Difference between revisions of "TFNR - Locality / non-locality"

Latest revision as of 17:29, 26 June 2024

Among the Fundamental Principles of the Dynamics of Elementary Action I have placed a very strong hypothesis in open contrast with an equally strong "belief" that characterizes Quantum Mechanics, one of the central elements of its weirdness. I am talking about the assumption that Physical Reality is local, at all levels and in all its aspects, in contrast with the concept of non-locality which is considered an essential property by some interpretations of quantum mechanics. This hypothesis is not made here out of opposition to the weirdness of QM, nor out of deference to classical / relativistic physics and the associated "deterministic realism", which I don't agree with (as can be seen from every page of this work).

What does locality mean? The common definition of locality is that "an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings". In terms of action, this means that the movement (and more generally, any state) of an object can be influenced by another object only through "physical contact" with it (no action at a distance).

Conversely, non-locality means that an object's can be affected by another object without being in "physical contact" with it (action at a distance).

At this point it would be necessary to define the expressions "physical contact", "physical connection", "physical interaction", and so on... In this System of Knowledge by "physical contact" we mean any transmission, interaction (inter-Action, Action-between, exchange of Information / Energy between two or more different Structures or Forms (separate individualities: independent, e.g. two free electrons, or components of larger and more complex systems, e.g. two electrons belonging to the same atom) which occurs as a result of the propagation in the "continuous" Elementary Field of a set of Elementary Events in Space and Time and of the Relations that organize them (correlations between the temporal distributions of the elementary spatial fluctuations resonant around the Planck scale).

Translated in terms of Elementary Action and its Modes / Components, by "physical contact" we mean the transfer of Elementary Action in its Components (Perturbation, Translation, Rotation:Chirality and Rotation:AxisOrientation) between different Structures and Forms in the Elementary Field by mean of the propagation of the same Elementary Action in the continuous Elementary Field. Physical contact, therefore, is provided, ensured, by the Field itself, by its continuous dynamics, by its incessant fluctuations that support the existence and essence/form of all Physical Reality.

Given the importance of this concept, let's try to reformulate it in yet another way... In the Evolutionary Knowledge System, and in particular in the context of the hypotheses posed in this work, "action at a distance" is not allowed as it is not compatible with the causal and variational structure of Physical Reality. This means that the Action is generated, propagated and preserved in the continuous Elementary Field. In particular, regarding the concept of "action at a distance" we refer to the propagation of the Action in the Field (in the Elementary Field or in the Derived Fields, which are specific views of the Elementary Field, e.g. gravitational, electric, magnetic field, etc).

The propagation of Action is represented by the propagation of the Variations (deformations) in a continuous Field (the Elementary Field and all the Derived Field, which are specific views of the Elementary Field), Variations produced by the Action of a Causal Agent (a Force). This propagation (at each point of the continuous trajectory) implies the progressive variation of the Action components of the temporal distributions of the elementary spatial variations at the Planck scale. The propagation can occur at a speed limit specific to each point in space and instant in time, a "local" value distributed around the universal speed limit of the absolute vacuum (theoretical speed since the Universe is full of matter and energy, therefore very far from the absolute vacuum).

This model of propagation of Physical Action in the Field / Fields can be called: Contiguous Action (transmission or exercise of the Action between two distant Structures / Shapes / objects not in contact through a continuous propagation of variations in the Field).

This chapter provides examples of InfoStructure phenomena and dynamics that illustrate what is stated here.

This is a fundamental concept, which strongly characterizes this System of Knowledge and all the models of physical phenomena that are hypothesized in it. Locality is a concept that has an ontological aspect, it is a founding concept of this System and deriving from the very nature of the Elemental Field, one of the two fundamental sub-entities that constitute the Source of Reality). In my opinion, accepting the fact that non-local phenomena can exist, that remote action is possible, is equivalent to accepting that ghosts, unicorns and good fairies exist. It denotes an imaginative (supernatural, superstitious?) vision that science abhors so much, to the point of rejecting traditional knowledge systems altogether. I would dare say a non-scientific vision of Reality, which cannot be combined with the much claimed rigor of the scientific method.

Physical Reality is local, there are no rooms for a "spooky action at a distance" out of a rigid expression of Physical Causality.

In this work, we hypothesize that all non-local effects / phenomena are apparent. Further investigations are required to grasp the real nature of the quantum objects involved, their dynamics and their interactions. Here we adopt a concept of "realism" different from the one commonly adopted especially in the controversies that pitted Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (deterministic realism), where in addition to abhorring the idea of ​​non-locality, the idea that Physical Reality by nature at its foundations is intrinsically indeterminate and requires a statistical/probabilistic approach.

Let's hypothesize a different realism, which we call "local indeterministic realism" (yes to uncertainty at the very basis of Reality, no to non-locality as absurd and implausible). Yes to the weirdness of the quantum world (with uncertainty, superposition, etc.), no to non-locality.

I know, "absurd and implausible" is not a scientific fact, a proof. It is a personal judgement, an opinion, an impression, perhaps a hope, a desire... But I repeat that, in my opinion, surrendering to non-locality means declaring our ignorance and unknowability of Physical Reality. We must not give up. The non-locality may only be apparent. This idea, as well as from the lack of knowledge of quantum objects, could have arisen from a misunderstanding, from a basic confusion. A damned confusion between direct Reality (quantum objects, waves, particles) and correlation of their quantum states. Another fundamental point concerns, as already mentioned, the non-point-like, spatially extended nature of particles and waves, their shape in terms of Elementary Action and its Modes/Components, the distributed nature of Mass, Charge and Spin (each point event of the Elementary Field that supports the InfoStructure that we call particle has a fraction of the Mass, Motion, Charge and Spin of the entire particle, whose dynamics is the result of the dynamics of all the point events that support it.

Summing up:

• Relativity -> local deterministic realism (incompatible with Quantum Mechanics -> hidden variable -> wrong!)
• Quantum Mechanics -> non-local indeterministic realism (incompatible with Relativity and in some respects, absurd-> wrong!)
• evKnowledge (the new approach proposed and hypothesized in this work as part of this research project) -> local indeterministic realism (compatible with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics)

In a certain sense, the relativistic framework can hold on to locality, but must give in on the aspect of indeterminacy (if we want to put it naively, God somehow plays dice, but within strict rules). Quantum Mechanics can hold on to indeterminacy and all its implications that make it so bizarre, but it must give in on the aspect of non-locality (God plays dice, but he is not a magician and cannot cheat). Two mutual concessions which effectively eliminate the main obstacle to a rapprochement of these two fundamental theories. Yes, it's true, the problem of entanglement remains, which in this approach (local indeterministic realism) seems to remain absolutely inexplicable. But maybe that's not really the case... let's try to look at things from a different and broader point of view.

To explain the (apparent) non-local phenomena it is necessary to investigate more deeply, to abandon preconceptions and beliefs that limit the scientific research and confine it to a narrow space, full of constraints and dogmas. This makes it impossible to get out of the impasse. We must not, we cannot giving up understanding, describing, imagining what really happens in "realistic" terms, representable in the spatial and temporal foundations that constitute the fabric of Physical Reality.

A few words on entanglement and then some notes on the reasons that in my mind are at the basis of the gigantic misunderstanding that makes this phenomenon so cryptic, absurd, damned difficult to understand and accept. So divisive and generator of infinite entropy on a theoretical level, to the point of pushing a large part of the academic community to renounce to the knowability / comprehensibility of Reality and the "plausibility" of physical theories and models.

Links to the tables of contents of TFNR Paper

• Go to the contents list of the paper "The Fundamental Nature of Reality"

• Go to Chapter 2 "A first look"