When searching for additional insights I found in: Laidlaw A. “An Unspeakable Mechanism”. Intl. J. Adv. Res. Phys. Sci. (2018), 5, 6, 10-28: “local realist field model,” “distributed action” and “Fields at different points in space do not interact with each other. Alternatively, at any given space point, the interaction between two fields depends only on the values of the fields that are present at that point.”
I also found in A. Laidlaw and L.G. van Willigenburg “On the Appearance of Action at a Distance” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372841182: “If we are to think of the interaction quanta as distributed fields then we must also think of the source and the target quanta as distributed fields. Each of them permeates the entire space, which is also the modern view from Quantum Field Theories. The source and the target are thus always touching, everywhere.”
And “Therefore, what the QED interaction mechanism is describing is a distributed transfer of energy-momentum from one distributed field to another. In other words, it is describing local field-field interactions that are spatially distributed, not atomist particle-particle interactions. It is describing distributed action.”
Proposal
Distributed fields are formed from the primal state of the universe in an epoch. Whether one considers details of the universe as having expanded from some compact primal energy state, or considers that the details have condensed from a universe-scale primal energy state (my favorite), each “distributed field” is of universe scale. On the occasion of two distributed fields interacting, their interaction occurs in their full extent. An observable is a sample of the interacting distributed fields at any space point of that interaction. The location of the space point of an observation is determined by an observer sampling the interacting fields from one of them.
Were we to accept neutrality of the universe, we would find that for each distributed field a complementary distributed field exists. Further, we would require that interacting fields be complementary, like a key and a lock. Then, in the EPR Alice and Bob event, the two interacting distributed fields that individually include Alice’s and Bob's local states would be complementary fields. Observables of the state of Alice's and Bob's complementary distributed fields would occur under the influence of the values of the fields at each observation point, including from which distributed field the observation is made. The observation determines the state of Alice's distributed field, and of necessity, it also determines the state of Bob's complementary distributed field.
Now, it is specifically proposed that Alice's distributed fields are selected from a myriad of distributed fields by the location of Alice's observation. Bob's complementary distributed fields are also selected from a myriad of distributed fields by the location of Bob's observation apparatus. Setting the states of a pair of these fields that include both locations awaits setting of one field state by an observation. At the observation by Alice her distributed field is set and distributed field interaction sets Bob's distributed field to the complement of Alice’s distributed field. How? At the observation by Bob the complementary distributed field is observed, producing for instance, spin opposite.
Replies
Please inform me whether this view is on track for “distributed action.” I have been interested in non-locality for decades with a past bias toward “backward in time” anti-particle communication. I would like to understand the distributed action view also, since it seems more in line with modern treatments of non-locality.
Dear Hall
You raise a good question. Though I can't comment much more yet，One of the issues needs to be clarified first.
Laidlaw A. ，“Fields at different points in space do not interact with each other. Alternatively, at any given space point, the interaction between two fields depends only on the values of the fields that are present at that point.”
Does this statement conflict with the Uncertainty Principle?
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Howdy Chian Fan ,
ResearchGate finally fed me your No Question, No Answer Spotlight a few days ago and I have read through the Uncertainty Principle section. As I understand uncertainty and Laidlaw's approach there is no additional conflict beyond the concerns you have expressed.
As I am learning about "distributed action" I find it to be another method of reporting observables at a point. It has additional benefits with respect to communication since fields are overlaid everywhere, but the interaction of the fields at a space point would produce the same observable as earlier theories. After all, each of these partial successes is an effort to treat what we experience in a way that assists understanding and allows calculation. There will be new ones in 2424 that won't be final either.
Laidlaw's approach, and similar theories, appeal to me since have I worried about electric fields extending to infinity since learning about them. My thought that "particles" condensed at full universe scale when they began and they have been a field with an observable concentration we call a particle since then works well with the distributed fields of these modern approaches.
New! just now: That the location of the concentration in the interacting distributed fields is not determined until the fields are disturbed reminds me of super-cooled water in a vessel or a droplet freezing from the point of disturbance through the entire volume. Interesting. One still has concerns since the freezing is not instantaneous, still considering an analogy with proper caution is often valuable. Field concentration at a measurement disturbance could identify a particle due to interacting fields with an extended interaction field, like a proton with its electric field extending to infinity. Hmmmmm.
Happy Trails,
Len
Dear Hall
What I mean is that the crux of the issue concerns the nature of the field. I don't agree with this statement“Fields at different points in space do not interact with each other”.
Fields are expressed in terms of specific locations, but there is no such thing as an isolated ‘point field’ in any case. Fields must indeed be distributed, whether scalar or vector. If we think of fields as being spread throughout the universe, is that the current physics concept of the vacuum?
When EM fields are superimposed, we are superimposing them linearly according to the magnitude at each point location. There is no problem with that. But when it comes to ‘action’, it may not be a superposition of points, but a relationship between points.
With regard to the ‘uncertainty principle’, it is also addressed in question [1]. It may be more accurate there. Any point in space-time we can consider to be deterministic. However, when it comes to energy and momentum, i.e., interactions, there should be no deterministic expression for isolated points. If the concept of probability is introduced, the uncertainty principle becomes the interpretation of today's physics, which I cannot agree.
I am writing a discussion on ‘force fields’ and hopefully I will be able to express my views clearly there.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
[1]
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO46Phenomena_Related_to_Electric_Chargeand_Remembering_Nobel_Laureate_T_D_Lee?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSIsInByZXZpb3VzUGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19
Howdy Chian Fan ,
Thank you for your comments.
Well, I'm trying to understand the different view that is expressed by Laidlaw. I agree with your comments as similar to my past, and probably my future, opinion on this issue. however, good explorers check out box canyons too.
I think A. Laidlaw is attempting to describe a system which addresses non-locality using fields with the specified characteristics. The point about non-interaction appears to me as a method of preparing for distant observations as Bob's observation following Alice's observation in the EPR studies. The observations by Alice and Bob in this prepared space of fields are observables because the fields interact when disturbed at a space point by observations. The observables are determined by local conditions while the connection of a field and its complement (complement is my addition) enable Bob's observation to be determined by Alice's observation without a direct communication.
I cannot claim to be writing accurately about A. Laidlaw's theory, and my apologies to him for errors and misleading interpretations that exist are hereby offered. I do find the whole discussion interesting, provoking a look at the possibility that fields he has described and used do exist and contribute a possible answer in the EPR topic. Thinking "out of the box" may be dead wrong, but the other answers about non-locality are not all that satisfying, either. Truth is elusive and often prevented by "it is known that . . ., as you have noted in other questions.
Happy Trails,
Len
Dear Hall
"I cannot claim to be writing accurately about A. Laidlaw's theory, and my apologies to him for errors and misleading interpretations that exist are hereby offered."
I'm sorry I caused you to say such a word. I haven't had the will to discuss the EPR issue, I was just addressing what he said up front. Perhaps I was off topic. I should have read and understood the full article fully before commenting. Wish I could be so.
Best Regards, Chian
Dear Chian Fan ,
Not to worry. I felt good about defending Andrew Laidlaw's right to have his ideas expressed accurately. Our discussion was an opportunity for me to warn everyone that I'm exploring his approach on my own terms. The French essayist Montaigne has written that published work belongs to the author, but once you have read it it is yours to use as you will. It is important that readers know which is which.
Apologies is not so terrible word when it is appropriate. I always have appreciated your comments as very informative, even though in some cases you may be "off topic" like me on occasion.
Happy Trails,
Len
How can the largest amount of work be accomplished in the shortest possible time?
Howdy Ali Khashan,
??? I do not understand the connection between your question-answer and my original question. Would you or Niel Dagnall and/or Alen Lepirica please explain?
Incidentally, when preparing a report on dew half-a-century ago, I found the following reference very valuable as a stepping-stone between Greek philosophers and modern approaches. I have read it was a masterful compilation. Being a philosopher in Basrah your post brings back pleasant memories.
"The Brethren of Purity, or Ikhwan al-Safa' in Arabic, were a secret society of Muslim philosophers in Basra, Iraq in the 9th or 10th century. They were known for their encyclopedia, Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa', which was a collection of 52 epistles that covered a wide range of topics." (Wikipedia)
Happy Trails,
Len
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling