Nothing special about Quantum Mechanics any more
FrediFizzx
coupled with Christoph Schiller's strand model of knots and tangles
[6,7], I would have to say there is really not much left to disspell
about any mysteries of quantum mechanics. It is simply what you use to
predict the more random behavior of nature. And classical physics is
what you use to predict the more ordered behavior of nature. Of course
there is more of the random behavior at the microscopic scale. And I
believe that you can even mix the two for successful predictions of
nature's behavior in some cases. So I restate my humble opinion again
that classical-quantum is a duality; one does not exist without the
other much as order does not exist without randomness (chaos) and versa
vice.
It also seems to me that we must use quantum mechanics because of the
REAL wave nature of the microcosm. Which I believe is caused by
relativistic effects and quantum "vacuum" effects. And that the
complete real wave behavior is unknown to us thus the use of the
probabilistic interpretation was successful because of that. Can we
ever know the real wave behavior?
[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1333
[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703244
[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
[6] http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905
[7] http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> With the advent of Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem [1-5] and
> coupled with Christoph Schiller's strand model of knots and tangles
> [6,7], I would have to say there is really not much left to disspell
> about any mysteries of quantum mechanics.
Sorry, I heavily disagree. I have refuted above proposals here and
in sci.physics.research. Above authors know my criticism but have
not given any counterarguments.
Quantum theory is, of course, much less mysterious than usually
presented. But this is clear from de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory,
which is a published theory and acknowledged by a sufficient
large number of working scientists.
If you are interested in simple explanations of the standard model,
see my theory ilja-schmelzer.de/clm. It is also published.
Of course, "published or not" is only a weak superficial criterion,
but
I'm certainly ready to defend my own theory, pilot wave theory,
as well as the thesis that above proposals are nonsense in detail
here, in case somebody wants to defend them.
FrediFizzx
"Ilja" <ilja.sc...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e5fb2c7c-bc9d-4e39...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Nov., 07:17, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> With the advent of Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem [1-5]
>> and
>> coupled with Christoph Schiller's strand model of knots and tangles
>> [6,7], I would have to say there is really not much left to disspell
>> about any mysteries of quantum mechanics.
>
> Sorry, I heavily disagree. I have refuted above proposals here and
> in sci.physics.research. Above authors know my criticism but have
> not given any counterarguments.
Well, I have studied all of Christian's papers and your comments on SPR
and find that Christian is correct. Could you please point out exactly
where in this paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259
that he goes wrong and why he goes wrong. I don't see it.
> Quantum theory is, of course, much less mysterious than usually
> presented. But this is clear from de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory,
> which is a published theory and acknowledged by a sufficient
> large number of working scientists.
But of course it still has the problems of non-locality and a preferred
frame. Schiller's model only has non-locality across a Planck length so
not really non-local for us.
> If you are interested in simple explanations of the standard model,
> see my theory ilja-schmelzer.de/clm. It is also published.
I have studied those and am not totally convinced.
> Of course, "published or not" is only a weak superficial criterion,
> but
> I'm certainly ready to defend my own theory, pilot wave theory,
> as well as the thesis that above proposals are nonsense in detail
> here, in case somebody wants to defend them.
Well, I am probably not the best person to try to defend them, but will
give it a shot to see if we can get a coherent discussion going. I just
don't see the necessity of a preferred frame to explain all of physics
(perhaps you can explain on the group here why you think it is
necessary?). Neither does Schiller. However, I am not sure that I
agree totally with his strand model. I am still studying his book at,
The more I read of it, the more convinced I am becoming though. I have
always been leaning toward "branes" as elements of a relativistic medium
for the quantum "vacuum". And not like the branes of superstring
theory. But I see that Schiller's model is somewhat like my branes with
tails. Another thing about Schiller's model is the hierarchy problem.
I don't see yet how his model can address that. I actually like some of
the Randall-Sundrum models for addressing that. So not sure he is yet
correct about using Planck length, etc. Have you actually read any of
the linked book above?
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> Well, I have studied all of Christian's papers and your comments on SPR
Ok, will be done.
> > Quantum theory is, of course, much less mysterious than usually
> > presented. But this is clear from de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory,
> > which is a published theory and acknowledged by a sufficient
> > large number of working scientists.
>
> But of course it still has the problems of non-locality and a preferred
> frame. �ｿｽSchiller's model only has non-locality across a Planck length so
> not really non-local for us.
First, I don't see a preferred frame as a problem. It is a necessity,
indirectly observed by violations of Bell's inequality.
> > If you are interested in simple explanations of the standard model,
> > see my theory ilja-schmelzer.de/clm. It is also published.
>
> I have studied those and am not totally convinced.
It is extremely simple and gives a lot - the SM fermions,
(192 different real field components), the Dirac equation
on it, the SM gauge group and, even more, its action on the
fermions (a 12-dimensional subgroup of O(192)) is a lot
of information recovered.
Which places do not convince you?
> > Of course, "published or not" is only a weak superficial criterion,
> > but
> > I'm certainly ready to defend my own theory, pilot wave theory,
> > as well as the thesis that above proposals are nonsense in detail
> > here, in case somebody wants to defend them.
>
> Well, I am probably not the best person to try to defend them, but will
> give it a shot to see if we can get a coherent discussion going. �ｿｽI just
> don't see the necessity of a preferred frame to explain all of physics
> (perhaps you can explain on the group here why you think it is
> necessary?).
Short version: Bell's inequality follows from Einstein causality and
realism.
For a realist, Einstein causality is therefore falsified.
More detailed: If it is (can be) violated for arbitrary pairs of
events (plausible)
and if there exists some notion of causality between events without
closed
causal loops, there is only one possibility: For all pairs of events A-
>B or
B->A. If you have such a complete notion of causality, you can define
absolute contemporaneity for an even A by the intersection of the
closures
of those events which can be influenced by A (future) and of those who
can
influence A (past). This defines the preferred foliation.
>�ｿｽHave you actually read any of the linked book above?
I think so. I have downloaded a lot from his page. (Downloading
again for any case, will see later.)
Oh No
>> On 8 Nov., 07:17, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> With the advent of Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem [1-5]
>>>and
>>> coupled with Christoph Schiller's strand model of knots and tangles
>>> [6,7], I would have to say there is really not much left to disspell
>>> about any mysteries of quantum mechanics.
>
>Well, I have studied all of Christian's papers and your comments on SPR
>and find that Christian is correct. Could you please point out exactly
>where in this paper,
>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259
>
>that he goes wrong and why he goes wrong. I don't see it.
I don't see where he goes right. I am not sure what all the discussion
of S^k is about, because I don't recognise it as having much to do with
proofs of Bell's theorem I have seen, and it looks like just a load of
waffle, misapplying concepts from pure maths without really
understanding what they are. Moreover, when I look at fig 2, and see
what he describes as "incorrect" and "correct" topologies, it simply
looks to me that he has failed to grasp what happens in the collapse of
the wave function, and labelled "correct" and "incorrect" incorrectly
(lol).
But even if he had found a fault with Bell's theorem, it would miss the
point of EPR, which was a way of highlighting the fundamental problem
with the collapse of the wave function, which is that it apparently
requires a non-local action. Of course Ilja says that's fine, we have
non-local actions. I say that non local actions are no more fine to me
than they were to Newton.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
FrediFizzx
news:vApNghAwDG$KF...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
Sheesh Charles, this is not that complicated. Even I can understand what
he is showing. But the bottom line is that using the topology he did he
can get the same predictions as quantum mechanics thus that is enough to
disprove Bell's theorem. It only takes one counter example to disprove a
theorem. He is not trying to prove Bell's theorem; he is disproving it
with counter examples.
> But even if he had found a fault with Bell's theorem, it would miss
> the
> point of EPR, which was a way of highlighting the fundamental problem
> with the collapse of the wave function, which is that it apparently
> requires a non-local action. Of course Ilja says that's fine, we have
> non-local actions. I say that non local actions are no more fine to me
> than they were to Newton.
I do believe that he has successfully demonstrated that it is possible
to arrive at the Bell inequalities classically via using the correct
topology for an EPR experiment. That is sufficient to disprove Bell's
theorem theoretically. Of course the real proof in the pudding would be
to do the classical experiment. Which I believe he is correct in that
no one has ever tried. He is saying that EPR still stands and that
quantum mechanics is not a complete theory of nature. So he does not
miss the point of EPR. Of course, I completely agree with that since I
think it takes both quantum and classical mechanics to fully describe
nature up to the Planck scale if there is such a thing.
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
> On 12 Nov., 06:52, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, I have studied all of Christian's papers and your comments on
>> SPR
>> that he goes wrong and why he goes wrong. I don't see it.
>
> Ok, will be done.
Soon, I hope. It looks very plain to me that he has indeed shown a
counter example that disproves Bell's theorem theoretically.
>> > Quantum theory is, of course, much less mysterious than usually
>> > presented. But this is clear from de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
>> > theory,
>> > which is a published theory and acknowledged by a sufficient
>> > large number of working scientists.
>>
>> But of course it still has the problems of non-locality and a
>> preferred
>> frame. Schiller's model only has non-locality across a Planck length
>> so
>> not really non-local for us.
>
> First, I don't see a preferred frame as a problem. It is a necessity,
> indirectly observed by violations of Bell's inequality.
>
>> > If you are interested in simple explanations of the standard model,
>> > see my theory ilja-schmelzer.de/clm. It is also published.
>>
>> I have studied those and am not totally convinced.
>
> It is extremely simple and gives a lot - the SM fermions,
> (192 different real field components), the Dirac equation
> on it, the SM gauge group and, even more, its action on the
> fermions (a 12-dimensional subgroup of O(192)) is a lot
> of information recovered.
>
> Which places do not convince you?
I know you would like to get some more valid criticism of your theory
but I would like to keep this thread focused mainly on the issue of
Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem for now. I could only give some
general criticism that a preferred frame is not required as already
mentioned for now. I do like quite a bit of your theory but it is
difficult to completely understand (for me). As I have also mentioned
before.
>> > Of course, "published or not" is only a weak superficial criterion,
>> > but
>> > I'm certainly ready to defend my own theory, pilot wave theory,
>> > as well as the thesis that above proposals are nonsense in detail
>> > here, in case somebody wants to defend them.
>>
>> Well, I am probably not the best person to try to defend them, but
>> will
>> give it a shot to see if we can get a coherent discussion going. I
>> just
>> don't see the necessity of a preferred frame to explain all of
>> physics
>> (perhaps you can explain on the group here why you think it is
>> necessary?).
>
> Short version: Bell's inequality follows from Einstein causality and
> realism.
> For a realist, Einstein causality is therefore falsified.
Well, this all goes to whether or not Bell's theorem is falsified.
Doesn't it? :-)
> More detailed: If it is (can be) violated for arbitrary pairs of
> events (plausible)
> and if there exists some notion of causality between events without
> closed
> causal loops, there is only one possibility: For all pairs of events
> A-
>>B or
> B->A. If you have such a complete notion of causality, you can define
> absolute contemporaneity for an even A by the intersection of the
> closures
> of those events which can be influenced by A (future) and of those who
> can
> influence A (past). This defines the preferred foliation.
I am not sure I get the connection you are making here. Schiller is
pretty convincing that a unified description of nature can't be
described as a manifold.
>> Have you actually read any of the linked book above?
>
> I think so. I have downloaded a lot from his page. (Downloading
> again for any case, will see later.)
Good, as it would be nice to be able to have a common reference for
discussion.
Best,
Fred Diether
Oh No
Well, no. And that is my objection. He seems to spend several pages
explaining a useful content which should amount to a few lines. I
dislike this sort of thing because it is unnecessary, and makes finding
errors like looking for a needle in a haystack. I see it as a device
which often pulls the wool, albeit unwittingly, over the author's eyes.
>Even I can understand what he is showing. But the bottom line is that
>using the topology he did he can get the same predictions as quantum
>mechanics thus that is enough to disprove Bell's theorem. It only takes
>one counter example to disprove a theorem. He is not trying to prove
>Bell's theorem; he is disproving it with counter examples.
>
>> But even if he had found a fault with Bell's theorem, it would miss
>>the
>> point of EPR, which was a way of highlighting the fundamental problem
>> with the collapse of the wave function, which is that it apparently
>> requires a non-local action. Of course Ilja says that's fine, we have
>> non-local actions. I say that non local actions are no more fine to me
>> than they were to Newton.
>
>I do believe that he has successfully demonstrated that it is possible
>to arrive at the Bell inequalities classically via using the correct
>topology for an EPR experiment.
He does a great deal of saying this is the correct topology, but I don't
see that he establishes that it is the correct topology.
Ilja
Let's start with section V. While unimportant for the main point,
it shows some really funny places already at a first look.
p.23:
Equation (148) defines some homomorphism between the
(additive) Hilbert space (which one?) and S^3, together with
a comment "Thus—since any such group homomorphism is designed to
preserve the group structure—we see that in this case the
group properties (144) to (146) of S^3 are inherited from the
group properties of H itself (viewed as an additive group)."
That's funny. To inherit a group structure on the image one
needs an epimorphism, but H is commutative and S^3 not, so
the image of such a mao can be at most a commutative subgroup
of S^3, thus, at most S^1.
> If | Ψa> and | Ψb> are two
> vectors in a Hilbert space H representing a quantum system,
> and Aa and Bb are two points of a topological space Ω,
> then Ω is the topological space of the corresponding EPR
> elements of reality if there exists a morphism m : H → Ω
> (in the concrete category of topological spaces) such that
> ... (149)
That's really funny, because one can easily find different
examples of "_the_ topological space of the corresponding
EPR elements of reality": One is H itself, with addition
denoted now by multiplication, the other is the trivial
set {1}. So which of them is supposed to be _the_ space?
These two points illustrate that there is more to object
in this paper, even if the main point would be correct.
Let's focus now on the main point - the confusion between
the proposals for various "elements of reality" living
in S^2, S^3, or some Clifford algebra and the actual
measurement results giving the probability distribution
rho(A,B|a,b) and used to compute the actual expectation
values E(a,b) following the well-defined prescription
E(a,b) = int AB rho(A,B|a,b).
This is only a shortcut for E(AB|a,b), where
E(f|a,b) = int f(A,B) rho(A,B|a,b)
and f(A,B) can be an arbitrary function on the measurement
results. The main point is that the set X of values of A,B
and the function f(A,B) on X are fixed in the experiment.
One can make other experiments, with other spaces X of
what is measured, and other functions f(A,B) on it. But
once the experiment is made, the E(f|a,b) computed, and
some inequality proven, it remains to explain these and only
these results, and not others.
The central error is therefore
> On the counterexample side, the question then is:
> how should one correctly calculate the correlations
> between the EPR elements of reality in general?
No, this is not the question. Once the experiment is
made as it is made, the space of measurement results
X = {-1,1}, the function f(A,B) = AB, and the resulting
E(a,b) are already given, facts, to change them would
require to change the experiment itself or the procedure
of the evaluation of the data.
There is therefore no question about the "correct"
f(A,B) or the "correct" space X of measurement results,
or the "correct" correlations E(a,b).
Reacting to this criticism, Christian tries to present
his considerations as if they are in agreement with
the {+-1} as measurement results and the f(A,B)=AB,
characterizing their relation with phrases like
"a binary number in disguise, +1 or −1" and
"are in harmony with how the data from the two
ends of the apparatus is usually analyzed".
The countermeasure is to trace in detail the
different spaces and objects used by Christian
and the embedding and extraction procedures
between them and the measurement results.
p.5:
> A(n, λ) = ± 1 ∈ S^2 , about the direction n in R^3 . (10)
Let's distinguish: A(n,l) are Bell's {-1,1} valued functions,
and A*(n,l) Christian's functions. Their relation is in
usual denotations
A*(n,l) = A(n,l) n.
Once n is in S^2, A*(n,l) is too, but and A(n,l) in {-1,+1}.
An important difference. The inverse formula is
A(n,l) = <A*(n,l),n>
(<,> is the standard Euklidean scalar product).
p.8 below:
Here we have quite confusing text, nonsensical from mathematical point
of
view, where points of S^2 and S^3 appear in equations with +1 or -1 on
the
other side. One can make sense of them using the appropriate formulas
above
to modify them appropriately:
A*(a,l) = A(a,l) a
B*(b,l) = B(b,l) b
A*(a,l)*B*(b,l) = A(a,l)B(b,l) a * b.
with a,b in S^2 subset S^3 and * the product in S^3 so that a*b is in
S^3.
Then we need, again, an extraction formula to obtain the measurement
results:
A(a,l)B(b,l) = < A*(a,l)*B*(b,l), a * b> in {+1,-1}
instead of talking dubiously about +-1 values "in disguise".
p.10:
> We are now well equipped to compute the topologically
> correct local-realistic correlations between the EPR elements
> of reality - i.e., correlations between the points of a 2-sphere
> rather than the real line. Using equation (30) (which
> corresponds to an embedded picture of S 2 into IR3 ),
> we immediately see that the correct correlations are given by
> int A*(a,l)*B*(b,l) d rho(l) = ... (33)
I have already changed here (33) using the denotations proposed above.
This gives simply
E*(a,b) = int A(a,l)B(b,l) d rho(l) a * b = E(a,b) a*b
Thus, the "correct" expectation value is not a real expectation
value,
but some element of R^4. It is also "only" Bell's expectation value
E(a,b) "in disguise". But it is different, and the expectation values
used in Bell's inequality are the E(a,b), and not the E*(a,b).
Now it is obvious that Bell has proposed an inequality for the E(a,b)
instead of the E*(a,b). So to see if they hold, one has, at first, to
extract the real-valued E(a,b) from the quaternion-valued E*(a,b) by
the formula
E(a,b) = <E*(a,b),a*b>.
Adding or substracting the E*(a,b) instead of the E(a,b) is something
completely different and has nothing to do with checking Bell's
inequality. So, what Christian has found is a realistic model which
violates Christian's inequality - the result of replacing E(a,b)
with E*(a,b) in whatever variant of Bell's inequality. But who cares
about Christian's inequality?
Should Bell have considered the "correct" E*(a,b) instead of the
E(a,b)? Laughable. Bell is free to consider whatever function
f(A,B), and whatever function on the resulting E(f|a,b) he likes.
To make his point, it is sufficient that there exists some
function f (however dirty, like sin(AB) + exp(A+B)) and some
expression of the E(a,b) (also however dirty) so that the
resulting expression for local realistic theories fulfills an
inequality or equality violated by quantum theory.
This is essentially all - below some quotes to support this
interpretation of Christian's text.
The only point in my posting to Christian after this rereading
which would be worth to change is the almost final paragraph:
"No. They don't meet the basic criterion for every realistic
explanation - to explain what has to be explained, instead
of explaining something completely different, with A', B' in
S^2 and some product A' x B' in S^3, which has nothing to do
with the expectation values for the product AB computed from
the observables A,B in {-1,1}."
Here our formulas have established now some relation
between the E*(a,b) computed by Christian and the
E(a,b). And while this relation appears simpler than
I had expected when I had written the paragraph above,
it is now even more clear that the two are different.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> These are important properties, not only because they are demanded by
> Bell’s formulation of local causality [9], but
> also because they are in harmony with how the data from the two ends
> of the apparatus is usually analyzed in a
> typical Bell-type experiment. And as such they must be respected
> by any local-realistic model for the EPR-Bohm correlations.
"In harmony" sounds nice but doesn't change the necessity to
distinguish the objects in harmony once they are different.
> This amounts to replacing the incorrect local maps (2)
> of Bell with the topologically correct local maps
The formulas connecting above expressions show that there
are no "topologically correct" or "incorrect" variants,
but that one can use the one which is preferable for
whatever reasons.
The measurement results themself are the A(a,l), not the
A*(a,l), which is a good reason to prefer the A(a,l).
> Since Bell begins his theorem with a pair of
> incorrect maps like (2), he forfeits his game from the start.
> For the straw man he thereby knocks off has nothing to do
> with the EPR elements of reality.
The elements of reality are, indeed, the l, and not the
A(a,l), which are observables. But this confusion is Christian's,
not Bell's.
> In fact, it is quite astonishing that Bell thought correlations
> between the points of a real line have anything at all to do with
> the correlations between the elements of reality.
What is astonishing is that Christian thinks that the space of
measurement results {-1,1} has anything to do with a real line,
and that the A(a,l) have anything to do with elements of reality
in the EPR sense (which are the l).
> To appreciate our amazement further, recall that Bell’s ultimate goal was to conclude that
> int A(a,λ) B(b,λ) dρ(λ) cannot be equal to <Ψ_n | σ · a ⊗ σ · b |Ψ_n> (14)
> for the entangled state (7), and hence no local-realistic correlations can reproduce
> the quantum mechanical correlations.
> But this is quite a meaningless comparison, because the right hand side of the above
> expression describes correlations between the points of a 2-sphere, whereas the left
> hand side describes those between the points of the real line.
Above are real numbers, thus, can be compared. The comparison is
certainly not meaningless, instead, is the aim of the exercise:
To show that no local realistic theory can give the quantum
predictions.
Instead, it is Christian who equalizes elements of different spaces
like S^3 and {-1,1}.
p.6:
> That is to say, whatever scheme is used to calculate the correlations between the
> EPR elements of reality, it must account for the fact that these elements are the
> points of a 2-sphere, not the real line.
Whatever scheme is used to calculate the correlations between the
binary
measurement results, it must account for the fact that these
measurement results
are binary values. And it must account for the fact that the
correlations are
computed by multiplying these binary values following the rules
1*1=-1*-1=1,
1*-1=-1*1=-1. And that the result of this, the thing which is used in
the inequalities,
is a real number E(a,b) instead of a quaternion E*(a,b).
p.7:
> But, once again, these inequalities have nothing whatsoever to do with the
> correlations between the EPR elements
> of reality. For the correlations between the EPR elements of reality
> are correlations between the points of a 2-sphere,
> whereas the correlations from which these inequalities
> are derived are those between the points of the real line.
Indeed, the inequalities have nothing to do with correlations between
some unknown EPR elements of reality, but with the observable and
easily computable correlations between measurement results. And also
nothing to do with real lines, only with the space of possible
measurement
results {-1,1}.
> On the counterexample side, the question then is: how should one correctly
> calculate the correlations between the EPR elements of reality in general?
E(f|ab) should be computed using the real function f(A,B)=AB, and
nothing else.
Because this is what is checked in the actual experiments.
p.8
> The important point here is that, in this remarkably
> general formulation of the standard probability theory,
> the codomain of the functions A(λ) is not restricted to be a
> subset of the real line.
Certainly. One can use whatever measurments you like: Measure colors
of
pixels in a picture, and the space of measurement results X may become
quite large. And you are also free to compute expectation values
for arbitrary functions f(x) of your measurement results x in X.
And all this in dependence on whatever input parameters i in I you
like.
But once the experiment is done, and the experimenter has computed
some E(f|i) = int f(x) rho(x|i), the game is finished. Those who have
to explain the results of this particular experiment are now bounded,
the can no longer change X, f, I, or the formula for E(f|i) from
rho(x|i).
> The Product Point Theorem: The product of any two points of a
> 2-sphere is a point of a 3-sphere.
Highly confusing. One can embed S^2 into S^3 and S^3 has a group
structure. But one can also embed S^2 into R^3 as the unit sphere,
and R^3 is also an (additive) group. So, with the same right we can
say that the product of any two points of a 2-sphere is a point in
R^3.
There is no such animal as a "product of points of a 2-sphere".
p.12
> The reader should therefore guard against any psychological
> tendency to see structure within the
> symbol µ · n, other than a binary measurement result “ ± 1 about n.”
Certainly not. The element of the Clifford algebra has to be
clearly distinguished from the measurement result +- 1.
Ilja
> Thus spake FrediFizzx <fredifi...@hotmail.com>
> >I do believe that he has successfully demonstrated that it is possible
> >to arrive at the Bell inequalities classically via using the correct
> >topology for an EPR experiment.
> He does a great deal of saying this is the correct topology, but I don't
> see that he establishes that it is the correct topology.
And the needle is he replaces the experiment he is supposed to
explain by a "correct" one nobody cares about.
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > Short version: Bell's inequality follows from Einstein causality and
> > realism.
> > For a realist, Einstein causality is therefore falsified.
>
> Well, this all goes to whether or not Bell's theorem is falsified.
> Doesn't it? �:-)
Indeed. I like Bell's theorem a lot. One of my best arguments,
and the best one I have taken from others ;-)
Would I otherwise care about some unpublished IMHO crank papers?
> I am not sure I get the connection you are making here.
That's only some completion to make sure that the violation
of BI gives a preferred frame, given Bell's theorem.
So if you accept Bell and realism, you have to accept a
preferred frame.
>�Schiller is
> pretty convincing that a unified description of nature can't be
> described as a manifold.
Doesn't matter much. His pictures do make sense only for
something in 3D space. (They don't even there, but that's
another question.)
maxwell
> With the advent of Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem [1-5] and
> coupled with Christoph Schiller's strand model of knots and tangles
> [6,7], I would have to say there is really not much left to disspell
> about any mysteries of quantum mechanics. �It is simply what you use to
> predict the more random behavior of nature. And classical physics is
> what you use to predict the more ordered behavior of nature. �Of course
> there is more of the random behavior at the microscopic scale. �And I
> believe that you can even mix the two for successful predictions of
> nature's behavior in some cases. �So I restate my humble opinion again
> that classical-quantum is a duality; one does not exist without the
> other much as order does not exist without randomness (chaos) and versa
> vice.
>
interact with each other than there are 'near' macro-objects, so the
complexity overwhelms the simple 2-body approach characteristic of
classical mechanics. Physicists need to remember that even with 'wave-
mechanics', the simple helium atom has still eluded a solution, just
like Newton's 3-body problem (probably why he gave up on physics &
spent the majority of his life studying religion).
> It also seems to me that we must use quantum mechanics because of the
> REAL wave nature of the microcosm. �Which I believe is caused by
> relativistic effects and quantum "vacuum" effects. �And that the
> complete real wave behavior is unknown to us thus the use of the
> probabilistic interpretation was successful because of that. �Can we
> ever know the real wave behavior?
>
Since almost everyone still accepts the need for localized, continuum
interactions it is not surprising that they are still stuck in the
middle of unsolvable 'fields'. There are alternatives but they
require people to challenge their unspoken assumptions.
FrediFizzx
> Thus spake FrediFizzx <fredi...@hotmail.com>
>>I do believe that he has successfully demonstrated that it is possible
>>to arrive at the Bell inequalities classically via using the correct
>>topology for an EPR experiment.
>
> He does a great deal of saying this is the correct topology, but I
> don't
> see that he establishes that it is the correct topology.
I don't see how that matters if the topology he does use gives quantum
mechanical predictions with classical methods. The whole thing here is
that quantum mechanics violates the Bell inequalities. It only takes
one example no matter which topology is used to disprove Bell's theorem.
The topology that he does use violates the Bell inequalities in the same
way that quantum mechanics does. So what's up with that?
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
You can just read his first paper which is more compact.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
Which I referenced at the beginning of this thread along with all his
other papers on the subject. I don't think he did what he did in this
last paper to "pull the wool over anyone's eyes". He was just trying to
be more complete since he claims most people do not understand what he
is doing. Which I am tending to agree with after reading all the
critical comments on the arXiv and on SPR.
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
Thanks much for the more extensive comments. Sorry for the delay in
responding; had a crazy busy weekend. After quickly reading your
comments, they look good but need to study and think about them some
more. Will try to respond with questions in the next couple of days.
Best,
Fred Diether
Oh No
>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:KZpPp
yes, this is much better. Unlike the other paper it gives me the gut
feeling that it is basically right, though I would have to spend some
time with it to be sure.
FrediFizzx
> Thus spake FrediFizzx <fredi...@hotmail.com>
>>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:KZpPp
>>oAjIS$KF...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>>> Well, no. And that is my objection. He seems to spend several pages
>>> explaining a useful content which should amount to a few lines. I
>>> dislike this sort of thing because it is unnecessary, and makes
>>>finding
>>> errors like looking for a needle in a haystack. I see it as a device
>>> which often pulls the wool, albeit unwittingly, over the author's
>>>eyes.
>>
>>You can just read his first paper which is more compact.
>>
>>http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179
>>
>>Which I referenced at the beginning of this thread along with all his
>>other papers on the subject. I don't think he did what he did in this
>>last paper to "pull the wool over anyone's eyes". He was just trying
>>to be more complete since he claims most people do not understand what
>>he is doing. Which I am tending to agree with after reading all the
>>critical comments on the arXiv and on SPR.
>>
>
> yes, this is much better. Unlike the other paper it gives me the gut
> feeling that it is basically right, though I would have to spend some
> time with it to be sure.
Well, I hope you will have some time to investigate Christian's work
more thoroughly. If he is right, then it is pretty profound for
fundamental physics that Einstein (EPR) was right after all these years
of most people thinking EPR was wrong and there is "spooky action at a
distance" in QM. However, Ilja has presented a good counter argument
that I need to study more thoroughly.
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
As you say, this doesn't really matter for the main point.
I don't think that is necessarily true.
Well, Christian's whole point is that Bell's E(a,b) is not correct.
> Now it is obvious that Bell has proposed an inequality for the E(a,b)
> instead of the E*(a,b). So to see if they hold, one has, at first, to
> extract the real-valued E(a,b) from the quaternion-valued E*(a,b) by
> the formula
>
> E(a,b) = <E*(a,b),a*b>.
>
> Adding or substracting the E*(a,b) instead of the E(a,b) is something
> completely different and has nothing to do with checking Bell's
> inequality.
So what? Christian's whole point is that E(a,b) does NOT correspond
correctly to what Bell was trying to match up with EPR/Bohm experiment.
>So, what Christian has found is a realistic model which
> violates Christian's inequality - the result of replacing E(a,b)
> with E*(a,b) in whatever variant of Bell's inequality. But who cares
> about Christian's inequality?
Everybody should. That is his whole point. It is E*(a,b) that represents
the true aspect of EPR/Bohm not E(a,b).
> Should Bell have considered the "correct" E*(a,b) instead of the
> E(a,b)? Laughable. Bell is free to consider whatever function
> f(A,B), and whatever function on the resulting E(f|a,b) he likes.
Are you really sure about that?
> To make his point, it is sufficient that there exists some
> function f (however dirty, like sin(AB) + exp(A+B)) and some
> expression of the E(a,b) (also however dirty) so that the
> resulting expression for local realistic theories fulfills an
> inequality or equality violated by quantum theory.
But Christian has shown that his inequality also matches the predictions
of quantum theory in a classical way. That should be enough to disprove
Bell's theorem. His math looks OK to me for the main point. As I said
before, of course this is all theoretical and the real proof would be to
do a classical experiment which I believe Christian is right and no one
has attempted it so far.
> This is essentially all - below some quotes to support this
> interpretation of Christian's text.
Sorry, but you still have not convinced me that Christian is wrong.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > This is only a shortcut for E(AB|a,b), where
>
> > E(f|a,b) = int f(A,B) rho(A,B|a,b)
>
> > and f(A,B) can be an arbitrary function on the measurement
> > results. The main point is that the set X of values of A,B
> > and the function f(A,B) on X are fixed in the experiment.
> > One can make other experiments, with other spaces X of
> > what is measured, and other functions f(A,B) on it. But
> > once the experiment is made, the E(f|a,b) computed, and
> > some inequality proven, it remains to explain these and only
> > these results, and not others.
>
> > The central error is therefore
>
> >> On the counterexample side, the question then is:
> >> how should one correctly calculate the correlations
> >> between the EPR elements of reality in general?
>
> > No, this is not the question. Once the experiment is
> > made as it is made, the space of measurement results
> > X = {-1,1}, the function f(A,B) = AB, and the resulting
> > E(a,b) are already given, facts, to change them would
> > require to change the experiment itself or the procedure
> > of the evaluation of the data.
>
> I don't think that is necessarily true.
The experiments are done, and what they have
evaluated are the E(AB|a,b) and nothing else.
You cannot explain these experiments by
explaining something completely different.
> > This gives simply
>
> > E*(a,b) = int A(a,l)B(b,l) d rho(l) a * b = E(a,b) a*b
>
> > Thus, the "correct" expectation value is not a real expectation
> > value,
> > but some element of R^4. It is also "only" Bell's expectation value
> > E(a,b) "in disguise". But it is different, and the expectation values
> > used in Bell's inequality are the E(a,b), and not the E*(a,b).
>
> Well, Christian's whole point is that Bell's E(a,b) is not correct.
I know. He doesn't understand that the E(AB|a,b) is a description
of what is done with the experimental data.
The experimental data are (mingling probabilities with frequencies)
the probabilities rho(A,B|a,b).
>From these data, one computes
E(AB|a,b) = sum AB rho(A,B|a,b).
And for these sums of observable data Bell's inequality is
violated. You may not like this particular expression,
for whatever reason, but it is simply an expression which
you have any right to compute, there is nothing wrong
with it. And, once you have used _this_ expression
to evaluate the observable data, you have to explain why
computing _this_ expression leads to violations of
Bell's inequality.
> > E(a,b) = <E*(a,b),a*b>.
>
> > Adding or substracting the E*(a,b) instead of the E(a,b) is something
> > completely different and has nothing to do with checking Bell's
> > inequality.
>
> So what? �Christian's whole point is that E(a,b) does NOT correspond
> correctly to what Bell was trying to match up with EPR/Bohm experiment.
But what we have to match is not some hypothesis about EPR beables,
but facts about what is done by Aspect and others with the observed
data rho(A,B|a,b). And Aspect at all have computed the E(AB|a,b)
from their data. Ask them yourself if you don't believe. These are
facts about what is done after the experiment with the measured data.
(Ok, maybe they have written some program doing it automatically,
and they have not even seen the rho(A,B|a,b) - I don't care. The point
is that in principle the rho(A,B|a,b) are the observables, the
E(AB|a,b) are computed from these observed data, by a known public
procedure which is simply a fact, not open to hypotheses.
> >So, what Christian has found is a realistic model which
> > violates Christian's inequality - the result of replacing E(a,b)
> > with E*(a,b) in whatever variant of Bell's inequality. But who cares
> > about Christian's inequality?
>
> Everybody should. That is his whole point. It is E*(a,b) that represents
> the true aspect of EPR/Bohm not E(a,b).
In this sense, there is no "true aspect". What counts is that
from Bell's theorem follows that these "false aspects" should
fulfill an inequality, which is not fulfilled in reality for these
"false aspects". This is all we need. Therefore one of the
assumptions used in Bell's inequality should be false.
If Bell would have proved his inequality for
E(sin(A+B)+tan(AB)|a,b)
the point would have been the same: The inequality
would have been a different one, Aspect and others would
have used a different procedure to compute the result from
the same numbers rho(A,b|a,b), and the different inequality
would have been probably violated too. If so, the point would
have been the same.
> > Should Bell have considered the "correct" E*(a,b) instead of the
> > E(a,b)? �Laughable. Bell is free to consider whatever function
> > f(A,B), and whatever function on the resulting E(f|a,b) he likes.
>
> Are you really sure about that?
Yes. The function f(A,B) defines what you do with the observed
data rho(A,B|a,b). You can compute all E(f|a,b) you want from
the same set of data rho(A,B|a,b).
Quantum theory predicts the rho(A,B|a,b), and, therefore,
all the E(f|a,b). The experiment measures rho(A,B|a,b),
and, therefore, allows to compute all the E(f|a,b).
> > To make his point, it is sufficient that there exists some
> > function f (however dirty, like sin(AB) + exp(A+B)) and some
> > expression of the E(a,b) (also however dirty) so that the
> > resulting expression for local realistic theories fulfills an
> > inequality or equality violated by quantum theory.
>
> But Christian has shown that his inequality also matches the predictions
> of quantum theory in a classical way.
No. He has shown that his expression E*(a,b), which has no relation
to the measured and predicted rho(A,B|a,b), is equal to the quantum
prediction for E(AB|a,b).
> That should be enough to disprove Bell's theorem.
>�His math looks OK to me for the main point. �As I said
> before, of course this is all theoretical and the real proof would be to
> do a classical experiment which I believe Christian is right and no one
> has attempted it so far.
Only a fool will do it because it is obvious that you cannot violate
Bell's inequality without FTL and without quantum effects. Sorry
for the hard word.
What he can do is, of course, to use some classical data and
compute E(f*(A,B)|a,b) for his f*(A,B) = AB a x b. For this
strange and uninteresting average Bell's inequality may be
violated. But this is completely uninteresting, because nothing
follows from this, nobody has ever claimed that for E(f*(A,B)|a,b)
some inequality should hold. Maybe there is one which should
hold, but then it will be a different one.
FrediFizzx
The experiments I have seen for this are more involved that what you are
stating.
>> > This gives simply
>>
>> > E*(a,b) = int A(a,l)B(b,l) d rho(l) a * b = E(a,b) a*b
>>
>> > Thus, the "correct" expectation value is not a real expectation
>> > value,
>> > but some element of R^4. It is also "only" Bell's expectation value
>> > E(a,b) "in disguise". But it is different, and the expectation
>> > values
>> > used in Bell's inequality are the E(a,b), and not the E*(a,b).
>>
>> Well, Christian's whole point is that Bell's E(a,b) is not correct.
>
> I know. He doesn't understand that the E(AB|a,b) is a description
> of what is done with the experimental data.
>
> The experimental data are (mingling probabilities with frequencies)
> the probabilities rho(A,B|a,b).
>
>>From these data, one computes
> E(AB|a,b) = sum AB rho(A,B|a,b).
>
> And for these sums of observable data Bell's inequality is
> violated. You may not like this particular expression,
> for whatever reason, but it is simply an expression which
> you have any right to compute, there is nothing wrong
> with it. And, once you have used _this_ expression
> to evaluate the observable data, you have to explain why
> computing _this_ expression leads to violations of
> Bell's inequality.
??? I don't think you are making the right argument here. Christian's
model also violates the BI.
>> > E(a,b) = <E*(a,b),a*b>.
>>
>> > Adding or substracting the E*(a,b) instead of the E(a,b) is
>> > something
>> > completely different and has nothing to do with checking Bell's
>> > inequality.
>>
>> So what? Christian's whole point is that E(a,b) does NOT correspond
>> correctly to what Bell was trying to match up with EPR/Bohm
>> experiment.
>
> But what we have to match is not some hypothesis about EPR beables,
> but facts about what is done by Aspect and others with the observed
> data rho(A,B|a,b). And Aspect at all have computed the E(AB|a,b)
> from their data. Ask them yourself if you don't believe. These are
> facts about what is done after the experiment with the measured data.
>
> (Ok, maybe they have written some program doing it automatically,
> and they have not even seen the rho(A,B|a,b) - I don't care. The point
> is that in principle the rho(A,B|a,b) are the observables, the
> E(AB|a,b) are computed from these observed data, by a known public
> procedure which is simply a fact, not open to hypotheses.
In fact, they had to use somewhat different procedure from what you are
describing above. At least, that is the picture I have. Do you have a
reference to support the above?
I don't think it is so "obvious" any more.
> What he can do is, of course, to use some classical data and
> compute E(f*(A,B)|a,b) for his f*(A,B) = AB a x b. For this
> strange and uninteresting average Bell's inequality may be
> violated. But this is completely uninteresting, because nothing
> follows from this, nobody has ever claimed that for E(f*(A,B)|a,b)
> some inequality should hold. Maybe there is one which should
> hold, but then it will be a different one.
You are still not convincing me. I suppose we could go 'round and
'round about this but a classical local realistic model that gives the
same predictions of quantum mechanics rules the game here. I looked at
your card game on your web site. Does Christian's model allow to cheat
at the game also? I think it does.
And... What do you think of 't Hooft's paper "Entangled Quantum States
In a Local Deterministic Theory"? Seems that he is attacking the
problem also but from a different angle.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > E(AB|a,b) = sum AB rho(A,B|a,b).
>
> > And for these sums of observable data Bell's inequality is
> > violated. You may not like this particular expression,
> > for whatever reason, but it is simply an expression which
> > you have any right to compute, there is nothing wrong
> > with it. �And, once you have used _this_ expression
> > to evaluate the observable data, you have to explain why
> > computing _this_ expression leads to violations of
> > Bell's inequality.
>
> ??? �I don't think you are making the right argument here. �Christian's
> model also violates the BI.
Certainly not. Bell's inequalities are about the E(AB|a,b). Compute
the
E(AB|a,b) for his model if you don't believe.
> > (Ok, maybe they have written some program doing it automatically,
> > and they have not even seen the rho(A,B|a,b) - I don't care. The point
> > is that in principle the rho(A,B|a,b) are the observables, the
> > E(AB|a,b) are computed from these observed data, by a known public
> > procedure which is simply a fact, not open to hypotheses.
>
> In fact, they had to use somewhat different procedure from what you are
> describing above. At least, that is the picture I have.
If you think their procedure was in an important sense different,
explain.
> > Only a fool will do it because it is obvious that you cannot violate
> > Bell's inequality without FTL and without quantum effects. Sorry
> > for the hard word.
>
> I don't think it is so "obvious" any more.
It is.
> > What he can do is, of course, to use some classical data and
> > compute E(f*(A,B)|a,b) for his f*(A,B) = AB a x b. �For this
> > strange and uninteresting average Bell's inequality may be
> > violated. But this is completely uninteresting, because nothing
> > follows from this, nobody has ever claimed that for E(f*(A,B)|a,b)
> > some inequality should hold. Maybe there is one which should
> > hold, but then it will be a different one.
>
> You are still not convincing me.
I'm not obliged ;-)
> I suppose we could go 'round and
> 'round about this but a classical local realistic model that gives the
> same predictions of quantum mechanics rules the game here.
No. We have only an abstract formula, with no relation to reality
or to any realistic explanation of the observable rho(A,B|a,b), which
reproduces the E(AB|a,b) but nothing else (certainly not the
quantum predictions for rho(A,B|a,b)).
>�I looked at
> your card game on your web site. �Does Christian's model allow to cheat
> at the game also? �I think it does.
Certainly not.
> And... �What do you think of 't Hooft's paper "Entangled Quantum States
> In a Local Deterministic Theory"? �Seems that he is attacking the
> problem also but from a different angle.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408
I will see. At the current moment I think nothing of it except that
I will read it.
Ilja
> > In a Local Deterministic Theory"? �Seems that he is attacking the
> > problem also but from a different angle.
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408
>
> I will see. At the current moment I think nothing of it except that
> I will read it.
My reaction after a first reading: This is only a hypothesis that one
may circumvent Bell's inequalities in such a way, and I think this
hypothesis is false.
FrediFizzx
> On 27 Nov., 10:24, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> > From these data, one computes
>> > E(AB|a,b) = sum AB rho(A,B|a,b).
>>
>> > And for these sums of observable data Bell's inequality is
>> > violated. You may not like this particular expression,
>> > for whatever reason, but it is simply an expression which
>> > you have any right to compute, there is nothing wrong
>> > with it. And, once you have used _this_ expression
>> > to evaluate the observable data, you have to explain why
>> > computing _this_ expression leads to violations of
>> > Bell's inequality.
>>
>> ??? I don't think you are making the right argument here.
>> Christian's
>> model also violates the BI.
>
> Certainly not. Bell's inequalities are about the E(AB|a,b). Compute
> the
> E(AB|a,b) for his model if you don't believe.
I will restate; Christian's model gives the same exact predictions as
quantum mechanics.
>> > (Ok, maybe they have written some program doing it automatically,
>> > and they have not even seen the rho(A,B|a,b) - I don't care. The
>> > point
>> > is that in principle the rho(A,B|a,b) are the observables, the
>> > E(AB|a,b) are computed from these observed data, by a known public
>> > procedure which is simply a fact, not open to hypotheses.
>>
>> In fact, they had to use somewhat different procedure from what you
>> are
>> describing above. At least, that is the picture I have.
>
> If you think their procedure was in an important sense different,
> explain.
They used photons and some where not counted so they could not use the
exact probabilities that you state above.
>> > Only a fool will do it because it is obvious that you cannot
>> > violate
>> > Bell's inequality without FTL and without quantum effects. Sorry
>> > for the hard word.
>>
>> I don't think it is so "obvious" any more.
>
> It is.
>
>> > What he can do is, of course, to use some classical data and
>> > compute E(f*(A,B)|a,b) for his f*(A,B) = AB a x b. For this
>> > strange and uninteresting average Bell's inequality may be
>> > violated. But this is completely uninteresting, because nothing
>> > follows from this, nobody has ever claimed that for E(f*(A,B)|a,b)
>> > some inequality should hold. Maybe there is one which should
>> > hold, but then it will be a different one.
>>
>> You are still not convincing me.
>
> I'm not obliged ;-)
"...I'm certainly ready to defend my own theory, pilot wave theory,
as well as the thesis that above proposals are nonsense in detail
here, in case somebody wants to defend them."
I said I would try to defend them, so you are obliged. :-)
>> I suppose we could go 'round and
>> 'round about this but a classical local realistic model that gives
>> the
>> same predictions of quantum mechanics rules the game here.
>
> No. We have only an abstract formula, with no relation to reality
> or to any realistic explanation of the observable rho(A,B|a,b), which
> reproduces the E(AB|a,b) but nothing else (certainly not the
> quantum predictions for rho(A,B|a,b)).
Well, you say the above is realistic and Christian say they are not and
that it is his model that is realistic. So who to believe? I believe
him until experiment proves it wrong since in my model of a relativistic
medium, non-locality is impossible at scales greater than the reduced
electron compton wavelength. And for the life of me, I don't understand
you being an etherist would endorse any kind of non-local behavior past
the fundamental scale of your cellular lattice. What could possibly be
the mechanism? I don't believe in that kind of magic.
>> I looked at
>> your card game on your web site. Does Christian's model allow to
>> cheat
>> at the game also? I think it does.
>
> Certainly not.
It certainly will if it is realistic. Can you really prove that his
model is not realistic without an experiment?
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > On 27 Nov., 10:24, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> ??? �I don't think you are making the right argument here.
> >> Christian's model also violates the BI.
>
> > Certainly not. Bell's inequalities are about the E(AB|a,b). Compute
> > the E(AB|a,b) for his model if you don't believe.
>
> I will restate; Christian's model gives the same exact predictions as
> quantum mechanics.
And I will restate: It doesn't. In particular, his model does not
allow
to give a prediction for rho(A,B|a,b). If you think it can, give the
formula.
> >> > (Ok, maybe they have written some program doing it automatically,
> >> > and they have not even seen the rho(A,B|a,b) - I don't care. The
> >> > point
> >> > is that in principle the rho(A,B|a,b) are the observables, the
> >> > E(AB|a,b) are computed from these observed data, by a known public
> >> > procedure which is simply a fact, not open to hypotheses.
>
> >> In fact, they had to use somewhat different procedure from what you
> >> are describing above. At least, that is the picture I have.
>
> > If you think their procedure was in an important sense different,
> > explain.
>
> They used photons and some where not counted so they could not use the
> exact probabilities that you state above.
Frequencies are never exact probabilities, only approximations. If
some
photons are not detected this obviously opens the detector efficiency
loophole, but this is nothing new.
> >> You are still not convincing me.
>
> > I'm not obliged ;-)
>
> "...I'm certainly ready to defend my own theory, pilot wave theory,
> as well as the thesis that above proposals are nonsense in detail
> here, in case somebody wants to defend them."
>
> I said I would try to defend them, so you are obliged. :-)
"I'm not convinced" is not a valid defense ;-). You have to point out
some loophole in my argument.
> >> I suppose we could go 'round and
> >> 'round about this but a classical local realistic model that gives
> >> the
> >> same predictions of quantum mechanics rules the game here.
>
> > No. We have only an abstract formula, with no relation to reality
> > or to any realistic explanation of the observable rho(A,B|a,b), which
> > reproduces the E(AB|a,b) but nothing else (certainly not the
> > quantum predictions for rho(A,B|a,b)).
>
> Well, you say the above is realistic and Christian say they are not and
> that it is his model that is realistic. �So who to believe?
A realistic model should be able to compute the rho(A,B|a,b) from what
really exists, because these probabilities define the frequencies we
observe. If you disagree, you use a nonsensical definition of
realism.
(You are free to redefine realism if you like, no problem, but this
does
not show any error in theorems based on a different notion of realism.
You may argue that your redefined notion of realism is better, but I
doubt such an argument is possible if reality does not allow to
compute observables.) If not, please show me Christian's formula for
rho(A,B|a,b).
>�I believe him until experiment proves it wrong since in my model of a relativistic
> medium, non-locality is impossible at scales greater than the reduced
> electron compton wavelength.
Then better throw away your model. It has no chance. (But, thanks, now
at least
it becomes clear to me why you do not accept a quite simple and
obvious
argument - your own model is at stake.)
>�And for the life of me, I don't understand
> you being an etherist would endorse any kind of non-local behavior past
> the fundamental scale of your cellular lattice. �What could possibly be
> the mechanism? �I don't believe in that kind of magic.
I don't believe in magic too, so that I have to believe in some
"mechanism" which allows to explain the observable phenomena.
Once the violation of Bell's inequality is observable, I have to live
with it.
Qualitatively I see no much difference in some mechanism which
allows causal influence with speed < c and one with > c. Last but not
least, for an ether theorist c is only the speed of sound of some
medium and has, therefore, no fundamental importance.
On the other hand, starting with realism as a postulate, the
violation of Bell's inequality allows to derive the existence of
a preferred foliation. Instead, relativists have to reject
realism, which allows me to accuse them of preferring
mysticism for no other reason as the preservation of their
pet theory.
> >> I looked at
> >> your card game on your web site. �Does Christian's model allow to
> >> cheat at the game also? �I think it does.
>
> > Certainly not.
>
> It certainly will if it is realistic. �Can you really prove that his
> model is not realistic without an experiment?
If a model is realistic or not is (at least this is my use of the
term)
a property of the theory: The theory has a certain form - is
postulates
what (in detail) really exists. And then all observable facts should
be
explainable in terms of these really existing things.
A realistic model may be false - if the predictions derived from it
are falsified by observation. But a false realistic theory remains
to be a realistic theory. (To be distinguished from one everyday
meaning of "this is not realistic" as similar to "this is false".)
My answer that he will not be able to cheat in my game using only
classical devices and no communication between the rooms is,
of course, an empirical statemente open to falsification.
FrediFizzx
> On 6 Dez., 13:25, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> > On 27 Nov., 10:24, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> ??? I don't think you are making the right argument here.
>> >> Christian's model also violates the BI.
>>
>> > Certainly not. Bell's inequalities are about the E(AB|a,b). Compute
>> > the E(AB|a,b) for his model if you don't believe.
>>
>> I will restate; Christian's model gives the same exact predictions as
>> quantum mechanics.
>
> And I will restate: It doesn't. In particular, his model does not
> allow
> to give a prediction for rho(A,B|a,b). If you think it can, give the
> formula.
What is wrong with his eq. (19) in quant-ph/0703179v2? Is it not the
same as the QM prediction? And, I don't know where you are getting this
rho(A,B|a,b) from. What is that equal to?
Well, the "loophole" is that you simply say that his model is not
realistic. I suspect that only an experiment can really determine that.
Sure, maybe an experimenter might be foolish to try the classical
experiment but we will never know for sure until someone tries.
Experimenters can be very clever and they really should try the
classical experiment.
>> >> I suppose we could go 'round and
>> >> 'round about this but a classical local realistic model that gives
>> >> the
>> >> same predictions of quantum mechanics rules the game here.
>>
>> > No. We have only an abstract formula, with no relation to reality
>> > or to any realistic explanation of the observable rho(A,B|a,b),
>> > which
>> > reproduces the E(AB|a,b) but nothing else (certainly not the
>> > quantum predictions for rho(A,B|a,b)).
>>
>> Well, you say the above is realistic and Christian say they are not
>> and
>> that it is his model that is realistic. So who to believe?
>
> A realistic model should be able to compute the rho(A,B|a,b) from what
> really exists, because these probabilities define the frequencies we
> observe. If you disagree, you use a nonsensical definition of
> realism.
> (You are free to redefine realism if you like, no problem, but this
> does
> not show any error in theorems based on a different notion of realism.
> You may argue that your redefined notion of realism is better, but I
> doubt such an argument is possible if reality does not allow to
> compute observables.) If not, please show me Christian's formula for
> rho(A,B|a,b).
First, tell me where this rho(A,B|a,b) is coming from. I don't see it
anywhere in all the literature I have on Bell's theorem.
>> I believe him until experiment proves it wrong since in my model of a
>> relativistic
>> medium, non-locality is impossible at scales greater than the reduced
>> electron compton wavelength.
>
> Then better throw away your model. It has no chance. (But, thanks, now
> at least
> it becomes clear to me why you do not accept a quite simple and
> obvious
> argument - your own model is at stake.)
And parts of your model are at stake if Christian is right. ;-)
>> And for the life of me, I don't understand
>> you being an etherist would endorse any kind of non-local behavior
>> past
>> the fundamental scale of your cellular lattice. What could possibly
>> be
>> the mechanism? I don't believe in that kind of magic.
>
> I don't believe in magic too, so that I have to believe in some
> "mechanism" which allows to explain the observable phenomena.
> Once the violation of Bell's inequality is observable, I have to live
> with it.
What is the exact mechanism then? Mystery particles (or wavicles) that
we don't know about?
> Qualitatively I see not much difference in some mechanism which
> allows causal influence with speed < c and one with > c. Last but not
> least, for an ether theorist c is only the speed of sound of some
> medium and has, therefore, no fundamental importance.
For me, nothing can propagate faster than what the medium allows past
the basic cell of the medium's structure. Nothing! So I am amazed that
you can just toss that out and say it is of no fundamental importance.
> On the other hand, starting with realism as a postulate, the
> violation of Bell's inequality allows to derive the existence of
> a preferred foliation. Instead, relativists have to reject
> realism, which allows me to accuse them of preferring
> mysticism for no other reason as the preservation of their
> pet theory.
I really don't know for sure if you are right or wrong but I suspect
wrong.
>> >> I looked at
>> >> your card game on your web site. Does Christian's model allow to
>> >> cheat at the game also? I think it does.
>>
>> > Certainly not.
>>
>> It certainly will if it is realistic. Can you really prove that his
>> model is not realistic without an experiment?
>
> If a model is realistic or not is (at least this is my use of the
> term)
> a property of the theory: The theory has a certain form - is
> postulates
> what (in detail) really exists. And then all observable facts should
> be
> explainable in terms of these really existing things.
>
> A realistic model may be false - if the predictions derived from it
> are falsified by observation. But a false realistic theory remains
> to be a realistic theory. (To be distinguished from one everyday
> meaning of "this is not realistic" as similar to "this is false".)
>
> My answer that he will not be able to cheat in my game using only
> classical devices and no communication between the rooms is,
> of course, an empirical statemente open to falsification.
Sure, that is why we need some "fool" to try to experiment. ;-) If
someone tries Christian's experiment and it fails to show he is right,
then we will know for sure. But I think for now I will go with what
Griffiths says in "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" that the
entanglement phenomena is perhaps like the shadows that can move faster
than c. IOW, like Christian says it is an "illusion".
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote
> > On 6 Dez., 13:25, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And I will restate: It doesn't. �In particular, his model does not
> > allow
> > to give a prediction for rho(A,B|a,b). If you think it can, give the
> > formula.
>
> What is wrong with his eq. (19) in quant-ph/0703179v2? �Is it not the
> same as the QM prediction?
The QM prediction is for rho(A,B|a,b), and from the QM prediction
one can compute that
E(a,b) = sum AB rho(A,B|a,b) = -ab.
Thus, it is only a particular consequence of the QM prediction
which is computed from a completely unmotivated formula,
which has nothing to do with the definition of E(a,b) from the
rho(A,B|a,b) and which has therefore no explanatory power.
> And, I don't know where you are getting this
> rho(A,B|a,b) from. �What is that equal to?
It is the probability that Alice measures A, and Bob measures
B, given that Alice measures in direction a and Bob in
direction b.
This is what we observe. The E(a,b) are not what we observe,
but what we compute based on our observations.
> > "I'm not convinced" is not a valid defense ;-). �You have to point out
> > some loophole in my argument.
>
> Well, the "loophole" is that you simply say that his model is not
> realistic.
It does not explain the probabilities rho(A,B|a,b) we observe. How
it can be realistic?
>�I suspect that only an experiment can really determine that.
There is no base for an experiment yet. He cannot explain the
observations yet.
> Sure, maybe an experimenter might be foolish to try the classical
> experiment but we will never know for sure until someone tries.
> Experimenters can be very clever and they really should try the
> classical experiment.
I suggest at first to clarify what the classical experiment predicts
about the probability rho(A,B|a,b).
> > Then better throw away your model. It has no chance. (But, thanks, now
> > at least
> > it becomes clear to me why you do not accept a quite simple and
> > obvious
> > argument - your own model is at stake.)
>
> And parts of your model are at stake if Christian is right. �;-)
No. Simply a completely unrelated argument in favour of a preferred
frame
disappears. Nothing in my model has to be changed.
> > I don't believe in magic too, so that I have to believe in some
> > "mechanism" which allows to explain the observable phenomena.
> > Once the violation of Bell's inequality is observable, I have to live
> > with it.
>
> What is the exact mechanism then? �Mystery particles (or wavicles) that
> we don't know about?
No, the mechanism are the equations of pilot wave theory.
> > Qualitatively I see not much difference in some mechanism which
> > allows causal influence with speed < c and one with > c. Last but not
> > least, for an ether theorist c is only the speed of sound of some
> > medium and has, therefore, no fundamental importance.
>
> For me, nothing can propagate faster than what the medium allows past
> the basic cell of the medium's structure. �Nothing! �So I am amazed that
> you can just toss that out and say it is of no fundamental importance.
If the medium itself is complex enough to have a variable speed of
sound
(coordinate speed of light in GR should be variable, else you obtain
no
nontrivial curvature) than it requires some more fundamental theory to
explain how this speed of sound appears and how it depends on
position.
This underlying theory obviously cannot have the speed it has to
explain
as a fundamental speed.
You can play around with lattice models such that in each time step
only
the neighbour may be influenced. This gives a model with absolute
speed limit.
But I see no way to obtain from such a model a theory with curved
effective
spacetime, except if the effective light speed is smaller than the
maximal one.
> > On the other hand, starting with realism as a postulate, the
> > violation of Bell's inequality allows to derive the existence of
> > a preferred foliation. Instead, relativists have to reject
> > realism, which allows me to accuse them of preferring
> > mysticism for no other reason as the preservation of their
> > pet theory.
>
> I really don't know for sure if you are right or wrong but I suspect
> wrong.
Suspection doesn't count if you have no argument.
> > My answer that he will not be able to cheat in my game using only
> > classical devices and no communication between the rooms is,
> > of course, an empirical statemente open to falsification.
>
> Sure, that is why we need some "fool" to try to experiment. ;-)
You may need him, I don't.
>�If someone tries Christian's experiment and it fails to show he is right,
> then we will know for sure.
As I understand Christian's "experiment", it has nothing to do
with the violation of Bell's inequality. Instead, it is simply an
experiment which gives some result of type -ab.
>�But I think for now I will go with what
> Griffiths says in "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" that the
> entanglement phenomena is perhaps like the shadows that can move faster
> than c.
Griffiths is deadly wrong, you cannot violate Bell's inequality with
shadows.
>�IOW, like Christian says it is an "illusion".
The violation of Bell's inequality is a real, hard physical effect.
It allows applications like cheating in games which are impossible
otherwise.
FrediFizzx
> The violation of Bell's inequality is a real, hard physical effect.
> It allows applications like cheating in games which are impossible
> otherwise.
OK, I want to go on a little side track here. I will respond to the
other comments later. What about the aspect of the EPR/Bohm thought
experiment that allows to know the spin about two different axes
simultaneously? We have the particles propagate in opposite directions
along the Z axis. Alice measures spin about the X axis and
simultaneously Bob measures his particle's spin about the Y axis. This
violates the Uncertainty Principle. How to reconcile this subtle fact?
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com>
> > It allows applications like cheating in games which are impossible
> > otherwise.
>
> OK, I want to go on a little side track here. I will respond to the
> other comments later. What about the aspect of the EPR/Bohm thought
> experiment that allows to know the spin about two different axes
> simultaneously? We have the particles propagate in opposite directions
> along the Z axis. Alice measures spin about the X axis and
> simultaneously Bob measures his particle's spin about the Y axis. This
> violates the Uncertainty Principle. How to reconcile this subtle fact?
The reconcilation is simple: The measurement at A changes the
state globally, immediately influences the state at B. The locality
assumption fails. Remember that the EPR criterion of reality
contains the condition "without in any way disturbing" (IIRC). This
holds only if locality holds.
In pilot wave theory, we have an explicit non-local influence.