

I have been careful not to make unjustified claims. I was referring
to the alternative to the existing formalism that I have proposed where
locality is assumed as an additional constraint. Well it was careless
of me to call that `my formalism', I hardly regard it as a major lapse.

> Overselling them will attract
> crackpots but repel the sort of people you might want to become interested.
> You have a rough idea for an alternative formalism.  Very few people
> who might have the chops to turn it into a working
> alternative to QM are likely to be interested in spending their energy on
> such a project, which has (IMHO) a very low chance of success.  Of
> course, you think it has a high chance of success and are trying to convince
> others of that.  If you don't have the ability to turn your ideas
> into a fully functioning formalism, I guess that's a good
> approach.

It is easy to write down the equations that describe examples of the
class of models I am proposing. I have been doing computer simulations of
these for years. The difficult part is going from this to macroscopic
experimental predictions. I doubt that any one person working by themselves
could accomplish this. I recognized this from the beginning. That is why
I chose to get a Phd. in computer science and not physics. I wanted to
work on developing this class of models, recognizing that I would be unlikely
to show that they have physical significance before I finished my thesis.
It could not get an advisor for such a risky topic and wrote my thesis 
in a conventional area of research.

> Even better would be convincing or paying someone to
> do the crucial experimental test of Bell's inequality.

What do you think I have been trying to do for the last several years with
these postings? My emphasis has always been on the importance of doing the
experiment because it is likely to be profoundly important. I have already
offered a place in history and a probable Nobel prize to the experimenter
who does it correctly. What more could you ask? :-)

As for paying for the experiment, do you think everyone who works in Silicon
valley on computers is rich from stock options? Maybe I would be, but I have
spent too much time working on this and other completely unprofitable ideas. 

Many physicists believe no local model could be consistent with known
experimental results.  The main value of my ideas, at this point, is to
show that a local model is a logical possibility. If you believe there can
be a local model you are more interrested in tests of Bell's inequality.
This is true regardless of what you think of any specific alternative
proposal.

> (I should add
> that I have simply been taking your word all along on the claim that
> existing tests fail to ensure spacelike separation.  Shows how nice I
> really am.   :-))

You might also be thinking that if I am wrong, someone who knows this would
have pointed it out by now. I have given references so you do not need
to take my word.

J. D. Franson, Physical Review D, pgs. 2529-2532, Vol. 31, No. 10, May 1985.
A. Leggett, Foundations of Physics, V 17, p. 875.

> I should emphasize though, that until you spend a lot of energy trying
> to turn your ideas into a real formalism, you will never really know
> how reasonable they are.

I do not think I or any single individual could do this alone. That is why
testing Bell's inequality is so important. If existing theory is shown to be
incorrect, there will be a much higher level of interrest in radical
alternative such as mine.

It is probable that *any* more complete theory of quantum
mechanics is too difficult for a single individual to develop
on their own. If this were not true Einstein or someone else would 
have done so long ago. The scenario where an individual creates a
complete theory and presents it to the world is not likely
to work. We need a scenario closer to what happened with quantum mechanics
itself. Many theorists were struggling to understand new experimental results.

>...
> >A few months ago you gave an argument why quantum mechanics may not be
> >completely valid at very small distances.
> 
> Huh??  I never gave anything of the sort, although I can imagine what
> you are referring to.

In reviewing your posts it was general relativity not
quantum mechanics that you said may require change at
small distances. I am sorry I did not remember it correctly.
Here is a quote that shows this:

>| Classical - i.e., non-quantum - general relativity treats spacetime as a
>| continuum.  Nobody knows quite how to "suitably adjust" general
>| relativity by quantum mechanics yet.  In my favorite approach, the loop
>| representation of quantum gravity, *knots* play a crucial role and serve
>| in a sense to replace the continuum by a kind of combinatorial structure
>| at very small distances (the Planck length).  This is still not as well
>| understood as one would like, though!

>...
> >Tests
> >of locality can be done using existing technology. Perhaps you should
> >consider changing your area of research. :-)
> 
> Alas, I'm a mathematician, not an experimentalist.  I had enough
> trouble trying to light a Coleman stove last weekend.  

I was not suggesting you become an experimenter. I have the impression
that the changes to general relativity that you are proposing would
only have experimentally observable affects near the plank length. I do
not believe that such affects are experimentally accessible by existing
or foreseeable technologies. Thus I do not see how you can know if your
theory is correct. Perhaps I am wrong about this.

In any event, when the test of Bell's inequality is done correctly,
many theoreticians will be redirecting their area of research. You
may be among them.

Paul Budnik