Retrocausality and compactified dimensions

[Austin Fearnley]

I am trying to focus on objections as I have already shown that my version of retrocausality can explain the disattenuated Bell correlation.

1.  The main objection is that most people think it is simply crazy.
2.  The positive mass of a positron is seen as making my model wrong.  Though I have never had a comment on this I have long known it to be an objection. I have a counter argument.
3.  Egocentric ideas have long been a stumbling block: the earth is at the centre of everything -> the sun is at the centre, the solar system is at the centre, the galaxy is at the centre, the universe is at the centre and its accompanying space/time is equally central.
4.  Particle models have to explain everything that waves do, especially the two-slit interference effect.

.....

1.  It is crazy!  Well I too think that many retrocausal papers have crazy ideas in them.  I recently read an article in 'The Conversation' at
https://theconversation.com/quantum-mechanics-how-the-future-might-influence-the-past-199426
and looked at an associated paper:  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.06986.pdf

I say good luck to them in their wild goose chase that is Berkson's Bias. Simpson's Paradox is similar and I used (in a previous lifetime) to have to explain it to scientists and non-scientists alike as an important effect in their data.  I could normally explain it using a one-page handout but once gave up after a while with an English group and said "look, its a paradox, surely you don't expect me to explain a paradox".  
Simpson's paradox was certainly a real hazard in dealing with groups of data but it is a very benign paradox compared to what is happening in a Bell experiment.  I really do not understand how they think this will help.  I do think their reference to data escaping from black holes is relevant.  I suppose I ought to read the paper thoroughly, and I will, but cannot help the feeling in my gut that says a wild goose is on the table.

2.  The trouble with all retrocausal ideas that I have seen is that all particles appear to be assumed to be causing the retrocausal effect whereas in my model it is only the antiparticles. I believe that the apparent sign of the antiparticle mass is the bugbear causing this.

3.  The article says:  
"In addition, we and others have argued that retrocausality makes better sense of the fact that the microworld of particles doesn’t care about the difference between past and future."

I suggest that particles DO care about ther own time directions of their own spacetimes.  For antiparticles, their time direction is anticorrelated with our universe's time direction.  Antiparticles care but care about their own time direction but that direction is different from the time direction of our own space/time, particles also care and have the same time direction as the universe.  Electric content can be said to inhabit the Kaluza Klein fifth dimension. If this dimension is treated as a 4D spacetime of its own and it is fully compactified by special relativity, then all matter in our universe is really not only of our own spacetime.

4.  This is a minor issue for my paper, but the Two State Vector Formalism (TSVF) has been claimed to explain the two-slit interference pattern using particles rather than waves.  TSVF  uses advanced and retarded waves, also my preon model has advanced and retarded preons in every fundamental particle. 

 In my model our space/time and its arrow of time is not the sum total of our universe.

Austin

[Austin Fearnley]

In my previous post I referred to an article and a paper by Wharton and Price.  I have now read them better, but not fully as I get put off by references to God which IMO does not do the reputation of retrocausality much good.  However they refer to another paper by themselves at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05370 which describes two different W-shaped flight paths of two different Bell experiments where Alice and Bob measure at either end of the W shape.  Time runs vertically upwards. The inner vertex of the W shape is a measurement by Victor which acts to perform entanglement swapping so that the outer end lines of the W have entangled pathways.  (I hope that the diagram does not get ruined by spacing conversions.)

\       /    and          /\                       time ^
  \/\/                \   /   \  /                           |
                          \/      \/  

The first W is a normal experiment where Victor performs the entanglement swapping.  The second measurement is a delayed time Bell experiment.

The paper in turn references a 2012 paper:
Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping by
Xiao-song Ma, Stefan Zotter, Johannes Kofler, Rupert Ursin, Thomas Jennewein, Časlav Brukner, Anton Zeilinger.

Their experiment supposedly represents a 'quantum steering into the past' where
'Remarkably, whether the earlier registered results of photons 1 and 4 indicate the existence of entanglement between photons 1 and 4 depends on the later choice of Victor.'  So the experiment did show disattenuated correlations even though the entanglement swapping occurred after Alice and Bob had made their measurements.

I have analysed this briefly using my retrocausal method and completely agree that the second W flight plan, using delayed choice, should give the disattenuated correlation of say -0.707.  The calculations are no different from those in my 2022 paper:
https://vixra.org/abs/2205.0140
assuming that Alice and Bob's detector settings differ by 45 degrees.

I accept that QM calculations correctly describe the outcomes using singlet entanglement
say abbreviated to ud-du.  But I use ontic hidden variables for the particle polarisations at all times.  I need a bigger diagram:

                              V
                              /\
                             /  \                       time  ^
                            v    ^                                |
                           /      \                               |
             A          /        \         B
              \        /          \        /
               \      /            \      /
                ^    /              \    v
                 \  /                \  /
                  \/                  \/
                   
V establishes the entanglement link between A and B.  The above diagram represents the path of an antiparticle already measured by/at B and proceeding its way to A.  At the A measurement it is no longer an antiparticle but is a particle.  The antiparticle (all antiparticles) leaving B will be polarised with or against detector vector b.  The particle arriving at A will be polarised against or for, respectively, vector b.  Every leg of the W will contain polarisation vectors of only +/- b.  This enforces that Malus calculations are all that is needed to obtain the disattenuated correlation as every particle is measured at vector a when it arrives with polarisation vector +/- b just as in a Malus experiment.

This is only half the story as half of all antipaticles arrive at A and the diagram is completely  reversed with all inputted polarisations of +/- a  leaving A being measured at B using detector setting b. Again, Malus calculations apply.  Detailed calculations are shown in my 2022 paper.  It is so much easier using ontic properties though I am trusting Victor to do his job successfully using the four bell states of QM.

I see no problem with a delayed choice experiment such as this obtaining the disattenuated Bell correlation. As long as the links in the W shape are maintained at all times by entanglement, this will ensure that the time arrows in the four legs of the W are appropriate as above.

Austin

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Just a comment on retrocausality, based on one experiment:

Attached there is a 1994 paper (Phys. Rev. A 49, 4176 (1994)), when (I believe) the very first “non-local” image (in this case, an interference pattern) was experimentally detected. See Fig. 1.

Briefly: Calculations and data show that interference fringes could not be seen in a first order interference, at detector D2, because the source (crystal) is too close to the slit.

However, if one sees the light source, not at the crystal (the twin-light source) but as if it is at the detector D1, the effective coherence area over the slits (now bigger because the larger distance) allows interference – and they were detected. See data.

Everything goes as if light propagates from D1 to D2 – propagation time from crystal to D1 is the “retrocausality” time effect. See comments in paper.

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/56a827a3-f840-4a43-8b0b-a02d9fb361bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Dear Geraldo

Thanks for your 1994 paper which I have now read.  Unfortunately, and all my own fault, it very difficult for me to understand as it is such unfamiliar territory for me.  I have also read the wiki page on Van Cittert-Zernike theorem that your paper cites and thank you for that reference.

As a subsid physics student at university in the late 1960s I did look at interference bands on a prism under a microscope. And Newton's rings, but that was as far as I went in my own experimental work. Many terms are new to me: coherence area, idler beam, coincidence excesses that appear to look like interference fringes, coincidence visibility.  Of course I have spent a lot of time more recently on (Susskind's) theoretical minimum courses over a wide range of topics and naive computer simulations of Bell experiments.

Your brief notes indicate retrocausality is at work but I am struggling to understand why.  I suspect this is what is happening ...  The twin source produces entangled pairs of photons, one source is too close to the D2 screen to give interference bands.  But the other source gets delayed (idler beam?) and that delay/diversion allows interference bands to be seen by detector D1. This uses the Van Cittert-Zernike idea that close-up incoherence equates to distant coherence.  As the two beams are identical, photon at a time, in polarisations etc we are seeing interference bands retrocausally created(?) and distant(?).  Are the bands there because of retrocausality or because they have been distanced?  

Sorry that I am just an amateur whereas many of the poster here are far more educated in physics.

Thanks

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

You got the right idea. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/dff0da6b-6a01-4e47-be56-2114c07b52een%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Thanks Geraldo

I may be on the right lines but I am trying to establish retrocausality as an explanation for Bell's experimental results.  

As a secondary issue for me, really, I had been hoping to rely on Aharonov's TSVF to explain the two-slit effect using particles.  Where TSVH has backwards in time effects.  

I don't understand your paper well enough yet to feel sure that retrocausality exists in it and is actually at work.  Probably simply because of not understanding the lab equipment and practical techniques.  But it is very good that you say it is actually at work in the experiment.

Austin

[Austin Fearnley]

I followed up on the recent post and read a paper at:
https://physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/coincidence_detection_of_photons.pdf
which told me about second order correlations.  And also explained antibunching of light which, given my interest in antiparticles, intrigued me, though not for long as it seems easy to understand in  principle.  This whole area of quantum optics is a little daunting.

I returned to the article by Price and Wharton, with a link far above in the thread, and noted that they thought the delayed Bell experiment with the W flight path was subject to collider bias and requires causal modelling.  They claim that it is very affected by collider bias.  They claimed that the W flight path where Charlie is in the clear past was least likely to be affected.  They considered that the Delft Bell experiment was central in affectedness.  I have not (yet) looked at Collider bias in detail but my own naive/elementary Bell simulations just use Alice and Bob, a=0 degrees and b= 45 degrees.  I have always been suspicious of putting too many anti-loophole experimental techniques into a simple simulation.  Adding Charlie to my very simple simulations IMO makes unnecessary complications.

The Price and Wharton paper guided me to a 2015 paper by Henson et al on the Delft experiment.  It says:  "If the photons are indistinguishable in all degrees of freedom,...these detentions herald the successful preparation and play the role of the event-ready signalling in Bell's proposed set up."
I think that what is happening here is that photons 1 and 4 get entangled by Charlie using entanglement swapping.  Photons 2 and 3 are used by Charlie to test if they are suitable to use in the swapping.  Very many are not suitable which is why only 245 pairs get used in the experimental results.  Where the four photons form a W shaped flight path with Charlie at the middle vertex.
Originally, photons 1 and 2 were entangled and photons 3 and 4 were entangled.  So photon 2 is received by Charlie in (say) an ud-du state and photon 3 is received in a random state (say) m/anti-m.  Charlies compares states of photons 2 and 3 to see if they match closely enough.

This works for QM states which are not ontically true states (but OK the calculations work for average values).  In my supposed ontically true retrocausal model with hidden variables, the two states are say up and m, or any of the four possible combinations of states.  Now, in my model, we do not want |up> and |m> to match, we want than to be opposites in polarisation. Only if they are ontological opposites can the arrows in the W shape (see my diagram earlier in the thread) flow in sequence from A to B.  Eschewing all photon 3 states until one finds a match with ud-du is selecting as many photons that will not work retrocausally as it selects those that will work.  That automatically reduces the target S value from 2.8 to 2.4.  Half way between 2.8 and 2.0. Now what S value did the Delft experiment obtain?  2.42.

One of the tasks on my TO DO list was to understand quantum gates more thoroughly in order to see what effect retrocausality has on the use of the gates.  The above shows what my suspicions have been.  (I need to get back to study the logic of the gates.)

Earlier in the thread I wrote that the polarisations in all legs of the W are either +/-a or +/-b.  This is only after the antiparticle has been measured at A or B.  If two entangled down-converted photons are generated I assume that they can have any polarisation vectors (say) ud-du.  So when Charlie receives photons 2 and 3 they can have any entangled polarisations as A and B measurements have not been made yet.*

The same issue arises in a simple V flight plan.  The two photons can have any generalised entangled polarisation directions.  Until the antiparticle is measured (say by Bob) and after that the polarisations directions in both legs of the V are +/-b.   If the particle is measured at A before the antiparticle measurement at B, we are into the same issue that Price and Wharton claim dogs the delayed W experiment, where a measurement made in the future at B influences a measurement in the past at A.  I see no problem in accepting this.

*  I may be underestimating the nature of retrocausality here as the polarisations may always be +/-b in the V or W shape, rather than random polarisations, as all future measurements of antiparticles will influence polarisations now.

Austin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/dff0da6b-6a01-4e47-be56-2114c07b52een%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

I have been reading more on the 2015 and later Bell experiments, also on basic QM in connection with quantum logic gates.

I cannot find any entanglement swapping experiments that report (much) more than S= 2.5.  I still suspect that entanglement swapping procedures using quantum gates lose half of the potential entangled pairs.  Two of the 2015 experiments do not report an S value result which does not help me as statistical significant alone does not necessarily involve meaningful significance.  A recent experiment reported on this site by Richard has very significant results but only has, from memory, an S value of S=2.07??  A Chinese experiment involving a spacecraft reported S=2.55 approximately but I do not know if that involved entanglement swapping.  The 2015 Delft experiment reported S=2.42 using 245 pairs using an entanglement-swapping method of choosing 'event ready' pairs which limited the size of the population of pairs.  Kaiser's Cosmic Bell Test of 2017 reported two S values of 2.425 and 2.502 but the paper does not mention entanglement swapping.  Rauch's 2018 Cosmic Bell Test reports S=2.65 and 2.63 for tests 1 and 2, but with no mention of entanglement swapping.  Rosenfeld in 2017 obtained S=2.221 in an experiment with entanglement swapping.  Zhang in 2022 achieved S=2.5  using the device-independent quantum key distribution (DIQKD) protocol.

As with my attempts to grasp the experimental details of Geraldo's paper, I am likely to be poorly  understanding the particle flight paths in a W experimental set-up.  My suspicions depend on the existence of a link by Charlie's measurement in the central apex of the W.  Is this providing a retrocausal link between Alice's measurement and Bob's measurement in the extremities of the W?  Photon down-conversion does provide polarisation-entangled pairs of photons.  Entanglement swapping, in order to produce retrocausal event readiness, needs IMO to use the ud-du singleton form of entanglement (ignoring normalisation factor).  Not sure about ud+du as I am still working on this.  I think that uu-dd and uu+dd in the A and B measurement arms will not give retrocausal event ready pairs.

Austin

[Austin Fearnley]

The only helpful comment that I have received on my retrocausality work was from Mikko who said that in normal Bell experiments there were no antiparticles.  I have countered this previously in a more recent paper but I have thought further and will address this more fully now.

My simple simulations of Bell experiments use electrons and  positrons which is a simulation that uses antiparticles.  Particle/antiparticle pairs are created at some sort of source/oven and are entangled opposites. Mikko's point about photons does not affect my conclusion that my simple Bell simulation is explained by positrons travelling backwards in time.

In my preon model, spin is carried on preons with electric charge.  My model has quantised charges caused by the Kaluza Klein electric field dimension being a compactified dimension (really being four completely compactified dimensions with electric content, not one). This four dimensional block forms its own separate spacetime existing separately from our macro spacetime, and allows antipreons to travel backwards in our time but always conforming to their own spacetime's arrow of time.  It is this 4D-KK property which determines the time direction and not our notions of what an antiparticle is.

Positrons are simpler to understand than anti-photons.  There is a LH (left-handed) and a RH electron and correspondingly a RH and LH positron with opposite properties.  The LH electron has spin -1/2 whereas the RH electron has spin +1/2.  As the electron has charge -1, this shows that my model is not confounding spin with charge.  At a more fundamental level I have hexarks which are loosely based on L.L.Thurstone's poles of the mind from 100 years ago.  Each hexark is a multidimensional pole pointing in a unique direction say +++++ at one extreme and ----- at the other extreme.  Where an attribute can be, for example, + in electric charge or say - in red charge. So hexarks were designed to be independent or non confounded.  I needed a full set of hexarks, with no confounding, as each attribute is derived from a compactified spacetime different to our own.  That required no confounding of attributes.  Of course I could have inadvertently confounded in grouping hexarks into preons, but I clearly did not confound spin and charge for electrons.

Antiphotons exist, as seen in annihilation and creation of photon pairs.  But do antiphotons exist in larger numbers than do other antiparticles.  Can there be spin +1 and spin -1 anti-photons. In my preon model, spin +1 indicates a photon and spin -1 indicates an anti-photon.  It could be that I am confounding a spin -1 anti-photon with a spin  -1 photon, but they are identical structures in my preon model.  With this model I have privately made preon diagrams for every decay path that I have tackled.  Only one decay has eleuded me as it probably does not exist, that is the double neutrinoless beta decay.

I searched online whether parametric down conversion makes anti-photons. I found no reference for or against.  Then I tried a very specific question using an AI engine.  It told me that anti-photons were not created in down conversion.  I assume this is correct, however I assume that a pair of down converted photons have opposite spins (though I have no idea where the spin of the original progenitor photon goes).

When an electron emits a photon, that electron loses its spin 0.5 (say) and becomes spin -0.5.  A photon with spin +1 is emitted.  The next photon emitted will have spin -1, etc. with alternating signs of photon spin in future emissions.  Even if these emissions formally involve no antiphotons, the photon is its own antiphoton and in my model the spin +1 photon is structurally completely opposite to the spin -1 photon in its preon and anti-preon content.  In down conversion, the two photons are assumed to be of opposite spin and created at the same instant. This gives scope for retrocausal effects to be passed from the spin -1 photon to the spin +1 photon at the pair creation event.  In my model the spin -1 photon has spin contained on antipreons with positive electric charge and hence travelling backwards in time. Other preons in the photon have opposite charge so that total electric charge on the photon is zero. Also, the photon is travelling equally forwards and backwards in time allowing it to have advanced and retarded waves.  So I can drop the term antiphotons and instead rely merely on spin +1 and -1 photons to have a retrocausal link.

Austin

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:54:55 PM UTC+1 Austin Fearnley wrote:

I have been reading more on the 2015 and later Bell experiments, also on basic QM in connection with quantum logic gates.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Austin

The last few days there was a lot of activity in two other Google groups. One called the nature of time, run by Jarek Duda from Krakow, one specifically about fundamental particles, I think it is run by Jarek Duda too. There is a weekly Zoom seminar and and lots of e-mail traffic. I think you would get a lot more interest from folk who are not specifically interested in Bell’s theorem. 

I enjoy being in these other groups too. I have so much to learn in those areas.

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Jul 2023, at 16:13, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f193306c-d42f-4700-b4ab-3e991a5ca20en%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

In Bell experiments there are no particles at all. Nor waves for that matter. As Bell explained. There are events in space-time.

He did write an amusing paper on tachyon crime. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Jul 2023, at 16:13, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f193306c-d42f-4700-b4ab-3e991a5ca20en%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Then there is the fantastic Christopher Nolan movie Tenet. Cf the palindromic Sator square https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square

Connects to time reversibility as well as retrocausality.

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Jul 2023, at 16:13, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f193306c-d42f-4700-b4ab-3e991a5ca20en%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Richard

1.  I am trying to wind down my physics work.  I know about Jarek Duda's Zoom meetings. Chantal, I think it is, sometimes puts up a video of the conference.  I would rather watch the video so I can fast forward as necessary.  There was one Zoom today.  I have tried but can't find any written forums run by Jarek?

2.  I know Bell's Theorem applies in other areas than physics.  By convention bosons are not called particles.  But in my preon model, a boson is a collection of preons.  The same preons can be added together to make fermions which are particles.  My preon model does the same task as SUSY which tries to inter-relate fermions and bosons using the same maths.  So I am content to use the term particles. Events in spacetime are where interactions took place between particles/bosons or in my preon model, events are where particles disassembled, their preons redistributed and new particles/bosons were formed.  The events were inter-connected during their formation in space over time by particle/bosons travelling between them, they are not just random points.  If you want me to believe that the 2015 and later Bell experiments took place without particles or bosons then you are living in a post post modern world where black is white.  Where physics Nobel prizes are handed out for experiments not even mentioning physics?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pioneering-quantum-physicists-win-nobel-prize-in-physics-20221004/
Extract: "In a landmark 1998 publication, Zeilinger and his collaborators demonstrated the ability to swap entanglement between photons that had never been in contact with each other."

You may not have noticed it but I am suggesting that entanglemen swapping may have a barrier making it possibly not more than 50% effective.  This goes for Bell experiments and quantum computing.

3.  Time travel of people in movies is interesting but it is not possible in my version of retrocausality.  I have never bothered thinking much about supposed tachyons.

Best wishes

Austin

[Richard Gill]

On 16 Jul 2023, at 19:37, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you want me to believe that the 2015 and later Bell experiments took place without particles or bosons then you are living in a post post modern world where black is white.  Where physics Nobel prizes are handed out for experiments not even mentioning physics?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pioneering-quantum-physicists-win-nobel-prize-in-physics-20221004/
Extract: "In a landmark 1998 publication, Zeilinger and his collaborators demonstrated the ability to swap entanglement between photons that had never been in contact with each other."

You may not have noticed it but I am suggesting that entanglemen swapping may have a barrier making it possibly not more than 50% effective.  This goes for Bell experiments and quantum computing.

I have noticed what you are suggesting and I’m saying that the experiments show that you are wrong. There apparently is no barrier. 

The 2023 ETH experiment includes entanglement swapping in order to create entanglement between two two-level quantum systems at 30 meters distance from one another. The experimenters built a stretched-out two qubit quantum computer and ran a quantum algorithm to perform a certain task (namely: violate a Bell inequality). They succeeded.

Bell thought about particles and waves all the time. The point is that arguments in the foundations of physics should avoid circularity. They should not depend on the very pre-conceived notions that they aim to test by thought experiment, and later to test by real experiment. Please read carefully what Bell wrote:

You might suspect that there is something especially peculiar about spin-half particles. In fact, there are many other ways of creating the troublesome correlations. So, the following argument makes no reference to spin-half particles, or any other particular particles. Finally, you might suspect that the very notion of particle, and particle orbit, freely used above in introducing the problem, has somehow led us astray. Indeed, did not Einstein think that fields rather than particles are at the bottom of everything? So, the following argument will not mention particles, nor indeed fields, nor any other particular picture of what goes on at the microscopic level. Nor will it involve any use of the words ‘quantum mechanical system’, which can have an unfortunate effect on the discussion. The difficulty is not created by any such picture or any such terminology. It is created by the predictions about the correlations in the visible outputs of certain conceivable experimental set-ups.

[Austin Fearnley]

 Hi Richard

R.  I have noticed what you are suggesting and I’m saying that the experiments show that you are wrong. There apparently is no barrier. 

A.  I have moved on and am not talking about the S=2.0 barrier (which I think you are) but my suggested barrier at about S=2.4 when there is entanglement swapping (and retrocausality) and S=2.8 only applies if entanglement swapping is not used.  Is there an entanglement swapping experiment that finds S>>2.4?

The 2023 ETH experiment includes entanglement swapping in order to create entanglement between two two-level quantum systems at 30 meters distance from one another. The experimenters built a stretched-out two qubit quantum computer and ran a quantum algorithm to perform a certain task (namely: violate a Bell inequality). They succeeded.

This is the experiment reported in Nature. They used entanglement swapping and obtained S= 2.07 with a million pairs and a very highly significant p value.  But they did not find S>>2.4, which is what I suspect may be an approximate limit for entanglement swapping.  They very significantly broke the Bell limit of S=2 but that is a battle already won.  How high a correlation can they get in further experiments?   I do not doubt that Bell experiments are breaking the Bell limit of S=2.0. 

Bell thought about particles and waves all the time. The point is that arguments in the foundations of physics should avoid circularity. They should not depend on the very pre-conceived notions that they aim to test by thought experiment, and later to test by real experiment. Please read carefully what Bell wrote:

You might suspect that there is something especially peculiar about spin-half particles. In fact, there are many other ways of creating the troublesome correlations. So, the following argument makes no reference to spin-half particles, or any other particular particles. Finally, you might suspect that the very notion of particle, and particle orbit, freely used above in introducing the problem, has somehow led us astray. Indeed, did not Einstein think that fields rather than particles are at the bottom of everything? So, the following argument will not mention particles, nor indeed fields, nor any other particular picture of what goes on at the microscopic level. Nor will it involve any use of the words ‘quantum mechanical system’, which can have an unfortunate effect on the discussion. The difficulty is not created by any such picture or any such terminology. It is created by the predictions about the correlations in the visible outputs of certain conceivable experimental set-ups.

I already agreed with this a few post previously: "2.  I know Bell's Theorem applies in other areas than physics. "  I accept that Bell's Theorem applies wider than the area of classical physics.  It is good that his Theorem applies so widely.  If it didn't then the shock that it is broken in particle physics would not be so shocking.  But the area where Bell's theorem is broken is in particle physics so I see no need for me to take further interest in Bell's Theorem outside physics.  I  note it and move on.  Leave it aside.  I also did not want to get too permanently involved with the maths of Bell's Theorem as I view the S=2 limit in terms of the impossibility of a disattenuating a correlation of 0.5 back up to 0.707 while still using integer-number maths.  IMO Bell's limit is broken in particle physics because the world is not only made from our one 4D spacetime.  There are other compactified spacetimes inhabited by particles with their own time directions, some of which do not point in the same direction as our time.  This is a familiar finding in history, like realising that our universe was merely a galaxy, one galaxy out of very many.  i made my preon model years ago and it is like a lego model.  But it was made to conform to known particle properties and decay paths in the Standard Model so it implicitly has the group structures of SM.  I developed my preon model without knowing that Bell/retrocausality lay ahead.  And yet I made all particles/bosons have both forward and backward in time components which concurs with Feynman/Wheeler and maybe with Aharonov.   But this is because I was guided by the Standard Model rather than me knowing where my model was going.  IMO these time reversed ideas seem to me to be more understandable using preons than using indivisible elementary particles.  Again, history has shown that there are always more layers of turtles within.  QM seemed to have brought a halt to that history by its apparent completeness.  

Retrocausality, however, allows hidden variables to exist in a Bell experiment.  Although the two arms of a V may contain two entangled particles/bosons and that entanglement is satisfactorily described by QM, there is no causation within the QM maths.  The maths is simply maths and not reality. IMO entanglement needs to be maintained by backwards-in-time particles/bosons exchanging spin in reality to forwards in time particles/bosons.  QM can describe the effects of this action at a distance, or a permanently maintained composite of opposite spins, but QM maths cannot activate this in reality.  When two V shapes are brought together to make a W in entanglement swapping, the two arms of a single V are identical in QM as the spins are shared out equally in the two arms.  So when one arm is selected, it does not matter in QM which arm is chosen.  But in a hidden variable retrocausal explanation it does matter which arm is chosen as different arms have different spins.  In the W shape, entanglement can only be successfully swapped if the two chosen arms have one forwards in time spin and one backwards in time spin.  This would happen in half of the cases at random.   So I lower the S value limit, at a guess, from 2.8 to 2.4 for experiments where there is entanglement swapping.  If I am wrong and entanglement swapping can give 2.8 then that is another story which I can investigate.

Austin

[Chantal Roth]

Hi all,

With Sergey's permission, I am posting a reply here from him about a question regarding his thoughts on Bell type experiments:

"Hi Chantal,

I am not as deeply "immersed" in Bell's experiments as Richard and his opponents, but I have an inner confidence that the problem of photon detection is much more complicated than the scheme that is usually considered in quantum mechanics.

Indeed, in quantum mechanics, light is considered to be composed of indivisible photons that interact with an structureless detector. Thus, it is assumed that the detector, as a whole, responds to the action of a photon.

In fact, from my point of view, everything is exactly the opposite: the detector (regardless of what it is: a photographic plate or a threshold detector) consists of many atoms, which are affected by a continuous classical electromagnetic wave (light). This wave acts on individual atoms, which, generally speaking, are in different states (e.g. due the thermal fluctuations). As a result, different atoms react differently to the action of an electromagnetic wave. This leads to the fact that different atoms of the detector are differently excited in the field of the same electromagnetic wave.

If we consider a photographic plate, then detection occurs as a result of a photochemical reaction on individual photosensitive crystals. Due to the above probabilistic nature of the interaction of a classical electromagnetic wave with atoms (probabilistic not in the quantum meaning, but in the classical meaning), different crystals on a photographic plate will react differently to the action of a classical electromagnetic wave. As a result, we will see (if we look at the level of microcrystals) how different crystals are activated at different times and we get "point" reactions to an incident electromagnetic wave - "blackened" crystals. These point reactions are interpreted (within the "inverted" point of view I mentioned earlier) as being hit by "photons", and on long exposure these point events merge into the well-known interference pattern that demonstrates the wave nature of light. As a result, everyone is talking about wave-particle duality. In reality, this is the result of the interaction of a continuous classical electromagnetic wave with discrete atoms or crystals that are excited non-simultaneously. This is described and analyzed in detail in my papers [11-14] (see the list that I sent you).

If we consider threshold detectors, which are used in coincidence experiments, including experimental verification of Bell's inequalities, then they also consist of many atoms that react differently to an incident electromagnetic wave (light) due to the fact that they are in different statistical state (thermal fluctuations, interaction of atoms with each other, etc.). Threshold detectors are systems that are in an unstable state and their operation occurs as a result of "electrical breakdown" under the action of incident light. Thus, under the action of an incident electromagnetic wave (light), a photoelectric effect occurs on a single atom or on a small group of atoms inside the detector (this is a purely classical effect in the spirit of my Saturday’s talk, see article Ref. 5 from the list that I sent you), in which the excited atom (or a group of atoms) creates a photocurrent. This initial photocurrent is very weak. However, because the system (detector) as a whole is in a metastable state, the resulting photocurrent excites other atoms or groups of atoms. As a result, an avalanche occurs (an avalanche-like increase in electric current inside the detector), which leads to a breakdown of the detector and the appearance of a current pulse (detector click). After that, the detector does not react to the incident light for some time, because it should "charge" and again go into a metastable state.

From my point of view, this is exactly what happens in coincidence experiments and when testing Bell's inequalities, and when discussing these experiments, the mechanism of triggering the detectors must be taken into account. Therefore, in order to answer the question: what do these experiments prove, it is necessary to have a physical model of "single-photon" detectors (which are individual photosensitive crystals of a photographic plate or threshold detectors as a whole).

This question is very interesting and not as simple as it might seem, but without an answer to it, the debate about Bell's experiments will be endless.

That is my point of view.

 

Best regards,

Sergey

The references:

1.           Rashkovskiy S.A. Quantum mechanics without quanta: 2. The nature of the electron. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 4 (1) 29-58 (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s40509-016-0085-7.

2.           Rashkovskiy S.A. Classical-field model of the hydrogen atom, Indian Journal of Physics, 91 (6), 607-621 (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s12648-017-0972-8.

3.           Rashkovskiy S.A. Nonlinear Schrödinger equation and semiclassical description of the light-atom interaction. Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2017(1): 013A03 (17 pages) (2017). DOI: 10.1093/ptep/ptw177.

4.           Rashkovskiy S.A. Nonlinear Schrodinger equation and classical-field description of thermal radiation. Indian Journal of Physics, (2018), 92(3), 289-302. DOI: 10.1007/s12648-017-1112-1.

5.           Rashkovskiy S. Classical field theory of the photoelectric effect. In: Quantum Foundations, Probability and Information, A. Khrennikov, B. Toni (eds.), STEAM-H: Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, Mathematics & Health, Springer International Publishing AG, (2018), 197-214. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74971-6_15.

6.           Rashkovskiy S.A. Nonlinear Schrödinger equation and semiclassical description of the microwave-to-optical frequency conversion based on the Lamb–Retherford experiment. Indian Journal of Physics, (2020), 94(2), 161-174. DOI: 10.1007/s12648-019-01476-w.

7.           Rashkovskiy, S. A. Self-consistent Maxwell-Pauli theory. Indian Journal of Physics. (2023). DOI: 10.1007/s12648-023-02760-6. See also arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09466.

8.           Rashkovskiy, S. Self-Consistent Maxwell-Dirac Theory. Preprints 2022, 2022040168. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202204.0168.v1.

9.           Rashkovskiy, S. Nonlinear Pauli Equation. Preprints 2022, 2022100227. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202210.0227.v1.

10.         Rashkovskiy, S. Phenomenological Theory of the Stern-Gerlach Experiment. Preprints, 2022, 2022100478. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202210.0478.v1

11.         Rashkovskiy S. A. Are there photons in fact? Proc. SPIE. 9570, The Nature of Light: What are Photons? VI, 95700G. (September 10, 2015) DOI: 10.1117/12.2185010.

12.         Rashkovskiy S.A. Semiclassical simulation of the double-slit experiments with single photons. Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2015 (12): 123A03 (16 pages)  DOI: 10.1093/ptep/ptv162.

13.         Rashkovskiy S.A. Quantum mechanics without quanta: the nature of the wave-particle duality of light // Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, (2016) 3:147–160, DOI: 10.1007/s40509-015-0063-5.

14.         Rashkovskiy S. EPRB Gedankenexperiment and Entanglement with Classical Light Waves. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung A, (2018), 73(6)a, 467-478, DOI: 10.1515/zna-2018-0049.

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

In order to understand what is going on in a Bell experiment, it will ultimately be necessary to have a physical model of "single-photon" detectors (which are individual photosensitive crystals of a photographic plate or threshold detectors as a whole).

However, in order to answer the question what do these experiments prove,  it is not necessary to have a physical model of "single-photon” detectors. These experiments prove fairly conclusively that local realism must be abandoned.

As long as people like Sergey do not understand this, the debate will indeed be endless, because people will be making a lot of noice in the debate without realising what the debate is about.

Richard

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/00d56aea-f7f8-4d8c-81f6-f378c57d515a%40app.fastmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Pierre, I have no idea on which basis you make these claims.

I use local realism in Bell’s sense. It is mathematically precise.

“Locality” and “realism” are concepts in the philosophy of science about which endless debates are held.

I have no idea why you think the Eberhard case is any different from the CHSH case. You have clearly not studied the mathematical literature on Bell inequalities.

Of course superluminal, retro causal, and superdeterministic explanations are always possible. They explain anything, and hence predict nothing.

When I say “local realism in Bell’s sense” I mean of course “local realism in Bell’s sense together with measurement independence”. Bell was not stupid, and nor am I.

R.

On 18 Jul 2023, at 11:24, Pierre Leroy <pierr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Richard,

Local realism (in Bell's sense) can be abandoned indeed, but local realism (in the classical sense) is still possible.

Local realism in Bell's sense can be retained to explain CHSH violation, since it can only depend on detection, as Sergey suggests.

Local realism in Bell's sense cannot be kept to explain the violation of Eberhard's inequality, but there remains a local option (in the classical sense) to explain this violation by considering a superluminal influence compatible with relativity.

What Sergey describes, ie a set of atoms globally influenced by a wave look like the notion of context that I described previously.

So it seems to me that one should not be so categorical in saying that a single photon detection model is useless. It is only insufficient to explain everything.

Pierre

[Austin Fearnley]

Richard: "Of course superluminal, retro causal, and superdeterministic explanations are always possible. They explain anything, and hence predict nothing."

A couple of posts earlier I used retrocausality to predict (maybe too strong a word at the moment) that entanglement swapping may not achieve better than S=2.4 in a Bell experiment.
I may be wrong as there are experimental details that I do not grasp.  So I repeat below the reasons for a limit of S=2.4:

Retrocausality, however, allows hidden variables to exist in a Bell experiment.  Although the two arms of a V may contain two entangled particles/bosons and that entanglement is satisfactorily described by QM, there is no causation within the QM maths.  The maths is simply maths and not reality. IMO entanglement needs to be maintained by backwards-in-time particles/bosons exchanging spin in reality to forwards in time particles/bosons.  QM can describe the effects of this action at a distance, or a permanently maintained composite of opposite spins, but QM maths cannot activate this in reality.  When two V shapes are brought together to make a W in entanglement swapping, the two arms of a single V are identical in QM as the spins are shared out equally in the two arms.  So when one arm is selected, it does not matter in QM which arm is chosen.  But in a hidden variable retrocausal explanation it does matter which arm is chosen as different arms have different spins.  In the W shape, entanglement can only be successfully swapped if the two chosen arms have one forwards in time spin and one backwards in time spin.  This would happen in half of the cases at random.   So I lower the S value limit, at a guess, from 2.8 to 2.4 for experiments where there is entanglement swapping.  If I am wrong and entanglement swapping can give 2.8 then that is another story which I can investigate.

The 2015 Delft report says implicitly that the swapping measurement gets an event ready match of photons 1 and 4 when photons 2 and 3 match in their quantum states.  I do not know the details of what they consider a match.  I am not good at practical experimental details and maybe I missed their explanation.  I assume that they are assuming 1  is identical to 2 and 3 is identical to 4 as down converted pairs are entangled.  But I do not know how they did the test of 2 being identical to 3.   If retrocausality is at work, 1 is not identical to 2 and 3 is not identical to 4, which could spoil the test of 2 versus 3.

I next need to see if quantum logic gates can overcome this issue of matching 2 with 3 and restore the barrier of S=2.8. And if it does, are 2 and 3 actually being treated as exact equals in the quantum gates measurement by Charlie.

Austin

[Richard Gill]

Delft, marching: the two photons from Alice and Bob meet at Charlie’s place. Their paths cross and the two input photon waves are converted to their sum and their difference divided by root 2. The two output photon waves go to two polarizing beam splitters. After that come two pairs of two photodetectors. So Charlie has two ternary measurements with outcomes -1, 0, +1.

The experimenters select the double +1 events

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jul 2023, at 13:56, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Richard: "Of course superluminal, retro causal, and superdeterministic explanations are always possible. They explain anything, and hence predict nothing."

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cf4af930-72fb-4a9b-940f-ccdbfe7796fan%40googlegroups.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Chantal,

I just saw your email with a note from Sergey. The photoelectric effect seems so well established that I cannot waste my time arguing against classical arguments. Nevertheless, I would like to comment that from photons to photon-statistics there is a huge accumulation of facts, and quantum mechanics has been used to predict photon statistical phenomena that were experimentally verified.

Please see Chapter VI in the attached paper, up to section E (inclusive) for a few derivations of some basic ‘canonical’ statistical predictions for photon distributions (Eqs. 28 to 30). From the photon distribution you still must make the connection to the resulting electronic distribution (due to the photoelectric effect in a detector): this is also well known. All of this is old and well established. References abound.

At least, see some experimental results connected to Eqs. 28 to 30 in “F.T. Arecchi, A. Berné, and P. Burlamacchi, High-Order Fluctuations in a Single-Mode Laser Field”, Phys. Rev. Letters, vol 16, pp.42-35 (1966).

Electric field correlations (in several orders) were well explored by Roy J. Glauber in 1963 … Mandel ... and others.

Cheers,

Geraldo

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/00d56aea-f7f8-4d8c-81f6-f378c57d515a%40app.fastmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Geraldo,

I must remind you once again that the concept of light quanta, which
began to be called photon, was introduced by Einstein in 1905. Anyone
who thinks he understands what light quanta is should know what
Einstein said to his friend Michele Besso in 1951:“All these fifty
years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to
the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and
Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken”. The concept of light
quanta is so absurd that almost no one, not even Bohr, admitted it
before the advent of quantum mechanics. Bohr and every Tom, Dick,
Harry have admitted this concept due to Born’s proposal to describe
the knowledge of the observer about probability of results of upcoming
observation. But the author of this concept, Einstein, did not agree
with such a solution to the problem of quantum dualism, which he
himself provoked, at the cost of abandoning realism.
I think that Sergey, like Einstein, understands that every Tom, Dick
and Harry is mistaken.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 18 июл. 2023 г. в 20:13, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

>
> Chantal,
>
> I just saw your email with a note from Sergey. The photoelectric effect seems so well established that I cannot waste my time arguing against classical arguments. Nevertheless, I would like to comment that from photons to photon-statistics there is a huge accumulation of facts, and quantum mechanics has been used to predict photon statistical phenomena that were experimentally verified.
>
> Please see Chapter VI in the attached paper, up to section E (inclusive) for a few derivations of some basic ‘canonical’ statistical predictions for photon distributions (Eqs. 28 to 30). From the photon distribution you still must make the connection to the resulting electronic distribution (due to the photoelectric effect in a detector): this is also well known. All of this is old and well established. References abound.
>
> At least, see some experimental results connected to Eqs. 28 to 30 in “F.T. Arecchi, A. Berné, and P. Burlamacchi, High-Order Fluctuations in a Single-Mode Laser Field”, Phys. Rev. Letters, vol 16, pp.42-35 (1966).
>
> Electric field correlations (in several orders) were well explored by Roy J. Glauber in 1963 … Mandel ... and others.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Geraldo
>
>
>
> Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD
> KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC
> https://www.keybits.tech/
> 1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

> E-Mail: Geraldo...@keybits.tech

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAMhtMsZzphXz5UVsE3Qvu6f%3DtbaxOfemuQgQqntki5r%3DnNrXDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Alexey,

Fortunately, I am not included with the ones that know what a photon is. At  least I understand several models about this concept and MANY experiments that indicate which ones fit the models. That's all.

Cheers,

Geraldo

[Chantal Roth]

Hi Geraldo,

Sergey appears to have found a classical explanation not just for the photoelectric effect, but also for many other QM related observations - so I think it is absolutely not a waste of time :-). 

(Seems kind of important to me at least to look at more closely...)

Nobody is claiming that the statistics are wrong, or that the math of QM is wrong or that any observation is wrong. This is more a fundamental question, whether light itself must always be "quantized" into photons (regardless of the source), or if photons are related to how we detect things (and light is fundamentally a continuous classical wave).

Best wishes,

Chantal

(paper is attached)

Attachments:

• Barbosa-HarnessingNaturesRandomness-PhRBG-ENIGMA_Journal_v1pg47t058-2014.pdf
  

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Geraldo,

If you don't know what a photon is, then this concept can't be in the
models that you understand. No one can understand what he does not
know. Then, what concepts are there in the models that you understand?
And most importantly, what do these models describe? Reality or
something else?

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 19 июл. 2023 г. в 01:06, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Alexei:

Scientists (in particular, experimental physicists) do experiments in order to learn about what they do not understand. In order to gain understanding.

Mathematicians (in particular, theoretical physicists) look at the consequences of models in order to make predictions which can be tested in experiment.

To be honest, all I hear you doing is complaining about the decline of civilisation, but that is not going to get us anywhere. In fact, the earliest Sumerian clay tablets are letters from one scribe to another complaining about the decline of civilisation. The young don’t know how to write grammatically any more. This is going to be the end...

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4i%2B7WamXKaFjPkUUxCZnzkzhzFQcDDBWPzNbvhfmc9e8Mw%40mail.gmail.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Alexey,

If I knew what the photon is, in your understanding of the word “knew”, I would be very happy. I just know a few models for the concept of photon and have seen (and done) many experiments trying to expand my knowledge on this idea.

Reality or something else?

The idea of reality for me is based on experiments, not on dogmatic beliefs. If measurements give repetitive results for an experiment, the element under study can be classified as “real” or having reality (=the classical world “model”).  In other words, reality for me is just a “model”. In the quantum world “model”, repetitive measurements may show the advent of superpositions, randomness and other things explained by the “model” QM but not by the classical “model”. The classical model can be understood from the QM model, as composed of macroscopic elements where individual phases are averaged out. As you know (as an expert), superconductivity appears when the involved particles acquire a common phase (QM state “model”).

As I mention more than once to you, these “reasonings” end up or originated from our “conscientiousness” – by itself an even more obscure concept.

Geraldo

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Chantal,

A theory in Physics MUST explain all observed phenomena to be broadly accepted.

Photons (bosons) show statistical bunching effects and so the photoelectrons generated by them in the measuring process. It seems that some semi-classical models can explain some of these results or aspects of the photoelectric effect.

However, these semi-classical effects do not explain some related measurements. The attached paper shows one of these: “Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence” (Kimble, Dagenais, and Mandel).

 

If classical or semi-classical models cannot explain even one phenomenon but a QM model may explain all … one should accept the best one – even if we know that it is incomplete. This is the way that science advances.

 

Geraldo

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

[Austin Fearnley]

Thanks Richard

Austin

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Richard

Sorry to post this when you are so busy.  Best wishes with that main work!

I thought that understanding your sketch of the Delft matching process was going to be a very long process for me but, in fact, I already had the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect wiki page open on my iPad. I did not realise that effect was what Delft were using.  It doesn't change my opinion that there is a S=2.4 limit on correlations when using entanglement swapping.

I was interested to see annihilation and creation operators at work in the Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) effect.  Susskind's lectures online covered this and I found those QFT lectures enjoyable.  Creation and annihilation fit in very nicely with my preon model. You mentioned spacetime events recently.  At a spacetime event in my model, preons are exchanged between elementary particles.   It is very much like preons are analogous to atoms and elementary particles are analogous to molecules in a chemical reaction.  All atoms (and preons) are conserved but the molecules (elementary particles) change.  At a spacetime event every elementary particle changes, which involves annihilation and creation only in the sense of moving one preon from this particle here (annihilation) to that particle there (creation).  Some elementary particles can act like enzymes to allow an interaction to occur.  But they do get changed at every interaction, though in two succeeding interaction they can change back.  So they are unchanged after two interactions but are necessary for the exchanges, just like an enzyme.

The HOM comparison method can select photons with near identical properties which, because of this HOM effect, are known to come out both on the same side of the beam splitter.  One side (c+d) or the other (c-d).  Less-identical photons tend to come out one on each side.

As usual, I am not very sure of the process.  What I would like to select in order to get S=2.8 are two photons with exactly opposite polarisations.  I think but am not certain that two exactly opposite polatisations would be treated by the HOM effect as if they were the same.   If HOM cannot distinguish between +p and -p where +/- indicate polarisation vector directions, then HOM selects +p+p and -p+p  as if they are identical matches.  In my retrocausal model only the +p-p can lead to entanglement swapping.

Entanglement swapping is said to be entangling two photons which do not have a common origin.  However the HOM process at the central vertex of the W shape flight path is needed to ensure the entanglement retrocausally.  However fleeting the HOM procedure is, that procedure is a common link that transmits the entanglement.

If I am correct this also means that IMO Delft did a very good job to get approx S=2.4.

Austin

[Chantal Roth]

I don't know the details about the antibunching effect - detection is a complex non-linear process.

(For instance, many detectors have a dead time). Is there any more recent paper with a bit more detail?

It really depends on what you consider the "best" model.

One model has the "wave particle duality",  no explanation/mechanism how things really work and requires (to me) weird explanations like universes that split or other strange explanations.

The other one is a bit less exciting, but requires no fancy "interpretation" and has no "duality" or anything else that could be considere weird, and to me at least, seems a lot easier (Occams razor) and makes more sense.

I really like Rutherfords quote (from Robert Close's book http://www.verumversa.com/Science/ClassicalWaveTheoryOfMatter.pdf)

"All of physics is either impossible or trivial. It is impossible until you understand it, and then it becomes trivial. "

− Ernest Rutherford

QM seems "impossible" - at least when using the "light is quantized" model,  but I would not be surprised if it all turned out to be "trivlal" (when we see that there is really a semi-classical solution to all of this)

A while back, people used to cite the blackbody radiation, the double slit experiment, the photoelectric effect etc to "prove" that light is fundamentally quantized. Now that these are all explainable via classical means, and consistent with a continuous EM wave, we are now turning to antibunching , and *that* is now the definitive proof that there must be photons? :-)

(Sergey, do you happen to know more about this particular experiment?)

Best wishes,

Chantal

Attachments:

• prl39-1977_691_KimbleDagenaisMandel.pdf
  

[Mark Hadley]

The phenomena that you list are not explained by classical waves.

The papers and ideas circulated recently are fundamentally flawed. You need to look at them more critically. They make wierd non classical assumptions and purport to explain one part of a QM experiment while ignoring other QM facts. 

Does the universe split when you roll a dice? 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a5747177-acbb-46fc-823e-a7ec928a483c%40app.fastmail.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Chantal,

 

Many great minds made huge contributions for science. Even old ones including Plato, Socrates and so one … and science advanced by little steps. That is, new visions may surpass the old ones and new windows are open … and the process never ends.

There are people that may stick with some old visions, corrected at their time, and refuse to study or accept new ones. They have their “dogmas”, that cannot be challenged. We may call them “religious minds”. Science also has their dogmas, like the concepts of energy conservation, many other “laws” and so on. However, these dogmas are temporary, and they are replaced by new ones according to failures of the older concepts. This is the signature of science: it accepts modifications, it evolves.

 

Back to photoelectric effect and other quantum “signatures”, some says one aspect or other can be explained classically but they never find a complete view without accepting quantization. For example: light doesn’t need to be quantized, just the atoms need, or some other argument.

The basic point is that the QM “model” explains MANY features where classical models fail.

You may keep repeating some aspects where classical reasoning works and choose to be blind to others where classical ideas fail: a “dogmatic” approach.  

Sometimes, special or new tools have to be learned to allow for advances. If you choose not to learn them, you are elevated to the preacher category of some religion.

 

The “Resonance fluorescence” or the “Hong-Ou-Mandel” effect are just a few examples where classical physics fails to explain.  The very basic ideas involved do not need a person to understand all the mathematical or experimental details involved. For example, even a detector click that seems very simple, and I believe you accept without much questioning, it is quite an involved process (it is enough to consider that the simplest detector is a “point” detector constituted by a single “quantum” atom).

 

Religious preacher or scientific mind, there are not many other choices.

Geraldo

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

[Chantal Roth]

Hi Geraldo,

Back to photoelectric effect and other quantum “signatures”, some says one aspect or other can be explained classically but they never find a complete view without accepting quantization. For example: light doesn’t need to be quantized, just the atoms need, or some other argument.

I would encourage you to read Sergey's work, it is not just "some argument".

If you find a flaw in those papers, I suggest to ask it here on this forum, as Sergey is currently in the cc of these emails.

For electrons the solutions to the Schrödinger equation (without any artificial quanitziaton) are spherical harmonics, which are naturally quantized, there is no need to do anything special. 

Try this: put sand on a drum and it it.. you will get the well known vibrational modes (https://www.idrumtune.com/drumhead-vibration-and-the-science-of-sound/)

Schrödinger is similar but in 3D. There is nothing odd about it.

The basic point is that the QM “model” explains MANY features where classical models fail.

This used to be correct, but there hardly any "features" left that I am aware of where the classical model appears to have no explanation.

You may keep repeating some aspects where classical reasoning works and choose to be blind to others where classical ideas fail: a “dogmatic” approach.  

Sometimes, special or new tools have to be learned to allow for advances. If you choose not to learn them, you are elevated to the preacher category of some religion.

 

To me it looks very much like quantum mechanics has turned into a religion, where assumption are treated as a dogma and are not allowed to be questioned anymore. This sounds a lot more like religion to me :-).

In science, one has to be doubtful about everything, all the time.

From Sergey: "As for bunching effects. It was first discovered in the Hanbury Brown and Twiss experiments (Hanbury Brown, R., Twiss, R.Q.: Correlation between photons in two coherent beams of light. Nature (London) 177, 27–29 (1956)). From their experiments, which were analyzed from photon positions, it followed that photons are grouped in pairs, i.e. hit the detectors only in pairs. However, very soon Purcell (Purcell, E.M.: The question of correlation between photons in coherent light rays. Nature (London) 178, 1449–1450 (1956)), and then Mandel (Mandel, L.: Fluctuations of photon beams and their correlations. Proc. Phys. Soc. 72(6), 1037 (1958)) perfectly explained the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect within the classical wave theory. This was confirmed by experiments with lasers, in which there were no classical fluctuations in light intensity: for the laser, the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect disappeared.

I have not dealt with bunching effects in detail, because I am currently interested in atoms, a molecules, etc., but given the illustrative example with the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect, I think for other cases of bunching effects the answer can be found in classical field theory, taking into account the real process of light emission and detection.

It just needs to be done...

And the words that the classical field theory is not capable of explaining these phenomena does not hold water if we recall the Compton effect, the photoelectric effect, thermal radiation, spontaneous radiation of atoms, etc., which were also positioned as purely quantum effects and which became the reason for the development of orthodox quantum mechanics, because it was argued that without quantization they could not be explained." 

Re Hong Ou Mandel, there do seem to be classical explanations and experiment for it as well:

https://wwws.rri.res.in/quic/qoactivities.php

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.013839

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01297.pdf

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Austin Fearnley]

I have read further about the Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) effect used to match two photons to swap entanglement with another two photons.  In my previous post I was questioning whether the Delft test was actually testing for the near-enough-exact same quantum states of two photons.  This is fine according to QM if each photon has (say, ignoring normalisation factor) ud-du singlet properties.  But with my version of retrocausality  (where QM is not ontic but single hidden variables are ontic) the swapping only occurs with retrocausal usefulness if one photon is u (single hidden variable property) and the other photon is d.

I have found an arxiv paper which deals with antisymmetric photon pairs: Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel Interference at https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212017
Coincidence count curves in Figures 4 and 5 are flipped showing two opposite interference behaviours.  Symmetrically polarised beams go one way while antisymmetric beams go the other way.  There is further dependence on the states of the input pump bean, whether they be odd or even function.  So I need to read up on Hermite-Gaussian pumped beams.  But it still looks good to me that we could match u with d (opposites) rather than match ud-du with ud-du (which are identical).  MOH and quantum optics is a very interesting field and there are more papers online which look useful for me.

Austin

NB  I looked online at antibunching of photons, for possible weirdness, after reading Geraldo's paper but decided there was nothing there for me.  I already accept quantised photons and antibunching seemed to be merely emission of photons from a single atom.  Same quantisation  issue as with a beam but with antibunching occurring because there is a time interval needed inbetween emissions from a single atom.  The regular recovery times space out the photon emissions from a single atom.  Not sure why a time interval exists, unlike in human vision where chemicals need to recover.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

"Re Hong Ou Mandel, there do seem to be classical explanations and experiment for it as well:"

Chantal, a weak beam of light may reveal photons. In QM there is no classical light. Light is quantum (a dogma that may be changed if proved wrong).

Examples abound. Even simple random generators may use these quantum effects. Please see one of the most common generators of this kind: Quantis, made by ID Quantique (close to you).

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Chantal, 

have you studied Sergey's paper? Or even read it? I think you should before you recommend that other people read it. 

What did you think of the 'peculiar' assumptions? The impossible classical wave equation? The explicit non local terms? The seemingly arbitrary assumption of quantization? And then the result that is contradicted by other experiments. 

There are lots of papers like that. Hundreds if not thousands every year and some do get published. 

I'm still interested in non mainstream ideas, but I look for ones that duplicate and explain the equations of QM, because QM is so thoroughly tested. And I look for the mechanism for non locality. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cfcbcb61-b373-46ea-bb8e-57a3b70b4460%40app.fastmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Chantal

These are empty accusations which make me think that you are an adherent of another religion.

“To me it looks very much like…”. 

To me it doesn’t look like that at all. To be sure, QM is currently mainstream science. It works splendidly, people have no reason to distrust it. They use it and set up complex experiments whose outcomes match closely the result of pretty difficult but fortunately doable QM modeling. I think here of the ETH experiment reported in “Nature” this year. Fruit of 10 years labour. You say that this is just the result of some misguided people following a religion? Come now! Learn the maths, learn the lingo.  Go and talk to the guys in Zurich. You can do it!

R.

Sent from my iPhone

[Thomas Ray]

Come on, Richard.  You know you wouldn’t be so defensive if there wasn’t something to Chantal’s criticism.  There ARE assumptions in QM which bear examining.  Such as the questions you refuse to answer:  what is the measure space of quantum theory?  And, the weakness of a framework that only proves what it assumed in the first place.

T.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/EBC1D83B-7641-40F3-92C5-53B863AD7DBD%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

There are certainly assumptions in QM that raise questions. And there is no explanation. And the parameters of the standard model have unknown origin. Not to mention dark matter.

But it's worth realising, that variations of QM fail for one reason or another.

Sadly for experimentalist, it's a one horse race. There are no theories to distinguish, just greater precision. BI is partly a counterexample we can test BI vs QM on that we have an unambiguous result.

Cheers 

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CANm4TY%3DDnaSYou0vjtP%2Bnu2MqnGVkwbZ9Px%3De9LvuRS86Y1D_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Sorry Thomas, I think your question is meaningless. Quantum theory is incomplete in the sense that it does not model the emergence of individual outcomes in a measurement. It describes but does not explain measurement. There are numerous different ways to complete it, or to modify and then complete it.

Your words are what is called “begging the question”. It already makes assumptions and I do not even know what assumptions it makes. 

I was not being defensive towards Chantal. I was a bit annoyed.

R.

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jul 2023, at 21:11, Thomas Ray <thra...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Chantal Roth]

Mark,

Seriously, thousands like that :-)? (Sergey is cc-ed in the email, by the way... a bit more respect would be nice).

Let's discuss it then - pick a paper. I attached two if you like - how about the "are there photons in fact".

So which page or formula are you referring to?

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo0sqMWqn9WUGKJt4Fbqv2fHch027s68RmsKf7iyUFyf_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Richard,

I was mainly referring to the claim that light itself must be quantized - no matter if it makes sense or not or if there are semi-classical approaches that work as well.

You pointed it out yourself that Bell is agnostic about whether photons are particles or not. So I am not sure I see a reason to get upset about that.

Best wishes,

Chantal

[anton vrba]

Dear proponents of light is a continuous classical electromagnetic wave,

By asking the right question the futility of your arguments is exposed.

Let me explain: Using the contemporary classical representation of an EM-wave

and we know that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field)

Now if E and B are quantised, the energy of the classical electromagnetic wave must be a constant per unit volume.  That is consistent with Poynting who taught us 

  S= E x H

which has units Joules per (area times time) and is independent of frequency.

Now using the above electromagnetic theory, how do you explain E=hf?

Let's have an answer to the above question and if it cannot be answered then let's close this futile discussion.

Regards Anton

------ Original Message ------

From "Chantal Roth" <cr...@nobilitas.com>

To "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

Cc "Geraldo A Barbosa" <geraldo...@gmail.com>; "'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Sergey Rashkovskiy" <ra...@ipmnet.ru>; "pierrel5556" <pierr...@gmail.com>

Date 7/23/2023 8:28:53 AM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Sergey

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6cbeb8a3-a945-4420-801b-072dd2d330a0%40app.fastmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

The origin of E=hv was an *assumption* based on the blackbody radiation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Black-body_radiation

"The central assumption behind his new derivation, presented to the DPG on 14 December 1900, was the supposition, now known as the Planck postulate, that electromagnetic energy could be emitted only in quantized form, in other words, the energy could only be a multiple of an elementary unit:"

�=ℎ�

Note also that there is no claim that the wave itself is quantized...

The quantization can be explained by emission/absorption processes involving electrons

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Bohr_atom_model.svg/330px-Bohr_atom_model.svg.png

 

What woud 1 "photon" look like in your opinion? What size would it have?

Frequency is per second... this already raises some questions. Is it as long as what... the distance light travels for 1 second? That sounds a bit too large :-)? Or is it 1 wavelength "long"? Does that mean for a radio wave witih 1km wavelength, it is that long? I am curious to hear what people think about that.

Best wishes,

Chantal

(PS: I will be out next week. So just because I won't respond doesn't mean I agree  :-)

[Thomas Ray]

Richard, exactly what question am I begging?  

As I see it, the only question begging here is your formulating QM without a time parameter.  Nowhere is this clearer than in the failure of quantum computing to incorporate time in its fictitious quantum entanglement assumption.

Computing without a time parameter is nonsensical.  If the universe is a quantum computer, it refers to states of spacetime.  If spacetime is quantized, it has to be subject to infinite quantization, which is of course a wave characteristic.

Particles lose identity in the process.  The pebble counting inherent to computing is just a lot of dust.  Restoring the data to specific outcomes, in specific order, is a wave function.  The output of a wave function is information.  Particle points contain no information.  They have no identity with other points except in spacetime as coordinate points.  That is the meaning behind the Hess-Phillip timelike correlated parameters (TLCPs).

I believe you and your collaborators did science no service by dismissing the H-P PNAS paper.

T.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Chantal, 

You have to look at the low intensity experiments. 

Say 1 h v per hour per square meter. ( for me that's one photon per hour on a large screen) 

Classically, how can all the energy on the entire screen over one hour land on one single electron in a less than a microsecond. And what stops it happening on both sides of the screen in the same hour. ( that's the coincidence experiments) 

Yes you are correct that quantisation is about absorption and emission processes. Transmission is more wavelike. It's essentially the same for electrons and neutrons etc because wave particle duality us simple and universal. And is the essence of second quantisation in QFT which is so accurate. 

Sorry, I've lost the link on the photo electric effect. I'll give detailed comments on a paper. But pick one that's reasonably self contained ( not reliant on reading several preceding papers) my only request is that you read it first and comment on its strengths and weaknesses. 

Cheers

Mark

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

“Computing without a time parameter is nonsensical”

I could not understand this observation. Please clarify. Time evolution in QM computation involves time: |Psi(t)>=e^{-I H t/hbar} |Psi(0)>.

Yes, it is a relative time. Even in relativity the concept of time is somewhat localized (space-time entangled), applied to some event. There is no universal evolution supported in a single universal time. 

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CANm4TYka9Gyw9TxT5vGy-mfEgouOW6AQ8j%3DiEAQnwoAPX1tiaw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Thomas,

Unfortunately the Hess-Phillip model is nonlocal, so their claim of using timing to violate Bell's inequality is simply wrong. Halfway through their calculation they drop an index referring to the setting of the remote site. If you write out their model correctly, in full detail, the model is explicitly nonlocal.

However, I agree that the Hess-Phillip PNAS paper should not be dismissed entirely. Richard and I checked whether timing could be an issue, and it turns out it can, it is nowadays referred to as the "coincidence loophole". Motivated by the H-P paper (which we explicitly say in our paper), we perform a thorough analysis, provide a modified inequality, and a local hidden variable model that exploits the loophole maximally. A bona fide local hidden variable model. We also provide a method to remove the loophole, or as it were, transform it into a detection type loophole. See: J-Å Larsson and R Gill,  Bell’s inequality and the coincidence-time loophole, Europhysics letters 67:707-713 (2004)  https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i2004-10124-7  https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312035

The method to handle the loophole, and an alternative is analyzed in detail in: J-Å Larsson, M Giustina, J Kofler, B Wittmann, R Ursin, and S Ramelow,  Bell-inequality violation with entangled photons, free of the coincidence-time loophole, Physical Review A 90:032107 (2014)  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.032107  https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0712

You can read more about how to avoid loopholes in: J-Å Larsson,  Loopholes in Bell inequality tests of local realism, Journal of Physics A 47:424003 (2014)  https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424003  https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0363

Also, as Geraldo points out, time evolution is an integral part of quantum computing. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Have fun
/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CANm4TYka9Gyw9TxT5vGy-mfEgouOW6AQ8j%3DiEAQnwoAPX1tiaw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Thomas Ray]

Jan-Åke,  

Thanks, and yes, I have read all those references before.  Problem is, I think, that “nonlocal” is meaningless in a 4-dimension relativistic universe.

Fine, if you want to leave relativity out of it.  But such a framework can’t be complete, as Einstein said.  Because it explicitly rejects the reality of spacetime.

No doubt H-P got many things wrong.  But they got one thing right:  a specified measure space.  

I’m working on a paper, “Nonlocal causality”, which I hope to release soon, that hopefully clarifies.  

I’m barking up a different tree:  time evolution is nonlinear.

T.

[Mark Hadley]

See for example

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.9.853

You need to be aware of these text book results before making your claims. 

Cheers

Mark

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, 17:03 Chantal Roth, <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Mark,

Re low intensity experiment: do you have a concrete example, meaning: what kind of emissions process is it, how do you know when an emission happens, what kind of detector are you using? 

To me, the question "how can all the energy on the entire screen over one hour land on one single electron in a less than a microsecond" is already problematic :-).

Classically, the detection probability is related to the intensity (which I think is quite obvious :-). And where a detection event happens on the screen does not depend on whether another event already happened anywhere else on the screen.

So technicaly, there could be two events "simultaneously" (how do you define that, exactly? What is your detection time window? And does the detector have any "dead" time?) . It would of course be extremely rare if the intensity is so low....

You would have to compute the probability of seeing two events during that time window. (See equation 12 in the attached paper. )

I also attached a powerpoint presentation about this topic and two movies.

I hope that is enough material :-).

Best wishes,

Chantal

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo382p%2BSazOpPEeD6cY9GtkKmSJeBzgL0pfoVGsdBZgcTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Mark,

I had attached a paper ("Are there photons in fact? ")  plus powerpoint and movie - now you jump to *another* one.... (the relevant one you now mentioned is also attached.... .

What do you disagree with in the paper (and ppt) I had attached in "Are there photons in fact? ", exactly?

(By the way, you might ask Sergey directly, since he is the author...)

Best wishes,

Chantal

(As mentioned I will be out next week and will likely not respond)

[Chantal Roth]

PS: the paper you linked sounds like this is a CHSH experiment -  that is a totally different discussion, and these (old fashioned) CHSH experiments can very well be explained classically.... 

Attachments:

• Photoelectric Effect.pdf
  

[Richard Gill]

I don’t formulate QM. That’s not my job.

QM with a time parameter exists. Have you read my paper on Bekavkin’s “eventum mechanics”? Solves the measurement problem by marrying the Heisenberg cut with the Schrödinger unitary time evolution.

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jul 2023, at 15:36, Thomas Ray <thra...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Chantal

Bell is interested in the wave vs particle issue. Of course. He had his opinions. He was not agnostic. (Why do you keep bringing religion into this?). He argued carefully and precisely that the intended interpretation of the results of a Bell experiment does not depend on assumptions about waves or particles, it does not use quantum mechanics,  provided its protocol is what we now call “loophole free”. It does depend on assumptions about space, time and causality regarding macroscopic events.

If you significantly violate CHSH or Eberhard or whichever variant you prefer in a loophole free experiment you have reason to reject local hidden variables plus measurement independence.

The experimental units in those experiments are paired time slots. Not particles, not detections.

Sure, you can investigate those experiments from the point of view of QM, and experimenters plan them using QM. Wallraff’s group at ETH did sophisticated QM modeling to predict their results in advance. They figured out in advance that their experiment could give them the result they hoped for and they figured out how big the violation would be. It took them 10 years work and during those 10 years I bet they even did the control experiment which some of you want to see.

Go over to Zurich and ask them, Chantal. Study their paper first.

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jul 2023, at 09:29, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:



[Chantal Roth]

Richard,

The note on religion was actually a *response* to a post on religion :-).

Yes, I agree, if it is *truly* loophole free, and does not have some (possibly unknown) array of small experiment issues/biases/timebased correlations etc etc (you know what I mean), then you are right. 

You make it sound very simple, but this is a complex setup and there are a lot of details that have to be considered to fully understand it and especially to see how exactly detections happen. There are a lot of new concepts that I don't undersatnd enough. If it took them 10 years to prepare, I would assume it will take some time to understand and analyze.... :-) :-). 

(If I didn't have a job I might do what you suggest :-) 

Here are the links: 

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2023/05/entangled-quantum-circuits.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05885-0

supplement: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-05885-0/MediaObjects/41586_2023_5885_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Richard Gill]

You would be wrong. If you run a phase 3 clinical trial you prepare it for years and then analyse the data in the way you announced in advance.

Sent from my iPhone

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You are mistaken in thinking that the intended interpretation of the
results of a Bell experiment does not use quantum mechanics. Bell's
experiments would have been unthinkable without the trick, proposed by
Born that quantum mechanics should describe not reality, but the
probability of the results of upcoming observations. You don't want to
understand that the contradiction of quantum mechanics with realism
was provoked by the Born trick, and not by the violation of Bell's
inequalities, which orthodox quantum mechanics does not predict. You
don't want to understand that the miracle of the violation of Bell's
inequalities is a consequence of another miracle, the discreteness of
vector projections first discovered by Stern and Gerlach in 1922.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пн, 24 июл. 2023 г. в 07:56, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9F146D9E-3235-426B-8727-61F78A951F4F%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey,

Please stop repeating yourself. 

You could move things forward, as suggested, by saying what you mean by "trick"

I can derive BI. The derivation does not use or assume QM. It could equally well be about playing cards, shoes in shoe boxes, the toss of a coin, spinning tops, or the height of a wave etc. etc. All we need is any method to label the results +1 or - 1. That's why it is so powerful. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJbcfG1D9nJHSAu-m1DyYZgU9nwf8h4%2BAcyO_tf5JqrJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Richard,

I will try to ask them to send the raw data... :-)

Best wishes,

Chantal

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/86d763d1-ae17-4588-bcbf-614d582acadd%40app.fastmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

Don’t talk nonsense. Read Bell carefully. You are mistaken.

Richard

[Richard Gill]

Dear Chantal and others

Of course, *after* an experiment, everyone is free to analyse the data any way you like. If you want to understand what a photon is, you may well find it useful to dive deeply into a recent Bell experiment, even though they were not designed to investigate the photon. It’s important that you realise what you are up against - namely, you should understand the reasoning behind the design and analysis of so-called loophole free Bell experiments. If you don’t understand the reasoning, you might find yourself wasting your time. Our friend Alexei thinks that the reasoning depends on some silly dogmas instigated by Niels Bohr and others which he calls a “trick” and which he thinks is merely a result of the decline of civilisation. At which point he likes to quote some famous South American writer. The word “trick” is a denigratory word suggesting we are talking about something that it is not worth thinking seriously about. Alexei and others haven't thought seriously about it, because in advance they believe it is not worth thinking seriously about it.

I do know that Chantal has thought seriously about it and does understand it.

Ignoring it out of prejudice is exactly what we call confirmation bias in forensic science. It leads to miscarriages of justice.

Richard

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Unlike you and most authors of modern publications about Bell's
inequalities, I have read Bell carefully. Bell explains quite clearly
and even popularly at the beginning of the article [1] why the
Stern-Gerlach effect is a miracle that cannot be not only explained,
but even described. Bell wrote that the creators of quantum mechanics
refused to describe reality precisely because of such miracles as the
Stern-Gerlach effect:

“Phenomena of this kind made physicists despair of finding any
consistent space-time picture of what goes on on the atomic and
subatomic scale. Making a virtue of necessity, and influenced by
positivistic and instrumentalist philosophies, many came to hold not
only that it is difficult to find a coherent picture but that it is
wrong to look for one- if not actually immoral then certainly
unprofessional. Going further still, some asserted that atomic and
subatomic particles do not have any definite properties in advance of
observation. There is nothing, that is to say, in the particles
approaching the magnet, to distinguish those subsequently deflected up
from those subsequently deflected down. Indeed even the particles are
not really there” [1].

Bell was misled by Bohm precisely because Bell, like Einstein,
believed that a physical theory should describe what happens, not what
is observed. Bell, like Einstein, understood that the proposal of
Heisenberg, Born and other creators of quantum mechanics to describe
‘observables’ rather than beables was a trick: “Einstein said that it
is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I think he was right -
'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden business. Then that
notion should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory”
[2].

I should say that you, like most authors of publications on Bell's
inequalities, follow no Bell but most people who believed in quantum
mechanics and therefore ignored more than twenty years Bell’s
publications, which proved the inadequacy of quantum mechanics.
Criticizing "some silly dogmas instigated by Niels Bohr and others'',
I follow Bell who ”felt that Einstein’s intellectual superiority over
Bohr, in this instance [the EPR paradox], was enormous as vast gulf
between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the
obscurantist'' [3].

[1] Bell, J.S., Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal
de Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981).
[2] J. S. Bell, Against Measurement. in the proceedings of 62 Years of
Uncertainty. Plenum Publishing, New York 1989; Physics World 3, 33-40
(1990).
[3] Bernstein J., Quantum Profiles. Princeton, 1991.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 25 июл. 2023 г. в 10:21, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

Alexey,

I think almost everyone who has studied the foundations of QM is well aware of its inadequacies. Its failure after a 100 years to  give an explanation of the results is profoundly unsatisfying.

Most physicists ignore the foundations and instead use it's phenomenal predictive power to understand emergent phenomena at a higher level.

BI is fundamental to understanding the explanatory gulf that must be breached one day. 

Be wary of quoting old sayings, even from geniuses. Even Einstein was repeatedly wrong in his predictions. New results and thoughts generally result in much clearer treatment in modern texts. 

Cheers

Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iL0_OB-y5%3DpFmKTkScwP2t6ekW8WmSTiHkHLGVpvyOByQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

I have to repeat the same thing, because not only you, but also most
people, do not want to understand that their understanding of quantum
mechanics is completely false. Schrodinger wrote more than seventy
years ago that your understanding of quantum mechanics is false. In
particular, he wrote that the analogy of quantum mechanics with
playing cards indicates a complete misunderstanding of what Bohr,
Heisenberg and their followers actually mean. Bohr, Heisenberg and
their followers mean that the object does not exist independently of
the observing subject [1].

Before you claim that Einstein, Schrodinger and other critics of
quantum mechanics were wrong, you need to understand what they were
proving.

[1] Schrodinger, E. Science and Humanism. Physics in Our Time.
Cambridge University Press. 1952.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 25 июл. 2023 г. в 20:50, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

Bohr Heisenberg and others may well have claimed that objects don't exist until they are observed.

I'm not sure I'm terribly bothered. That's one interpretation. It helps with some things and creates problems in other places... just as all interpretations do. 

I learnt and taught that as one of many interpretations that a serious researcher should know about and be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Without studying that homments are just noise or dogma. 

We know a lot more about QM now. More experimental results and more theoretical work too. 

I was referring to Einstein bring mistaken about general relativity several times. 

[anton vrba]

Below copied from E. Schrödinger (Ed. Michel Bitbol), The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Dublin Seminars (1949-1955 And Other Unpublished Essays). Ox-Bow Press, Connecticut, USA, 1995

Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. It has been worked out in great detail to form a scheme of admirable logical consistency that has been inculcated ever since to every young student of theoretical physics.

The view I am opposing is so widely accepted, without ever being questioned, that I would have some difficulties in making you believe that I really, really consider it inadequate and wish to abandon it. It is, as I said, the probability view of quantum mechanics. You know how it pervades the whole system. It is always implied in everything a quantum theorist tells you. Nearly every result he pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that … happening ─ with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does behave this way ─ namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid alternatives come into play only when we make an observation-which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it. And I wonder that he is not afraid, when he puts a ten-pound note {or his wrist-watch} into his drawer in the evening, he might find it dissolved in the morning, because he has not kept watching it.

------ Original Message ------

From "Алексей Никулов" <nikulo...@gmail.com>

To "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>

Cc "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>; "Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Geraldo A Barbosa" <geraldo...@gmail.com>; "Sergey Rashkovskiy" <ra...@ipmnet.ru>; "pierrel5556" <pierr...@gmail.com>; "Chantal Roth" <cr...@nobilitas.com>

Date 7/25/2023 7:19:35 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Sergey

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iLdxw21LeDsQVv_wkKmpohWYZ8jdnUhDMcfceNhe9ZHVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

One of the main reasons for the false understanding of quantum
mechanics by you and most people is the illusion that a scientific
theory can have interpretations. This illusion is a delusion, since
any scientific theory must clearly and unambiguously define what and
how it describes. Quantum mechanics has many interpretations precisely
because it is a trick rather than a scientific theory.

Bohr, Heisenberg and others did not just state that objects do not
exist until they are observed. They created quantum mechanics based on
this statement. Quantum mechanics is unthinkable without this
statement, which is the essence of its contradiction with realism.

It doesn't bother you because you don't understand what not only
critics, but also the creators of quantum mechanics understood. You,
like many modern authors, have the illusion that you understand
quantum mechanics better than its creators. I must say that this
illusion is a delusion. A regression, almost catastrophic, rather than
progress in understanding physics has been over the past decades. One
of the main reasons for this regression is the mass character of
modern science.

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 25 июл. 2023 г. в 22:01, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexey

I suggest you try to understand something of the great achievements of 20th century philosophy. To being with, Wittgenstein. I'm sorry, there is no going back to 19th century false certainties.

Richard

[Chantal Roth]

Richard (et al),

I got the data from the ETH experiment (just the time series unfortunately, so there is no raw data apparently anymore).

This is what the data looks like:

The following list contains the data of the main Bell test experiment presented in the paper (with 2^20 trials).
Each line corresponds to a single trial, and represents the data in the following format:

Input Alice, Output Alice, Input Bob, Output Bob

1, 1, 1, -1
1, -1, 0, -1
1, -1, 1, -1
1, 1, 0, 1
0, 1, 0, 1

Here are some intial observations:

The counts I see are exactly the ones from the paper (so I am reading and interpreting the data correctly):

I then created buckets of 2048 counts (total 2^20=1 million) like this:

Bucket	A0	A1	B0	B1	DA-	DA+	DB-	DB+
0	1079	969	1045	1003	1056	992	1020	1028
1	1018	1030	1031	1017	1015	1033	1033	1015
2	990	1058	1024	1024	1097	951	1019	1029
3	1017	1031	1032	1016	1069	979	1072	976

....

A0, A1, B0, B1 are the input values.

DA-, DA+, DB- and DB+ are the resulting measurements.

(I can send the Excel sheet if anyone is interested).

What I did next is check if there are any "trends": (nothing fancy, just simple Excel plots and trendlines :-))

As I would expect in a good experiment, there is no trend in the choices of input values (A0 vs A1 is random throughout, same for B0 and B1):

So, all good so far :-)

I would expect the same lack of trends for the detections as well.

However.. this is what I see:

So over time, there are fewer A- results and more A+ results

This by itself might be ok.... (but it does raise some questions...).

However, I also noticed a small correlation between the A0 input and A+ output (regardless of B):

So when the input setting was set to A0, there is a slight trend to have more A+ results than expected (regardless of the B settings...).

There is also a correlation between DA+ and DB+ of 0.25 (regardless of the input values)

(So when A registered a +, regardless of the input settings, B also registered a + more often than expected)

The correlations are small, but then again, the value for the CHSH result S=2.07 is also small :-)

(and far from the 2.82).

I could imagine that such trends can have an influence on the result of S.

I think it would be important to quantify how much this would influence S.

(Note, you cannot see this if you only look at the totals, one needs to look at the time series)

Best wishes,

Chantal

PS: the trends are the mosty independent of bucket size, so the result is similar for a buchet size of 512 or 1024 etc

[Austin Fearnley]

The fall in A- values over time looks odd.  I remember Richard's paper mentioned some effects which could vary over time which would need the statistical test to be amended?

Not sure what you are expecting the graph of DA+ v DB+ to look like.  There is an overall correlation of 2.07/4 (approximately 0.52) per paired setting.  Though for one setting of the four the correlation is -0.51.  If this setting is not normalised to +0.51 [and you do say "regardless of the input values"] then that would reduce the overall correlation to 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 - 0.5 = 1.0.  And if you average that to a correlation per setting that becomes 1.0/4 = 0.25, which is the correlation you quote for the diagram. (I don't like using CHSH because of adding correlations and I use a simpler simulation for my work. But I accept that a real experiment has greater needs.)  So, I see no problem here, but the diminishing A- over time is interesting.

As I wrote earlier, I am suspicious that entanglement swapping limits the S value to say 2.4. This would make the Delft result of S = 2.4 close to the limit.  This is because in my retrocausal model one needs singlets to (retro)cause the entanglement and not all Bell states are the singlet state.  I am not convinced that all third party measurements by Charlie use singlets, and IMO they need to do so. This could also contribute to decoherence in quantum computing.

Austin

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:45 AM UTC+1 cr...@nobilitas.com wrote:

Richard (et al),

I got the data from the ETH experiment (just the time series unfortunately, so there is no raw data apparently anymore).

- - - - - - - 

[Chantal Roth]

Continued :-)

If we try to "undo" the observed correlation and reduce the A+/B+ slightly (regardless of the settings), then we get this:

I reduced the ++ counts slightly (factor 0,95)

(Note, the correlation that I noticed for DA+ vs DB+ is about 0,25 )

SImilarly, S can easily be increased if we allow a slightly larger correlation of DA+ vs DB+: (factor 1,02)

(Again, regardless of the settings)

At minimum, the "p-value" that is reported in the paper clearly does not seem to include any such correlations.

So then, how significant are these results when considering these effects? 

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Karma Peny]

WOW, brilliant investigative work!

[Richard Gill]

How statistically significant they are, depends on how much you trust the randomization. How physically significant they are is another question. QM very accurately predicts these correlations.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2023, at 13:20, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:



Continued :-)

If we try to "undo" the observed correlation and reduce the A+/B+ slightly (regardless of the settings), then we get this:

<image.png>

I reduced the ++ counts slightly (factor 0,95)

(Note, the correlation that I noticed for DA+ vs DB+ is about 0,25 )

SImilarly, S can easily be increased if we allow a slightly larger correlation of DA+ vs DB+: (factor 1,02)

(Again, regardless of the settings)

<image.png>

At minimum, the "p-value" that is reported in the paper clearly does not seem to include any such correlations.

So then, how significant are these results when considering these effects? 

Best wishes,

Chantal

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, at 11:17 AM, Chantal Roth wrote:

Richard (et al),

I got the data from the ETH experiment (just the time series unfortunately, so there is no raw data apparently anymore).

This is what the data looks like:

The following list contains the data of the main Bell test experiment presented in the paper (with 2^20 trials).
Each line corresponds to a single trial, and represents the data in the following format:

Input Alice, Output Alice, Input Bob, Output Bob

1, 1, 1, -1
1, -1, 0, -1
1, -1, 1, -1
1, 1, 0, 1
0, 1, 0, 1

Here are some intial observations:

The counts I see are exactly the ones from the paper (so I am reading and interpreting the data correctly):

<image.png>

<image.png>

I would expect the same lack of trends for the detections as well.

However.. this is what I see:

<image.png>

So over time, there are fewer A- results and more A+ results

This by itself might be ok.... (but it does raise some questions...).

However, I also noticed a small correlation between the A0 input and A+ output (regardless of B):

<image.png>

So when the input setting was set to A0, there is a slight trend to have more A+ results than expected (regardless of the B settings...).

There is also a correlation between DA+ and DB+ of 0.25 (regardless of the input values)

(So when A registered a +, regardless of the input settings, B also registered a + more often than expected)

<image.png>

The correlations are small, but then again, the value for the CHSH result S=2.07 is also small :-)

(and far from the 2.82).

I could imagine that such trends can have an influence on the result of S.

I think it would be important to quantify how much this would influence S.

(Note, you cannot see this if you only look at the totals, one needs to look at the time series)

Best wishes,

Chantal

PS: the trends are the mosty independent of bucket size, so the result is similar for a buchet size of 512 or 1024 etc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/33247aad-994b-4a18-b50d-961001f137f1%40app.fastmail.com.

[Karma Peny]

Hi Chanta,

Sorry for being a bit dumb, but when you say the "ETH experiment" do you mean the experiment performed earlier this year in which researchers from ETH Zurich attempted the first ever 'loophole-free' Bell test using superconducting circuits, or is it some other experiment? Also, would I be right in describing your results as indicating there is some bias over time?

If your calculations are correct, then it is a bit concerning that this type of bias was not checked for by the original team. I guess the original team would probably have realised that something was not quite right if they had done control tests that use non-entangled particles. Great work :)

Cheers,

Mark

[Chantal Roth]

Hi Mark,

Yes, it is this experiment: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-05885-0/MediaObjects/41586_2023_5885_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits

i see changes over time and some correlations where there should not be any.

It is hard for me to say exactly how much that would influence the result, but it would be good to know. (The simple Excel manipulation can show the trend, but not the exact values).

Ideal would be a proper simulation probably that directly demonstrates this effect, but that takes quite some time.

It would be nice to see some analysis on this.

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Richard Gill]

Fortunately, my martingale based tests take account of time drifts and time jumps

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2023, at 14:48, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:



Hi Mark,

Yes, it is this experiment: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-05885-0/MediaObjects/41586_2023_5885_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits

i see changes over time and some correlations where there should not be any.

It is hard for me to say exactly how much that would influence the result, but it would be good to know. (The simple Excel manipulation can show the trend, but not the exact values).

Ideal would be a proper simulation probably that directly demonstrates this effect, but that takes quite some time.

It would be nice to see some analysis on this.

Best wishes,

Chantal

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, at 2:29 PM, Karma Peny wrote:

Hi Chanta,

Sorry for being a bit dumb, but when you say the "ETH experiment" do you mean the experiment performed earlier this year in which researchers from ETH Zurich attempted the first ever 'loophole-free' Bell test using superconducting circuits, or is it some other experiment? Also, would I be right in describing your results as indicating there is some bias over time?

If your calculations are correct, then it is a bit concerning that this type of bias was not checked for by the original team. I guess the original team would probably have realised that something was not quite right if they had done control tests that use non-entangled particles. Great work :)

Cheers,

Mark

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 12:51 PM Karma Peny <karm...@gmail.com> wrote:

WOW, brilliant investigative work!

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 12:20 PM Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Continued :-)

If we try to "undo" the observed correlation and reduce the A+/B+ slightly (regardless of the settings), then we get this:

<image.png>

I reduced the ++ counts slightly (factor 0,95)

(Note, the correlation that I noticed for DA+ vs DB+ is about 0,25 )

SImilarly, S can easily be increased if we allow a slightly larger correlation of DA+ vs DB+: (factor 1,02)

(Again, regardless of the settings)

<image.png>

At minimum, the "p-value" that is reported in the paper clearly does not seem to include any such correlations.

So then, how significant are these results when considering these effects? 

Best wishes,

Chantal

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, at 11:17 AM, Chantal Roth wrote:

Richard (et al),

I got the data from the ETH experiment (just the time series unfortunately, so there is no raw data apparently anymore).

This is what the data looks like:

The following list contains the data of the main Bell test experiment presented in the paper (with 2^20 trials).
Each line corresponds to a single trial, and represents the data in the following format:

Input Alice, Output Alice, Input Bob, Output Bob

1, 1, 1, -1
1, -1, 0, -1
1, -1, 1, -1
1, 1, 0, 1
0, 1, 0, 1

Here are some intial observations:

The counts I see are exactly the ones from the paper (so I am reading and interpreting the data correctly):

<image.png>

<image.png>

I would expect the same lack of trends for the detections as well.

However.. this is what I see:

<image.png>

So over time, there are fewer A- results and more A+ results

This by itself might be ok.... (but it does raise some questions...).

However, I also noticed a small correlation between the A0 input and A+ output (regardless of B):

<image.png>

So when the input setting was set to A0, there is a slight trend to have more A+ results than expected (regardless of the B settings...).

There is also a correlation between DA+ and DB+ of 0.25 (regardless of the input values)

(So when A registered a +, regardless of the input settings, B also registered a + more often than expected)

<image.png>

The correlations are small, but then again, the value for the CHSH result S=2.07 is also small :-)

(and far from the 2.82).

I could imagine that such trends can have an influence on the result of S.

I think it would be important to quantify how much this would influence S.

(Note, you cannot see this if you only look at the totals, one needs to look at the time series)

Best wishes,

Chantal

PS: the trends are the mosty independent of bucket size, so the result is similar for a buchet size of 512 or 1024 etc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a2c16429-d8e1-450a-89ce-8ed7daff26eb%40app.fastmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Is there a similar test for correlations?

[Richard Gill]

My test is just a variant of CHSH! In good circumstances it is equivalent. In bad circumstances it is better (more reliable).

It uses randomisation, just like we use in clinical trials, to take account of hidden confounders. Time is an important possible confounder. About time you studied some of my papers, Chantal ...

[Scott Glancy]

It looks to me like the drift of the "+" and "-" detection results that Chantal observes could be explained by drifts in the measurement fidelities.  This is normal in such experiments as lab parameters like temperature and magnetic field change slowly in time.  I would bet that you can find similar drifts in most Bell test experiments.  Fortunately, these drifts do not violate any assumptions needed to justify the validity of the Bell test when rigorous statistical methods are used (as they were).

[Chantal Roth]

I saw a similar effect on the Giuistina 2015 experiment.

Even if these drifts are normal, they can have an impact on the result - especially if there are additional "drifts"/correlations (in the Guistina there were two drifts that looked like they would "help" J (more detections over time, and at the same time, more ++ settings over time)).

For instance there is also a very small correlation between the settings (A0 vs B0):

Yes, these are small correlations, and it would not matter if S were close to 2.8, but it makes me wonder how much if effects the result. 

Correlations:
A0	B0	0.034
A0	detA-	0.078
A1	B1	0.034
A1	detA+	0.078
B0	detB+	0.063
B1	detB-	0.063
detA+	detB+	0.248
detA-	detB-	0.248

It would great to know to how much S would be if the correlations were smaller or different.

Basically a function that would automatically "adjust" S for a given set of correlations.

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8ce2ba60-9e0b-4182-b935-da836a5eea7an%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Answer (repetition of Scott's answer): if you use rigorous statistical methods, then drifts like this do not affect the result.

Can we stop repeating this? Chantal, how about you read Richard's paper?

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6339c2b2-2104-4767-8c65-862d5cf1aa8b%40app.fastmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Chantal Roth]

I am pretty sure I have read it, but it probably was a while ago. I am happy to read it it again if you think it contains the answer. Which one do you mean exactly?

As far as I remember, the issues we saw in the Giuistina 2015 paper were not addressed with any of the papers that I remember.

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3d772b39-8ac3-9008-d84f-b98a1f5a2891%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059

If you use Martingale methods, you do not need to assume Independent Identically Distributed (IID) trials. Drifts are allowed.

/Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

As long as there are no drifts in the RNGs and one uses the martingale test it doesn’t matter. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Jul 2023, at 09:02, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6339c2b2-2104-4767-8c65-862d5cf1aa8b%40app.fastmail.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Another issue is of statistical significance versus meaningful significance.
The correlation for the whole experiment is based on 2^20 cases.  A correlation based on that (where correlations of 0.5 are safely away from the danger areas of +1 and -1, which disrupt the evenness of the correlation scale) has standard error of approximately 1/sqrt (2^20) = 0.001.  So the overall average correlation (= S/4 = 2.07/4) of approximately 0.518 has standard error 0.001.

The four separate tests are based on 2^18 cases each, with standard errors of about 1/sqrt (2^18) = 0.002 each.
So we have    r=  0.53  se=0.002
                        r= -0.51  se=0.002
                        r=  0.50  se=0.002
                        r=  0.53  se=0.002
and overall   r=  0.518 se 0.001

These are very precise correlations and one wonders why the four correlations are not more similar given the precision of the standard errors.  I suppose this is an artifact of statistical significance not being totally meaningful.

Chantal, did you check the correlation calculations yourself or simply use ones provided in the paper?

I calculate the four correlations as 0.492, -0.549, 0.461, 0.496.
This would seem a little odd [as three of them are below 0.5] if they are true values, though I may have miscalculated?

Austin

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:17:45 AM UTC+1 cr...@nobilitas.com wrote:

[Chantal Roth]

How did you calculate the correlations below, did you repeat the calcuatlion from the paper?

I only did a very simple Excel CORREL(B:B;G:G), on the time series between the various columns... the excel sheet is attached

Best wishes,

Chantal

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/855476b2-58bc-438b-851a-dfd2f00e39d1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

OMG why don’t you just read my slides of my latest talk and my latest paper

https://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo2023rdgpdf-258392040

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9909/3/2/23

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ece63509-c757-43a5-8845-6daa879f5542%40app.fastmail.com.
<ETH_Bell.xlsx>

[Richard Gill]

OMG why don’t you just read my slides of my latest talk and my latest paper

https://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo2023rdgpdf-258392040

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9909/3/2/23

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/NY-RmRJPLBI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/855476b2-58bc-438b-851a-dfd2f00e39d1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

I cannot see a simple calculation of the four correlations in your excel spreadsheet.  

I did them in two different ways, one using my own excel algorithm and one using an approximate method:  r= 2( p++ + p---)  - 1.  They agreed in the second decimal place.

I found r = 0.492, -0.549, 0.461, 0.496 (which has an S value of 1.998)

I did not use time series.  If one is going to use a sophisticated calculation later, I would prefer to use a basic calculation to see the raw starting point.

It will be interesting to see how and why (using Martingale calculations) these four inauspicious correlations are converted into r =  0.53,  -0.51,  0.50,  0.53 (which has an S value of 2.07)

Although I hope someone checks my calculations of the four correlations.

Austin

[Richard Gill]

Dear Austin

The martingale calculation does not calculate any correlations. When are you going to read my papers? All four “loophole free experiments” since 2015 have used my approach in order to take account of drifts and jumps in physical parameters as time proceeds. But you must use really good random generators for the setting. Like in clinical trials: use randomisation to take care of hidden confounders. In these experiments, time is a hidden confiner.

The martingale approach is is based on the so-called Bell game.

Suppose settings are determined again and again by fair coin tosses. After possible relabelling of the settings count the number of times the outcomes are equal and the settings are 11, 12, or 21 plus the number of times the outcomes are unequal and the settings are 22.

[You may see that this has some similarity with the sum of three correlations minus the fourth, since under the assumptions about settings, the four denominators in those observed correlations will be approximately equal]

Now compare to the binomial distribution with n = number of trials and p = 3/4

Richard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3368b75c-9c4b-44c6-870b-77cb73e82ae9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Your calculations are wrong. Read my paper in “Applied mathematics”. It has the data and the calculations (they are also reproduced in RPubs documents, there are links to them in the paper)

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9909/3/2/23

On 31 Jul 2023, at 17:54, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3368b75c-9c4b-44c6-870b-77cb73e82ae9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Chantal Roth]

RIchard,

Yes, now I would like to repeat the game, but now we have some systematic (small) bias/errors, resulting in some small correlations between parameters that should not have any. I mean correlations among the individual columns, so the settings A0, A1, B0, B1 and the resulting single detections, detA-, detA+, detB-, detB+.

(so not looking at the final "correlations" - sorry that word is of course misleading :-).

So... let's assume there is - for whatever reason - say because of some drift, like the machine heating up, who knows, or some other (small ) flaw, a correlation say between A0 and B0 - just a small one. Say 0.03.

And let's further say, some additional dorrelation, again a tiny one, between detA+ and detB+ (say... whatever ... 0.05).

Can we now repeat the calculation, the martingale game, and see what we get out in this case?

This is what I would like to know.

In other words (you can probably do this in 5 minutes! :-):

can you write a simple R script that does this "game", but where one can also enter the correlations between different columns?

I would like to see how much such "correlations"/drifts it would take to "beat" the game.

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/580B131D-BA5E-46C2-9950-A0D7EC4122EE%40gmail.com.

[Scott Glancy]

Chantal,

I see now you are talking about two different issues: (1) drift in experimental parameters over time and (2) correlation between A's and B's measurement choices.  #1 certainly can alter the observed value of S, but if analyzed rigorously, it cannot cause a local hidden variable model to appear to violate a Bell inequality.  #2 would be a serious problem if the correlations are real.  One might be able to adjust the Bell inequality to attempt to correct for this correlation, but the presence of real correlation would show that the measurement choices are not genuinely independent, so the experiment could not be loophole free (if those correlations are real).

If you are confident that you have seen statistically significant correlation between A0 and B0, I would recommend that you contact the paper's authors for their comments.  

Scott

[Austin Fearnley]

I went back to the Nature paper supplement (page 17) and agree that S=2.07 using raw data.  Page 17 also gives the raw counts.

These were given correctly at the top of Chantal's first post of data.  I then mistakenly went back to the top of Chantal's second post which held counts to artificially lower the correlations and used that data to give S<2, thinking those were the actual data.  I was concerned that no improved method of calculation should take S<2 to S>2.  And of course the actual data did not.  Sorry about that.

Austin

[Chantal Roth]

Scott,

Thanks for your note - the correlations are very small, so maybe they are insignificant .

So before I would contact them and cause any stir for no reason :-), I would prefer to get a feeling for how much that would actually influence the result. 

I am hoping that this would be easy to do with an R script :-). (Or any other language).

(I can probably figure it out eventually... but it would take me a some time, and I work full time... so hopefully someone who knows more about statistics than I do could do this quickly :-).

Basically: given the martingale "game" with the setup of the ETH experiment, with n trials (here n = 2^20), and given a correlation between any two colums (say A0 and B0, or A0 and detA+ etc), compute what S would be for that particular correlation at best.

Ideally, the function should allow for multiple such correlations, so that we can see the effect of them on S for various combinations. 

First, we could see whether the observed correlations are significant enough to challenge the result or not.

Second, it could give us a way to see how large these correlations would have to be in order to actually have any real impact.

That way, future experiments could use that to "pre-empt" such effects and  spell them out already in the paper.

If it turns out that this could get close to challenge the result, then of course, I would reach out to the authors. In that case, maybe there is a way to adjust at least the p-value accordingly.

Best wishes,

Chantal

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/79c22061-df9c-4499-b75c-7f4d9aa63173n%40googlegroups.com.

[Scott Glancy]

Chantal,

Statistically significant correlations in the measurement choices would cast serious doubt on the experiment's claim of being "loophole free" even if the correlations have little impact on the value of S.  I would recommend doing a hypothesis test for the hypothesis that the choices are uncorrelated.  Such hypothesis tests should be standard practice when doing Bell tests.  I'm sure you can find tutorials explaining how to do such tests online, though one thing to watch for is that the choices are binomial random variables rather than gaussian random variables.

Scott

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Mathematica has a nice RandomVariate generator for probability distributions. Very easy to use.
For a Binomial Distribution with a PDF
 (1-p)^(-k+n) p^k Binomial[n,k]  , 0≤k≤n
you just ask for
Table[RandomVariate[BinomialDistribution[3,0.25]],{k,1,10}] and get a random sequence {1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1}.

It uses a pseudo random generator called Rule30 (a cellular automaton, based on an old patent by Stephen Wolfram).

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9153da2c-ce59-4591-aa1a-ea28ac3a9e2bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

The correlations are small but they are predicted very accurately by the quantum mechanics calculations for a system of three components: qubit A, 30 metre long vacuum tube, qubit B. Entanglement between A and B is created by exciting qubit A. It emits one quantum of microwave radiation which travels to B and as it does so it gets spread out in time. Thus in terms of waves, only part of the wave interacts with B just before the measurement of B. Thus an initial entanglement between A and the photon it emitted is converted, through interaction between the photon and qubit B, into entanglement between A and B. How much can be calculated by doing the careful QM calculations and this predicts the correlations which are actually observed very nicely indeed. I think that is a rather nice aspect of this experiment. The experimental observations were predicted in advance by careful QM modelling of the entire experimental set-up.

You should not use the word “insignificant” in a loose way. The correlations are statistically highly significant. They are real. They are predicted by QM. If you don’t believe in QM please do your best to come up with an alternative theory which also predicts them just as well. Preferably, a theory which can be tested in new experiments. As far as I can see the randomisation of settings is very good indeed. I did some initial statistical tests and did not find anything. If you look hard enough you will eventually find some anomalies just significant at the 5% level. Write them up and discuss them with the experimenters and with the public.

I prefer experiments which use pseudo random number generators based on well understood computational complexity and pretty deep number theory. The problem is that they are not yet fast enough. 

The quantum random number generator used in this experiment has been tested and tested and used age and again in numerous experiments. Get crowd funding to buy one yourself and do your own tests. I think it is a weakness of these experiments that the RNG’s which are used rely on the same quantum photonics as the we are studying in the experiment itself. We will have to wait for decennia for this to change. In the meantime, keep on criticising, thereby pushing the experimentalists and the technology.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a997c11e-9ee8-4a8a-b735-1ee7cba0b2df%40app.fastmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Richard,

With "maybe insignificant" I was actually referring to the correlations between the RNG settings :-) (not the results :-).

(The RNG setting correlations are - hopefully - insignificant :-) :-).

Re anomalies at the 5% level - assume we have found them (such as these minor correlations of the settings etc)

Do you have a simple way to estimate how much that could at best (worst :-) influence S?

Best wishes,

Chantal