First, you don't understand the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. That's no sin. Many people don't. But please don't pretend to if you don't.
Second, you don't understand what this article even says. The author suggests a resolution of the conceptual difficulties of Quantum Mechanics by positing the existence of an invariant subspace which by definition can only include those events which actually occur. Now: either this is already accepted dogma (Feynman) or a statement of a teleological supreme reality (Tipler/Davies), or it is tautology. The first is not new. The second is not science. The third is not interesting.
Third, your most recent post confuses physical and metaphysical approximation. The fact that F = ma never exactly applies because, say fat people or the most distant galaxies exert an influence on physical systems is hifalutin stuff for a Sophomore bull session that has no place in a serious discussion, but it is, in any event, errant nonsense to claim that the invalidity of an exact result invalidates the physical law itself. What laws do you think the fat people themselves obey? No law? F = mv? Or can they make up their own laws? This is the part of your recent post that is not even wrong: metaphysical approximation is NOT physical approximation. You have made a category error in your argument. It is like claiming that we will never be able to discover the color of the number three, because the colors of all the other numbers make it so confusing. And frankly, you made this not-even-wrong assertion in a patronizing tone.
Fourth: you are wasting my time. You may claim there isn't enough here to invalidate this man's claims (something I've said from the beginning when I said I hoped there was more to this idea than the article could convey) but for someone who believes that you've wasted an awful lot of energy trying to defend it all the same, and in defending it you have made claims about QM that are false or misleading. Should I be polite and let the errors stand? I don't mind back-and-forth, but when you attempt to brush aside a factual statement with some nonsense about how this is all intellectually fine and good but there really is no such thing as a basic physical law because it doesn't encompass all of reality, that's pretty much the limit of my tolerance.
Strikes me as being very tautological. New names for old.
If something has real, physical existence, it is part of the invariant set. (As I define the invariant set).
I could just as well say so-and-so is a purple people eater (if in fact he/she was) and be equally correct.
Unless the theory can be used to predict a heretofore unknown QM effect (like a new kind of tunneling or whatever), then it’s not covering new ground.
Eddington discussed this type of reasoning in his “The Domain of Physical Science” in which he kind of admits that at some point tautology is all that’s left. An electron is a particle that acts like x,y, and z. So when you see a particle that acts like x, y, and z, then it’s an electron. Not by discovery. By definition!
As you stated above, Bell’s theorem is a rigorous mathematical model. But Bell also responded to Einstein, in as far as Einstein speculated that we simply might not “know enough” to have QM give us a complete answer.
Bells answer was that there is no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with QM. (when he talks “local” he means a theory that fits with relativity). And the proof here is just as rigorous.
I’ll have to wade through “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics” again and see if I can absorb any more than the last time!
First, take a breath. You are having a conversation with someone else and me.. and the someone else isn't here.
Written words have limitations and our own prejudices often fill in the blanks. I was trying to give a clean example of the difference between physical "laws" and reality which is messy but generally follows these laws. In engineering, we use all sorts of constants and fudge factors to deal with these problems and move on. But my point is that theoretical models have limits and are only true in a theoretical framework. Not that they are ever actually not true, but they are never sufficient to describe reality as it actually presents itself.
Now, it stuck me, that what this fellow was attempting is very different, because it is a grand generalization that arches over the very fabric of reality and attempts to describe the nature of all possibilities and what is reality that is but a subset of this grand superset of possibilities. Feynman proposes that in terms of quantum physics that the system doesn't have to know in advance where it's going; the path integral simply calculates the probability amplitude for any given process, and the path goes everywhere. After a long enough time, interference effects guarantee that only the contributions from the stationary points of the action give histories with appreciable probabilities. This posits that all of the possible paths resolve to just a few probable paths via means of quantum superposition. And as you talked about, this is why you must consider the paths that are unreal or imaginary as well as the ones that have real solutions because the prediction would be off without their contribution.
However, Palmer is looking at this from an entirely different perspective. Rather than continue to try to explain this, I point you to the link below.
The author suggests a resolution of the conceptual difficulties of Quantum Mechanics by positing the existence of an invariant subspace which by definition can only include those events which actually occur. Now: either this is already accepted dogma (Feynman) or a statement of a teleological supreme reality (Tipler/Davies), or it is tautology. The first is not new. The second is not science. The third is not interesting.
This statement is probably not correct. You have a withering contempt for folks who don't sit in your little holes. It very likely conforms to Feynman (If it is correct, Feynman likely conforms to Palmer) but provides a new means of understanding this because it doesn't rely on superposition or any of a number of oddities that are necessary for Feynman or need to be conformed to in order to be judged as consistent with observations.
Once again, I argue that this paper published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the Royal Society of Mathmatical, Physical and Engineering Sciences is worthy of more than a glance and narrow minded brush off. Moreso, the actual paper does have enough detail that it can be evaluated for significance but remember it is but a proposition at this point.
The whole text of this paper can be viewed as text or Downloaded as a PDF here: