My "Eight-Sided Dice" - Published in Popular Electronics When I Was a College Student

The Internet is AMAZING! Yesterday, almost by accident I found the very first article of mine published in a national magazine, POPULAR ELECTRONICS, 58 years ago, when I was a sophomore in college! My electronic DICE device is a project I designed to simulate a symmetric 8-sided polygon that is equally likely to fall on any one of its sides.

Three pairs of neon lamps flicker on and off rapidly until the user presses a button, which stops the flickering and leaves only one member of each pair on. Given three pairs of lamps, there are exactly eight combinations, since two times two times two is equal to eight. At the time, there was lots of interest in Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP), so my device could be used to test if a person could demonstrate foreknowledge of the outcome of a "random" event. It could also be used to learn about binary arithmetic, at least a bit - (pun intended!)

I "Google" myself every once in a while to check up on what people may be writing about me. (As a Guest Contributor to the worlds most popular Climate website, Watts Up With That?, I am sometimes the target of negative postings from climate alarmists who denigrate my skeptical views on Global Warming and Climate Change. I accept the basic science that Global Warming is real and that human production of carbon dioxide contributes to the warming. However, I'm convinced the amount of warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the danger of climate catastrophe has been way over-hyped.)

This time, instead of using Google, I used Bing, and searched for "Ira Glickstein". (I've never heard anyone say they were going to "Bing" something.) In any case, after looking at the first two pages of references to "Ira Glickstein", I impulsively clicked on the seventh page and there it was, a link to my 1959 article in POPULAR ELECTRONICS!  Someone had kindly scanned the entire issue and posted it for all the world to see! Here is a link to the .pdf file. I've reproduced the three-page article below.

As I look at my design from the perspective of a retired System Engineer with a long and creative career conceiving and designing complex avionics systems, I'm pretty impressed at how I, as a college sophomore, adapted the basic idea of an RC (Resistive/Capacitive) relaxation oscillator using neon lamps.

Looking at the circuit diagram above, it took me awhile to remember that neon lamps are basically two parallel wires, with a small gap between them, sealed within a neon-gas-filled glass tube. When the voltage difference between the two wires in the lamp is below a certain critical value, the effective resistance is nearly infinite. As the voltage builds up, a point is reached where electrons have enough energy to jump the gap. At that point, the neon gas glows, and the effective resistance drops. That causes the voltage across that gap to drop, and that lamp goes off. The capacitor in the circuit stores energy so that, as the voltage rises once more, the voltage across the gap in the other neon lamp of the pair will increase faster. Thus, the two lamps in a pair will alternately flicker on and off. When the user pushes the button, the two neon lamps of a pair are put in parallel, so they have the same voltage across them, which makes the neon lamp that was on stay on, and the one that was off stay off.

Since the three pairs of lamps and associated resistors and capacitors are bound to have slightly different parameters, they each oscillate at a slightly different frequency. Thus, when the user presses the button, each pair is likely to be in a different phase of the oscillation, such that the resultant final state is more or less "random", any of the eight possible combinations being equally likely. 

The final section of the article discusses use of the device to test for ESP. I actually experimented with several friends and kept track of results. Sometimes the subject would correctly guess several outcomes in a row, and I thought they really had ESP!

However, when I learned more about statistics, I realized that there was a non-zero probability for "random" coin flips to appear non-random. For example, as you know, the probability of a "fair-coin" landing "Heads" is 50%. The probability of two "Heads" in a row is 25%, three in a row is 12.5%, four in a row is 6.25%, five in a row is 3.125%, six in a row is 1.5625% and so on.

I made use of that fact when teaching a graduate course in System Engineering by asking my students to do a two-part experiment. In the first part, they were to manually make up a list of 200 "Heads" and "Tails" that they thought was "random". In the second part, they were to actually toss a coin 200 times and record the actual "Heads" and "Tails". They were to label one of their lists "A" and the other "B", recording, but not telling me, which was made up manually and which was the actual record of 200 real coin tosses. In almost every case, I was able to tell which was which!

How did I do it? Well, given 200 actual coin tosses, the chance of getting six "Heads" or six "Tails" in a row somewhere in the sequence is almost 100%. However, when someone manually makes up a list of 200 "Heads" and "Tails" they (almost) never write down a series of five or six "Heads" or "Tails" in a row, because that does not look "random" to them! So, I'd check the two lists submitted by each student, and, if one list had a sequence of six or more "Heads" or "Tails" in a row, and the other list did not, I'd know the first list was for the real coin tosses!

I don't know if my Eight-Sided Dice POPULAR ELECTRONICS article is to blame, but, after studying Einstein's General Relativity and reading about his problem with the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics, I came out on Einstein's side, rejecting the currently accepted view that Physics is truly random. Einstein said something like "God does not play DICE with the Universe!"

Despite the fact that Quantum Mechanics based on "Heisenberg's Uncertainty" is the most successful theory for predicting the outcome of sub-atomic experiments, I cannot shake the view that there is some currently hidden, non-random process behind all of it. So, like Einstein, I believe in Strict Causality, and, therefore, Absolute Determinism. That also requires me to believe that the Universe is both Finite and Discrete.

Ira Glickstein

VISUALIZING: General Relativity

It took some ten years for Einstein to publish an extension of his (Special) Theory of Relativity from the relatively [pun intended] simple case of constant velocity inertial reference frames to the more General case of accelerating frames of reference. His General Theory of Relativity was published in 1915.
LINKS TO RELATED POSTINGS AND RESOURCES
VISUALIZING Relativity - PowerPoint Show
VISUALIZING Relativity - Excel Spreadsheet
VISUALIZING for Science and Technology - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING Einstein's "Miracle Year" - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING the "Twin Paradox" - Blog Posting

Again, Einstein utilized his uncanny ability to VISUALIZE a complex situation and gain a unique insight. He recognized that:

• Gravity is equivalent to Acceleration, and 
• Massive bodies cause SpaceTime to CURVE in their vicinity.

He VISUALIZED a scientist, confined to a sealed box with instruments, and tasked to determine by measurements, if the box was "at rest" on the surface of the Earth, and therefore subject to Earth Gravity or in a spacecraft far from any massive object, and being accelerated at 9.8 m/s2 (32.2 ft/s2), which is the acceleration of gravity on Earth. Einstein concluded that the scientist could not make that determination.

[This is not strictly true. Given very sensitive accelerometers at head and foot level, not available in Einstein's time, the scientist would note a small difference if "at rest" on Earth because head and foot are different distances from the center of the Earth and Gravity varies as the square of the distance from the center of mass. In an accelerating spacecraft far from massive bodies, the acceleration at foot and head level would be equal.]

HOW DOES GENERAL RELATIVITY RELATE TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

In my research for this project, I happened upon a fact that is not prominently mentioned by many Internet expositions of Relativity. Namely that:

 the Relativistic Effects of Gravity 

in the vicinity of a massive body 

are exactly equal to 

the Relativistic Effects in a spacecraft 

(in deep space far from any massive body) 

moving at the Escape Velocity 

corresponding to that level of Gravity!

Escape Velocity from the Earth Surface is 11.2 km/s (about 25,000 MPH). It is defined as the launch speed required for a spacecraft, pointing straight up, such that it will not fall back to Earth (ignoring air friction and rotation of the Earth).

The formula for Escape Velocity from the vicinity of a massive body is the square root of 2GM/r, where G is the universal gravitational constant (6.67×10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²), M is the mass of the body, and r is the radius from the center of the body to the spacecraft at launch.

From this equation you should be able to deduce that Escape Velocity is less if the spacecraft is flown to a position that is high above the Earth Surface, and launched there, increasing r. That is one reason for multi-stage rockets. The final stage does not fire until far from the Surface. Less obvious is that a horizontal launch requires less speed than a vertical launch. Thus, the spacecraft is usually placed into high orbit prior to the final acceleration to escape.

EQUIVALENCE OF KINETIC AND POTENTIAL ENERGY

When you throw a ball straight up into the air, at some initial vertical speed, it continuously slows until it reaches the point where its speed is zero, and then it falls, continuously increasing downward speed, until it returns to your glove. If we ignore air friction, the ball will strike your glove at the same speed as your initial throw.

This is a perfect illustration of the exchange of Kinetic Energy for Potential Energy.

Your initial throw imparts a given vertical speed to the ball. From that speed, you can compute the Kinetic Energy. As the ball rises and slows due to the force of Gravity, the Kinetic Energy is converted to Potential Energy (ignoring loss to air friction). At the highest point, the ball has zero Kinetic Energy, and maximum Potential Energy. By conservation of Energy, the Potential Energy at the peak is exactly equal to the initial Kinetic Energy of the throw. As the ball falls, the process is reversed, with the Potential Energy being converted to Kinetic Energy.

Please note that we are speaking here of the Kinetic and Potential Energy referenced to your glove height. If you happened to be near a deep hole in the ground, such as a well, you could drop the ball and it would speed as it fell, because your glove is at a higher Potential Energy level than the bottom of the well.

If the hole extended all the way through the Earth, the ball would speed, gaining Kinetic Energy (converted from the Potential Energy) until it passed the center of the Earth, where the Potential Energy would be zero, having all been converted to Kinetic Energy. The ball would continue to the other side of the Earth, trading Kinetic for Potential Energy (again ignoring air friction and assuming the ball does not touch the sides of the hole, etc.)

The first equation in the graphic is the equation you probably learned in your physics class for computing Kinetic Energy, using Newtonian physics. This equation is "close enough" for virtually all practical engineering applications on Earth. (m is the mass of the ball, and v is the initial velocity.)

The second equation is based on Einsteinian Physics, and must be used to obtain absolutely accurate results for Kinetic Energy at speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. (m is the mass of the ball, and v is accounted for by ϒ. See previous posting in the Blog series for the definition of ϒ the Greek letter Gamma).

The third equation is based on the equivalence of Kinetic and Potential Energy. It solves for Potential Energy, using Einsteinian Physics, given knowledge of  G, the universal gravitational constant (6.67×10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²), m is the mass of the body, and r is the radius from the center of the body to the ball (or spacecraft).

Ira Glickstein

VISUALIZING: The "Twin Paradox"

In Einstein's ground-breaking 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, he provides the basis for the well-known "Twin Paradox" (where one twin takes a space journey at high speeds, and finds, upon returning home, that he or she has AGED less than the stay-at-home sibling):

If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled clock on its arrival at A will be [1 - α] seconds slow*.

To VISUALIZE Einstein's thought experiment, let "A" be a location on Earth, where the stay-at-home twin resides, and the "closed curve" be the path followed by the traveling twin, moving at 87% of the speed of light (v/c = β = 0.8660) where α = 0.5 as depicted below.

LINKS TO RELATED POSTINGS AND RESOURCES
VISUALIZING Relativity - PowerPoint Show
VISUALIZING Relativity - Excel Spreadsheet
VISUALIZING for Science and Technology - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING Einstein's "Miracle Year" - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING the "Twin Paradox" - Blog Posting

As depicted, Blair and Aden are 20 years old when Aden takes off on a long space journey at ultra-high speed while Blair remains home. Aden's journey, at an average speed of 87% the speed of light, extends out to the vicinity of a Neutron Star (or a Black Hole) where Aden's spaceship "slingshots" and speeds back to Earth.

When Aden is at the half-way point, Blair has AGED 30 Earth-years and is 50 years old. However Aden, due to being in a state of high Kinetic Energy with respect to Blair, has AGED only 15 years and is only 30 years old.

By the time Aden returns from the journey, Blair has AGED an additional 30 Earth-years and has reached the ripe old age of 80. However Aden has only AGED an additional 15 years, and returns home a sprightly 50 year-old!

WHAT DOES THIS VISUALIZATION TELL US?

First of all, this is only a "thought experiment" and there are many practical limitations that make it unrealistic. None of our current spacecraft are capable of even 1% of the speed of light, much less the 87% imagined for Aden. Furthermore, even if we had such a spacecraft, and even if it carried only a clock and not a fragile human being, considering the G-forces involved,  it would take a number of years to accelerate up to 87% of the speed of light, perform the "slingshot", and decelerate to land safely on Earth.

A more realistic depiction would include those years of acceleration and deceleration and would require some portions of the journey to be faster than 87% of the speed of light so as to average 87%.

Note that the Einstein quote is from Einstein's 1905 SPECIAL RELATIVITY paper and he (wisely) specifies that the "closed curve" be at "constant velocity". It would take an additional ten years, and Einstein's 1915 GENERAL RELATIVITY paper to account for the Relativistic Effects of the acceleration and deceleration required for a practical journey. It turns out that the acceleration and deceleration of the traveling twin in the spacecraft would actually increase the difference in AGING somewhat. However, 60 years of Earth gravity, to which the stay-at-home twin would be exposed, would actually decrease the difference in AGING a bit.

On the other hand, some of the explanations of the "Twin Paradox" I found on the Internet expose what I think are misinterpretations of inertial reference frames and simultaneity.

CONFUSION IN EXPLANATIONS OF THE "TWIN PARADOX"

Symmetry and Simultaneity Run Riot !

In my explanation above, I state that, at the half-way point, Aden, on the spaceship, has aged 15 years while Blair, on Earth, has aged 30 years. Well, some would complain, if Aden has not yet done the "slingshot" turn-around, it is improper to state anything about difference in aging between Blair and Aden since both are still in their original frames of reference! They claim a symmetry where each twin sees the other as moving and the other as having a slower clock. They claim there is no such thing as simultaneity.

Different Inertial Frames

For example, right near the top of the Wikipedia explanation:

... each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins. [My emphasis]

Well, prior to the turn-around, each twin had one and only one inertial frame, not "two different inertial frames". So, does this explanation mean to say they both aged more slowly, or neither aged more slowly? Does it mean to say that, during the turn-around, the traveling twin suddenly got younger or the stay-at-home twin suddenly got older?

Sadly for me (an old engineer who cannot understand the meaning of minus two people - see the Physist/Engineer joke in my prevous posting ) YES, they do seem to think that the ages of the twins can suddenly change, based on how they do their calculations!

Gravitational Time Dilation

Further confusion in the Wikipedia explanation:

.... Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.

According to this Wikipedia quote, the Einstein/Born explanations invoke "gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration."  Well, the traveling twin certainly had to be accelerated and decelerated during launch and recovery and during the turn-around, and we learn from General Relativity that Relativistic Effects of gravity are equivalent to high-speed effects at certain levels of acceleration and speed. However, the amount of reduction in aging is proportional to the total length of time the traveling twin is at ultra-high speed, and the thought experiment could be lengthened to hundreds or millions of years, such that the acceleration/deceleration periods are an insignificant fraction of the travelling twin's journey.

Age Jump Instantly At the Turn-around

Yet further confusion in the Wikipedia explanation:

... For a moment-by-moment understanding of how the time difference between the two twins unfolds, one must understand that in special relativity there is no concept of absolute present. ...For different inertial frames there are different sets of events that are simultaneous in that frame. This relativity of simultaneity means that switching from one inertial frame to another requires an adjustment in what slice through spacetime counts as the "present". ...

... Just before turnaround, the traveling twin calculates the age of the Earth-based twin ... [but] ... Just after turnaround, if he recalculates, ... there is a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin. ... [If the twins] regularly update each other on the status of their clocks by way of sending radio signals (which travel at light speed), then all parties will note an incremental buildup of asymmetry in time-keeping, beginning at the "turn around" point. Prior to the "turn around", each party regards the other party's clock to be recording time differently from his own, but the noted difference is symmetrical between the two parties. After the "turn around", the noted differences are not symmetrical, and the asymmetry grows incrementally until the two parties are reunited. Upon finally reuniting, this asymmetry can be seen in the actual difference showing on the two reunited clocks. [My emphasis]

OK, the twins are far apart for much of this thought experiment so radio signals between them will take years to reach their destinations. Therefore, even if the turn-around plans have been settled and the Relativistic Effects calculated before the launch, the stay-at-home twin will not know for sure whether or not they have been successful. The spacecraft may have blown up or gone off the planned course. Similarly, the traveling twin will not know the status of the stay-at-home. The Earth may have been destroyed by a meteor, etc.

But, it blows my mind that some physicists can imagine an instantaneous jump in age by any human being (much less a clock) due to a spacecraft turning around, or a calculation based on a delayed radio message.

MY (SIMPLE) EXPLANATION OF THE "TWIN PARADOX"

Yes, if two spaceships pass in the night, all they can measure is relative speed (even if one happens to be Spaceship Earth). According to all that is currently known, observers on each spaceship will measure the other as being shorter in the direction of travel than it really is (length contraction) and that the other's clock is running slow (time dilation). I got that.

As one Internet source noted, when two cars pass on a highway and each driver looks in their rear-view mirror, the other car appears to be getting smaller.  Of course, in the case of the cars, we know that neither is really getting smaller.

So, what is different in the case of the twins?

Well, for one thing, the spacecraft was loaded with fuel and the stay-at-home twin watched it blast off and accelerate. The traveling twin felt the acceleration to ultra-high speed. Due to that expenditure of fuel, the spacecraft was raised to a higher level of Kinetic Energy than it had when it was sitting on the launch pad.

Throughout its journey, the spacecraft continued at high speed relative to the Earth (assuming that any frictional losses of energy were made up by further expenditure of fuel).

I maintain that the Relativistic Effects of a slowdown of aging (clock rate) for the travelling twin compared to the stay-at-home twin is due to a relatively higher level of Kinetic Energy. (When we get to General Relativity later in this Blog series, we will learn that high levels of Potential Energy due to the acceleration of gravity have similar Relativistic Effects.)

Ira Glickstein

* Note: I've substituted "1 - α" for the equivalent, but more complex equation in Einstein's original paper, where α is the Square Root portion of the Lorentz Transformation ( ) as described in my previous Blog posting.

VISUALIZING: My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma

A key aspect of Einstein's Special Relativity is that, at high speeds, there is significant "Time Dilation" and "Length Contraction". In his 1905 Theory of Relativity paper, Einstein derives the equation that quantifies these Relativistic Effects, apparently unaware that Hendrick Lorentz had earlier come up with the same equation. The "Lorentz Transform" or "Lorentz Gamma" (equation near the top of the graphic below) solves for γ (Greek lowercase letter gamma) given knowledge of the relative velocity of a body (v) divided by the speed of light (c).

Simple enough, but, in my (perhaps overly anal :^) Engineering Mind it bothered me that I could not "picture" it in physical terms.

LINKS TO RELATED POSTINGS AND RESOURCES
VISUALIZING Relativity - PowerPoint Show
VISUALIZING Relativity - Excel Spreadsheet
VISUALIZING for Science and Technology - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING Einstein's "Miracle Year" - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING the "Twin Paradox" - Blog Posting

AN OLD JOKE

This situation reminds me of the old joke about the Historian, the Physicist, and the Engineer who happened to be waiting for a bus outside an office building. They noticed three people (a man and two women) enter the building, and, some time later, five emerge (a woman and four men).

Making conversation, the Historian asked, "How many people are in that building?"

The Physicist immediately answered, "Three went in and five came out, so there are minus two people in that building!"

The Engineer shook his head. "Mathematically correct," he noted, "But, what in hell does 'minus two people' mean?"

"Do you have a better answer?" asked the Historian.

The Engineer thought for a while and replied. "Well, if we assume that is the only entrance and exit for that building, we can deduce that, prior to our arriving here, there were at least three men in that building, and now there is at least one woman in there."

BACK TO LORENTZ

Well, a couple of years ago, I ran the Lorentz Transform for several different values of v/c and was startled to find some familiar numbers come up, among them 0.5000, 0.7071, and 0.8660.

Early in my engineering career I memorized the sines and cosines of 30⁰, 45⁰, and 60⁰. Those were the familiar numbers that popped up in my results for the Square Root of 1-(v/c)². (The fact that I still remember those numbers, half a century later, confirms how anal my Engineering Mind really is. :^)

For example, if you pick the simple case of half the speed of light (i.e., v/c = 0.5000), the Square Root term turns out to be 0.8660, which is the Cosine of 30⁰. As the graphic above illustrates, if you plot Time vs Space with commensurate scales (i.e., Time in nanoseconds and Space in feet, since, as I also memorized those many years ago, light travels about one foot in one nanosecond), a unit long SpaceTime vector, tipped 30⁰  from the Time axis, has its point at 0.5000 along the Space axis and 0.8660 along the Time axis!

SOME EXAMPLES

Let us call the Square Root part of the Lorentz Transform term α (Greek letter Alpha) from here on, and notice that α = 1/ϒ. Furthermore, let us call the v/c term β (Greek letter Beta), and the angle between the Time axis and the unit long SpaceTime vector Θ (Greek letter Theta).

For Θ = 0⁰   :  α = 1.0000 = Cos(0⁰)   and β = 0.0000 = Sin(0⁰)
For Θ = 30⁰ :  α = 0.8660 = Cos(30⁰) and β = 0.5000 = Sin(30⁰)
For Θ = 45⁰ :  α = 0.7071 = Cos(45⁰) and β = 0.7071 = Sin(45⁰)
For Θ = 60⁰ :  α = 0.5000 = Cos(60⁰) and β = 0.8660 = Sin(60⁰)
For Θ = 90⁰ :  α = 0.0000 = Cos(90⁰) and β = 1.0000 = Sin(90⁰)

So, now it all makes sense (at least to an old engineer like me :^)! All the Square Root part of the Lorentz Transform is telling us is that if we pick a value for v/c that is equal to the Sine of some angle, Θ, we'll get a value for the Square Root part that is the Cosine of that same angle, Θ.

The simple VISUALIZATION is a unit vector in SpaceTime tipped Θ⁰ from the Time axis, and it works for any Θ between 0⁰  and 90⁰.

OK, BUT WHAT IS THIS VISUALIZATION TELLING US?

In the above graphic, the Time axis extends up to 1.0, but the projection of the unit long SpaceTime vector onto the Time axis reaches only to 0.8660. So, what does α = 0.8660 tell us?

I used to have the impression that Relativistic Effects "slowed down time", and I believe quite a few of you who are reading this Blog accept that idea. However, the well known "Twin Paradox" (to be discussed in more detail the next Blog Posting in this VISUALIZING Series) tells us, IMHO, that it is not Time, per se, that "slows down" but rather AGING. For every year the stay-at-home Twin ages, the travelling twin ages only α years. So, if α = 0.8660, and the stay-at-home twin ages 10 years, the traveling twin will age only 8.66 years.

What do I mean by AGING? Well, it is simply the number read from a good-quality clock at some final Event, assuming the clock was set to zero at some initial Event, and that the clock was present at both Events. The clock may be a mechanical or electronic device, or a chemical or radioactive reaction, or a biological life form, such as bacteria, plants, or animals.

In the Twin Paradox example, both siblings are present at the separation Event and the reunion Event, each usually denoted by numerical values for t, x, y, and z, for Time and the three dimensions of Space. Thus, when reunited, they are both at the exact same Time (and Space), the only difference is how much each of them has AGED.

Ira Glickstein

VISUALIZING: Einstein's "Miracle Year"

In 1905 an obscure, 26-year old Assistant Examiner in the Swiss Patent Office revolutionized the world of Physics forever. Albert Einstein published four ground-breaking papers in a single year!

LINKS TO RELATED POSTINGS AND RESOURCES
VISUALIZING Relativity - PowerPoint Show
VISUALIZING Relativity - Excel Spreadsheet
VISUALIZING for Science and Technology - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING Einstein's "Miracle Year" - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING the "Twin Paradox" - Blog Posting

1- PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT

This paper may be considered the foundation of Quantum Theory. Einstein theorizes that Energy is not continuous, but rather comes in DISCRETE QUANTA.

2- BROWNIAN MOTION

Statistical physics.

3- (SPECIAL) THEORY OF RELATIVITY (INVARIABILITY)

Perhaps his most important paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, begins with a VISUALIZATION of a magnet and a coil of wire. He notes that, when the wire is held still and the magnet is moved, an electrical voltage is produced in the wire. The opposite is also true, he notes, when the magnet is held still and the wire is moved.

Einstein's critical INSIGHT was that it was the RELATIVE movement of the wire and the magnet that induced the electrical voltage.

He knew about electrical technology because his father owned a company that manufactured electrical equipment. However, by the 1880's, when Einstein was a child, many other people had this knowledge, yet, it was not until 1905, with this paper, that the critical implications of this simple VISUALIZATION were recognized.

Of course, by the time he had the insight and wrote this paper, Einstein had a diploma in Physics and Mathematics from the Zurich Polytechnic. That enabled him to extend his insight lightyears [pun intended] beyond mere electrical technology and clarify Maxwell's electrodynamics.

Einstein proposes two startling postulates:

1) "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference." and
2) "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

These two postulates summarize the essence of Einstein's 1905 theory, which has come to be called his SPECIAL Theory of Relativity, to distinguish it from his later 1915 GENERAL Theory of Relativity. [Special Relativity applies only to so-called Inertial frames of reference moving at a constant speed, while General Relativity extends the ideas to frames of reference that are subject to acceleration, including the effects of gravity in the vicinity of a massive body. Some commentators including me (and even Einstein at one time :^) think these theories would have been better named the Special and General Theories of Invariability.]

The first postulate of Special Relativity establishes that ALL frames of reference are equal with respect to the applicability of the Laws of Nature. Some social commentators have, IMHO, over-interpreted the applicability of this idea, claiming that everything is relative,  including basic concepts of ethics. The actual meaning, IMHO, is the Invariability of the Laws of Nature, being the same to all observers, at all times and places.

The second postulate does away with the need for a "luminiferous ether" the then prevalent idea that light and other electromagnetic waves require a medium in which to propagate, the way sound waves require air, water or some other medium. Again, IMHO, some scientists have over-generalized that postulate to deny any concept of Absolute Space or Absolute Time. All Einstein says is that all attempts to measure the Speed of Light will yield the same value, which is another example of Invariability.

Quoting Einstein directly:

... the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. 

and

...The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

Thus, while sound waves require a medium for propagation, light and other electromagnetic waves do not. For example, assume I am some distance from a wall and I make a loud, sharp sound (such as a gunshot), and then measure the return-trip time between the original sound and the echo, I will measure a shorter time in still air than I will if there is a wind blowing the air towards or away from me.

The reason for this is that, for still air, the outbound and return trip will take exactly the same amount of time, while, for moving air, it will take longer for the sound going against-the-wind, and shorter for the sound going with-the-wind.

You might think the longer and shorter changes would cancel out, but that is not so, The against-the-wind slowdown will be greater than the with-the-wind speedup. To VISUALIZE that, imagine the extreme case where the wind is blowing at the speed of sound. The with-the-wind sound will get there at twice the speed of sound, but, the against-the-wind sound will never get there!

Not so with light and other electromagnetic waves. The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there was no difference in the return trip time for light signals aligned with the 67,000 Miles per Hour motion of the Earth around the Sun and those at right angles to that motion.

Thus, there is no "ether wind", but there are differences between Kinetic (and Potential) Energy levels experienced by different Observers. 

IS THERE ANY SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME?

Consider the so-called "Twin Paradox", where the stay-at-home twin will have aged more than the rapidly-moving travelling twin when they are reunited. This has been explained by the fact the travelling twin changes frames of reference when he turns around to come back home. True, but, IMHO, the real difference is that the travelling twin has spent his life at a higher speed and thus a higher level of Kinetic Energy than his stay-at-home sibling, and thus aged more slowly.

Alternatively, imagine a stay-at-home twin who spends her life on the surface of a massive body, while her travelling sibling goes on a slow-speed journey to far-away empty space, living most of his life far from any massive body, and then slowly returning. Which will age more slowly? Well, in this case it is the stay-at-home twin! IMHO, the real difference is that the stay-at-home twin has spent her life at higher gravitational acceleration, and thus a higher level of Potential Energy than her travelling sibling, and thus aged more slowly.

OOPS! If you bought the above explanation you have to ask: "Higher Kinetic or Potential Energy with respect to what?" Well, at least with respect to his or her sibling! Higher Kinetic Energy is based on being at a speed that is greater than the speed of some reference point, is it not? Similarly, higher Potential Energy is based on being under the influence of gravitational acceleration that is greater than the acceleration of some reference point, is it not?

Thus there is some point (such as the Center of Mass of the Universe?) or points (such as Lagrange points L4 and L5?) that have lower Kinetic and/or Potential Energy levels than others, and are thus special in that residents will age more rapidly there. Perhaps there is a point (or points) in the Universe where aging is more rapid than ANYWHERE ELSE. At that (perhaps imaginary) point or points, residents experience Absolute Time (and/or Space) and are truly "At Rest" because they are at some Absolute Zero Kinetic and/or Potential Energy level.

[Note: Lagrange points, L1 to L5, are where the combined gravitational pull of two large masses provides precisely the centripetal force required to orbit with them. L4 and L5 are stable.]

4- EQUIVALENCE OF MATTER AND ENERGY
This paper is merely the source of the World's Best-Known Equation, E=Mc2  

CONCLUSION

Four published papers. Pretty good work for a 26-year old in a single year - or a lifetime! 

Ira Glickstein 

VISUALIZING: for Science and Technology

Computer Model Visualization of Crash-Dummy

Nowadays it is common to use computer models, such as the crash-dummy in the adjacent image, to help us VISUALIZE and better understand complex situations and systems. Prior to the advent of computer models, we had to use mental models in our "mind's eye", along with physical aids such as paper maps and diagrams, modelling clay, and other means.

LINKS TO RELATED POSTINGS AND RESOURCES
VISUALIZING Relativity - PowerPoint Show
VISUALIZING Relativity - Excel Spreadsheet
VISUALIZING for Science and Technology - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING Einstein's "Miracle Year" - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING the "Twin Paradox" - Blog Posting

Albert Einstein was a great physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, as part of the thought process that resulted in his theories of Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915) he imagined himself riding along a beam of light; or as an observer standing along the tracks as a train zipped by at near-light-speed; or as a scientist sealed in a closed box and not able to tell if the box was stationary on the surface of the Earth, subject to gravity, or in deep space, far from massive objects, but subject to acceleration due to being dragged by a rocket at ever-increasing speeds.

VISUALIZING the Solution
Using Math and Graphics

Of course, Einstein and virtually all scientists and technologists use mathematical abstractions to quantify the meaning in our visualization models. We change the initial conditions and run these models to simulate what may or may not happen in different situations.

COMPUTER MODELS FOR VISUALIZATION

As personal computers and the Internet have become endemic, manual typewriters, paper maps, physical books, and so much else has been displaced by automated versions. Similarly, computer visualizations and models have displaced older methods - except for that old reliable "mind's eye" which remains as important as ever.

During my career as a Senior System Engineer at IBM and Lockheed-Martin I made extensive use of computer models and visualizations and have continued to do so since retirement.

In particular, I have created visualizations for the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect and Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

As a Guest Contributor to the World's most popular Climate site, I authored a four-part series on Visualizing the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect that attracted over 65,000 page views and over 2000 comments (see:  Physical Analogy,  Atmospheric Windows,  Emission Spectra, and Molecules and Photons,) The following graphics are some of the animated visualizations I created for that series.   

Physical Analogy

Model of a Physical Greenhouse

Model of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse"Effect

Modeled Down to Photons and Air Molecules

VISUALIZING EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY

Perhaps the most well-known equation in the world is E = mc2, recognized by virtually every person. But, what does it really mean?

And, many people know about the so-called "twin paradox", where one twin goes off on long mission at high speeds into space, and comes back younger. But why does this happen and exactly what causes it?

If "everything is relative" why isn't the stay-at-home twin also also younger? So, everything is not relative, and perhaps Einstein's original name for his theories "Invariance" is more apt -for the fact all observers, including those moving at different speeds, measure the same speed for light.

If the traveling twin is younger due to experiencing high speed and acceleration, then it is aging that has slowed down, not time, per se.

Furthermore, what, precisely, is TIME? And how is TIME united with SPACE to form SpaceTime?

When you Google any of this stuff you are quickly buried in equations and tensor mathematics that no one (even an engineer like me) can really understand!

Well, all this bothered me for most of my life until, back in 2012, I decided to answer Alan Alda's Flame Challenge "What is Time?" and produce a short video. In the research process for that project, I think I had a critical insight into TIME, SPACE, and RELATIVITY that may help you VISUALIZE this important scientific theory.

Time - the fourth dimension (2013 Flame Challenge) from Ira V Glickstein on Vimeo.

Since that time, I've continued to delve into Relativity and I've come up with what I think is a unique way to visualize and ... perhaps ... even understand it. The following images are screenshots from an Excel spreadsheet I created to provide myself (and you :^) a "hands-on" experience with the relativistic effects of high speed (kinetic energy) and high acceleration (potential energy), including time dilation, length contraction, and the curvature of SPACE and TIME. It is available free.

Free Excel Spreadsheet for VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

Image is of the Main Panel where user selects a Star, Planet, or Set Angle Option. In the case illustrated, the SpaceTime angle is set to 30º, where velocity is half the speed of light. This causes clocks to slow down by 13.4%, which corresponds to 49 days per year or 482 seconds per hour. Right side shows Special Relativity Effects due to the Kinetic Energy of moving at half the speed of light in empty Space. Left side shows equivalent General Relativity Effects, where Time "curves" due to the Potential Energy of being "at rest" close to a Black Hole.

Free Excel Spreadsheet for VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

Image is of the SpaceTime view of the right side of the Main Panel (where the vector sum of TRAVEL + AGING = 1) plus the Minkowski-Like SpaceTime view (where the simple sum of TRAVEL + AGING =1).  

Free Excel Spreadsheet for VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

Image is of the Minkowski-Like view (described above) compared to a Planck view, where both Space and Time are assumed to be discrete, and Each tiny cell is 1 Planck Time (tP ) by 1 Planck Length (ℓP).

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY!

As my principal PhD advisor, Howard Pattee, taught me, "The MAP is NOT the TERRITORY". That sage statement means that no model is exactly the same as the thing being modeled (else it would be the real thing.)

We make models because the real thing is too complex and difficult for us to visualize, or -like the Global Climate- is not readily available for us to experiment upon.

The MAP is NOT the TERRITORY !

Many a General (or football coach) has moved symbols around on a map of the field of battle, convincing himself and his staff of inevitable victory, only to find his opponent also had a model, perhaps a better one plus superior forces to carry it to victory. 

We generally model only the most important or critical parts of the situation or complex system we are trying to visualize. We consider the model to have been successful if the results match actuality to some level of fidelity, at least for those significant portions. If subsequent testing reveals that the model does not comport with reality, we must improve or discard it.

CONCLUSION

This is the first of what I believe will turn into a series detailing my VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Relativity. Please stay tuned!

Ira Glickstein

Flatland, Particle-Wave Duality and Super-Luminal Effects

The animated graphic above shows our 3-D Space plus Time view of the physical world and contrasts it with the very different view of "Flatlanders" who are restricted to 2-D Space plus Time.

This posting explores the possibility that insights from consideration of Flatland may be extended to higher dimensionality and shed light on Particle-Wave Duality and Super-Luminal (faster than light) effects such as those that may be associated with the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiments.

This is the second of a series. The first Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden Variables utilized "Flatland" analogies to explore what Feynman called "quantum weirdness" and Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". In particular, could it be that what we perceive as conflicts between ""particles" and "waves" are due to the limits of our perception to 3-D Space plus Time? If we imagine 4-D Space or higher dimensionality, could that help us better understand the "weirdness" and "spooky" nature of  Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Could we resolve questions about the Nature of the Universe such as deterministic vs probabilistic, discrete vs continuous, brain vs mind, and so on?

ANIMATED GRAPHIC

(a) and (b) in the graphic visualize "Particle-Wave Duality" based on the famous Double-Slit Experiment. In that experiment, sub-atomic objects, such as electrons or photons, act like either particles or waves, depending upon whether or not they are made to pass through a SINGLE or DOUBLE slit. If there is a SINGLE slit, they act like particles. If there is a DOUBLE slit, they act like waves.

(c) in the graphic visualizes "Super-luminal" (faster than the speed of light) effects such as those that may be associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment. In the EPR experiments, the actions of an experimenter "A" appear to instantly affect the results measured by distant experimenter "B".

In the animation, we start with a 3-D object that is a bent red plastic tube:

(a) The bent tube is dropped into Flatland and lands on a Flatland shape that has a SINGLE-width slit in it. As the slit is too narrow for the bent tube to pass thru in that Horizontal orientation, the bent tube bounces and rotates 90° to a Vertical position and penetrates Flatland, leaving only a portion of a nearly vertical part of the bent tube in Flatland. The Flatlanders explore that part (the  tiny yellow circle) and call it a "PARTICLE". 

(b) The bent tube is dropped into Flatland and lands on a Flatland shape that has a DOUBLE-width slit in it. As the slit is  wide enough for the bent tube to pass thru in that Horizontal orientation, the bent tube lands there and  lies flat in a Horizontal position. The Flatlanders explore that part (the yellow wave) and call it a "WAVE".

Note that a 90° rotation in 3-D Space changes a "PARTICLE-like" object into a "WAVE-like" object for Flatlanders, and vice-versa.

Recall that in the first posting of this series Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden Variables a 90° rotation in 3-D Space changed the appearance of a Cola can from a CIRCLE to a RECTANGLE as viewed by Flatlanders.

A 90° rotation in  higher-dimension world appears to change the basic form of an object in a lower-dimension world. A PARTICLE appears to be a WAVE, a CIRCLE appears to be a RECTANGLE, and vice-versa.

Although not illustrated in the graphic, it turns out that a 180°rotation in a higher-dimensional world changes an object into its MIRROR-image as viewed in a lower-dimensional world.

(c) A human hand penetrates Flatland and is viewed by Flatlanders as five disconnected small yellow circles (or "PARTICLES"). A Flatland triangle-shape happens to touch the pinky of the human hand and the hand reacts by thrusting out its thumb, which happens to push a Flatland square-shape.

The Flatlanders are amazed that touching one PARTICLE (the pinky) causes a totally disconnected and distant PARTICLE (the thumb) to react "instantly" with no apparent means of communication. If we assume the highest speed of communication within Flatland is slower than the 3-D speed of light, to the Flatlanders this reaction seems to be SUPER-luminal (faster than light).


APPLYING FLATLANDER INSIGHT TO QUANTUM MECHANICS In my recent Dialog with Howard Pattee, we speculated on whether the Universe is actually probabilistic, which is the mainstream scientific view, or deterministic, which is definitely the minority view. I speculated that extending the Flatland scenario beyond 2-D and 3-D Space to 4-D and higher-dimensionality, might support an alternative QM interpretation such as that of David Bohm.


In a future posting, I plan to create an animated graphic that visualizes a 4-D Space world in which what we perceive as a PARTICLE-WAVE duality is actually a single object (Bohm's "pilot wave") as perceived by denizens of 4-D world.

Ira Glickstein 

Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden Variables

The animated graphic above shows our 3-D Space plus Time view of the physical world and contrasts it with the very different view of "Flatlanders" who are restricted to 2-D Space plus Time. This posting explores the possibility that insights from consideration of Flatland may be extended to higher dimensionality and shed light on what Feynman called "quantum weirdness" and Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".

In particular, could it be that what we perceive as conflicts between "particles" and "waves" are due to the limits of our perception to 3-D Space plus Time? If we imagine 4-D Space or higher dimensionality, could that help us better understand the "weirdness" and "spooky" nature of Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Could we resolve questions about the Nature of the Universe such as deterministic vs probabilistic, discrete vs continuous, brain vs mind, and so on?

ANIMATED GRAPHIC

Things we recognize as the same appear different to Flatlanders: 3-D Space residents recognize a can of cola as being the exact same object (a cylindrical solid) regardless of whether it is upright or on its side. However, when a 3-D can of cola intrudes upon the 2-D Space of Flatlanders, they see it as several different kinds of figures depending upon its orientation.

At the left edge of the graphic, the can is upright, and, to the Flatlanders, it appears as a CIRCLE of CONSTANT DIAMETER. When an identical can of cola is on its side, the Flatlanders first see a LINE as the lower part of the can intrudes upon their 2-D Space. Then, as the can is lowered, the LINE transforms into a NARROW RECTANGLE. As the can is lowered further, the RECTANGLE WIDENS. So, what is it? A CIRCLE? A LINE? A VARIABLE WIDTH RECTANGLE?

To we 3-D Space persons, the can is one, and only one, 3-D object, a CYLINDRICAL SOLID. To the Flatlanders, it is several different 1-D and 2-D objects.

Things we recognize as different appear the same to Flatlanders: Continuing to view the animated graphic, we see that a ball appears to us to be a 3-D SPHERE. To the Flatlanders, it is first a 0-D POINT, then a 2-D CIRCLE OF VARIABLE DIAMETER.

Furthermore, when the 3-D SPHERE intrudes such that the diameter of the Flatlander's 2-D CIRCLE is the same as the diameter of the upright can, they cannot distinguish between the can and the ball!

Things we recognize as a single object appear as multiple objects to Flatlanders: Continuing to view the graphic, when a moving 3-D hand intrudes into the 2-D Space, the Flatlanders see a wide variety of 0-D, 1-D, and 2-D objects. At first, when only three fingertips intrude, they see three POINTS. Then, as the fingers penetrate further, they see four small CIRCLES plus a POINT representing the thumb. Further penetration of the hand, beyond the wrist, yields an OVAL as viewed by Flatlanders.

APPLYING FLATLANDER INSIGHT TO QUANTUM MECHANICS

In my recent Dialog with Howard Pattee, we speculated on whether the Universe is actually probabilistic, which is the mainstream scientific view, or deterministic, which is definitely the minority view. I speculated that extending the Flatland scenario beyond 2-D and 3-D Space to 4-D and higher-dimensionality, might support an alternative QM interpretation such as that of David Bohm. This posting, which advocates what may be termed "Superdeterminism", is my attempt to support this alternate view.

Classical Physics vs Quantum Physics

Classical physicists accepted the view that the Universe is deterministic and this was the view of  Spinoza, Einstein, Bohm, (and it is also what I -Ira- would like to believe :^).

Quantum physicists generally accept the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of QM which is that the Universe is probabilistic. In our discussion, Howard supported the view that the Universe is probabilistic. While I accept the general consensus that the probabilistic interpretation of QM has stood the test of time and correctly predicted and explained the results of all experiments conducted to date, I nevertheless take the other view.

The Double Slit Experiment - Particles vs Waves

The Double Slit Experiment demonstrates that photons (or electrons) behave like particles when only one slit is open, but like waves when there are two slits. This raises the question: Is matter in general, or sub-atomic matter in particular, really waves or really particles, or something else?

Perhaps residents of a 4-D Space world would see matter as a single type of object and understand why we 3-D Space world residents sometimes see a wave and sometimes a particle? (The can of cola in the graphic above, which we in the 3-D Space world recognize as a single object no matter its orientation, is observed by Flatlanders either a circle with a continuous edge -or- as a line or rectangle with discrete edges.)

The EPR Paradox - Locality vs Realism

Einstein believed that the Universe exhibited both "Locality" (the influence of a distant event cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light) and "Realism" (the value of a measurement exists before the measurement is made). Experiments conducted in the 1980's appear to prove him wrong and indicate that we must choose between "Locality" and "Realism" - we cannot have both!

I believe Einstein, if he had to choose, would pick "Realism" over "Locality", meaning that a distant event could exert an influence faster than the speed of light. However, perhaps residents of a 4-D Space world would see that the 3-D Space world was curled up within the 4-D Space world such that objects that appear distant in 3-D Space are actually much closer in 4-D Space. In the graphic above, the fingers of the hand appear to Flatlanders as unconnected points or circles, but we, in the 3-D Space world see that they are all parts of a single object.

A cornerstone of the mainstream scientific interpretation of QM is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (1927), which is that it is impossible to exactly measure both the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle.

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a paper that proposed a thought experiment ("EPR") designed to show that Heisenberg Uncertainty was not correct and that QM, as understood and interpreted at the time, was not complete. The EPR idea was to have an experimenter produce two electrons (or photons) that were "entangled" such that they would fly apart at the same velocity in opposite directions and with opposite momentum.

An experimenter at location A would measure the exact time of arrival (and thus velocity) of particle A and a second experimenter at location B (the exact distance in the opposite direction) would measure the momentum of particle B. Since the particles have the same velocity and opposite momenta, this experiment would yield the exact position and momentum of the particles.

According to Wikipedia:

In his groundbreaking 1964 paper, "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox", physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to EPR's hypothetical paradox. Using their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). After providing a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, he showed specific cases where this would be inconsistent with the predictions of QM.

In 1982, Alain Aspect performed an experiment that did not turn out well for Einstein's expectations. Aspect (and others) experimentally showed that QM was correct and that Einstein's expectations for both "locality" and "realism" could not be supported. In short, you either had to choose "locality" or "realism", but not both!

Einstein had passed away by the time the EPR experiments overturned his expectations. I believe, given the choice, he would insist upon "realism" and abandon "locality". In other words, he would accept that the action of an experimenter "Alice" at point A could instantaneously affect the results obtained by "Bob" at distant point B! (Please note that the EPR experiments did NOT show that INFORMATION could be transmitted from point A to point B faster than the speed of light, only that the actions of the distant experimenter could influence the results obtained locally.)

"Quantum Non-Locality":  The mainstream view of QM is founded on what Feynman called "quantum weirdness" and Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance". The technical term is "quantum non-locality" which means that microscopic measurements may reveal that sub-atomic "particles" that happen to be far apart in Space may never-the-less be "entangled" such that measurement of the state of one "particle" superluminally (faster than the speed of  light) affects the state of the other, no matter how far away it might be!

According to the mainstream view, the action of an experimenter "Alice" at point A could instantaneously affect the results obtained by "Bob" at distant point B! Despite the apparent "weirdness", Feynman accepts the mainstream view. However, Einstein clung to what is now termed "local realism", which is the view that the Universe has both "Locality" and "Realism".

"Locality" means that an object is DIRECTLY influenced ONLY by its immediate surroundings. Thus, the influence of a distant event will be delayed by a length of Time that is at least the distance multiplied by the speed of light. "Locality" is NOT a property of the mainstream interpretation of QM.

"Realism" means that all objects have a VALUE for any possible measurement and that this value EXISTS PRIOR to the measurement. According to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM seems to entail that a cat in a sealed box may be both dead and alive until an experimenter opens the box and looks into it! According to that view, the "collapse of the wave function" requires the intervention of a CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, the Moon may not exist if no one is currently observing it. "Realism" is NOT a property of the mainstream interpretation of QM.

Superdeterminism

According to Wikipedia:

John Bell discussed "Superdeterminism" in a BBC interview.  

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.  

Although he [Bell]  acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible. Even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be "effectively free for the purpose at hand," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects. It is unlikely for the hidden variable to be sensitive to all of the same small influences that the random number generator was. 

Superdeterminism has also been criticized because of perceived implications regarding the validity of science itself. For example, Anton Zeilinger has commented: "[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature."

As I read the above objections to Superdeterminism (or as I usually call it "Absolute or Strict Causality") it seems to me that Bell and Zeilinger are wrong to assume that the experimenter is "effectively free" or "we always assume the freedom of the experimentalist". As Bell acknowledges in the quote above, it is well known that what we commonly call a "random" number generator running in a digital computer is actually bit-for-bit DETERMINISTIC. That is, if we repeatedly start the "random" number generator with a given key number, the computer will repeat the exact same sequence of supposedly "random" numbers AND that sequence will pass statistical tests of "randomness"!

We all agree that a digital computer is a discrete, finite, deterministic machine. According to my view, so is the Universe. Yes, the Universe is much, much, much more complex, but it, and all biological organisms within the Universe, including humans, are machines! 


[UPDATE 29 Dec 2013] I have posted a follow-up to this Topic, with a new animated graphic, that extends the Flatland 2-D Space vs our 3-D Space dichotomy into higher dimensionality to further explore implications for our understanding of QM, see Flatland, Particle-Wave Duality and Super-Luminal Effects.

Ira Glickstein