[Bell_quantum_foundations] Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Алексей Никулов
Apr 20, 2022, 5:42:53 AM4/20/22
to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations, Richard Gill, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Colleagues,
I wrote to you in January about my publication [1] in which I draw
attention to obvious mistakes made after the discovery of the Meissner
effect in 1933. Physicists postulated after 1933 the obvious
contradictions with logic (see section 5.4. “Contradiction with
Elementary Logic” of [1]) and even with the law of energy conservation
(see section 5.5. “Contradiction with the Law of Energy Conservation”
of [1]) because of blind faith in the second law of thermodynamics. No
one noticed these obvious contradictions for almost ninety years.
Recently I submitted in Physical Review A a manuscript “Physical
thinking and the GHZ theorem”, see attached file, in which I draw
attention to no less obvious contradictions made by D. M. Greenberger,
M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger at the deduction of the GHZ
theorem [2] and the GHSZ theorem [3]. The contradictions are so
obvious that it is surprising that no one has noticed them for more
than thirty years. The authors [3] try to prove ”that the premises of
the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paper are inconsistent when applied to
quantum systems consisting of at least three particles” on the base of
the main premise of the Einstein - Podolsky – Rosen: measurement of
one particle cannot change quantum state of other particles. The EPR
premise was used in the derivation of the equation (F3) from the
equation (F1) in the Appendix F of the paper [3], see attached paper.
The use of the EPR premise to refute locality and realism is not the
only contradiction in the publication [3]. The polar and azimuthal
angles in the expression (8) for the expectation value in [3] are the
angles between a direction in which the spin projection will be
measured and the direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.
Measurements of the spin projection in the eigenstate will give spin
up with probability 1. According to the expression (F1) of [3] all
four particles have eigenstates in the same direction and the
expression (F2) predicts that measurements in this direction of each
particle in the GHSZ state will give spin up with probability 1. But
the expression (7) in [3] for the GHSZ state predicts that the first
measurement of the spin projection in any direction of one of the
particles will give spin up with the probability 0.5. This obvious
contradiction in the paper [3] is a consequence of the lack of
understanding by its authors that only non-entangled spin states can
be eigenstate in one of the directions of the real three-dimensional
space.
I draw attention in the manuscript submitted to Physical Review A that
the obvious mistakes made at the deduction of the GHZ theorem [2] and
the GHSZ theorem [3] are direct consequences of the rejection of
realism by the creators of quantum mechanics. These mistakes are quite
obvious. But I am not sure that my manuscript will be published. Most
physicists do not want to admit even the most obvious contradictions
of quantum mechanics. I submitted in December 2018 in Physical Review
A a manuscript “Only the critics understood quantum mechanics”. Daniel
T. Kulp, Editorial Director American Physical Society informed me 19
February 2019 that my manuscript is not suitable for publication in
any APS journal. This manuscript was rejected in ten more physics
journals.
This censorship is one of the causes that even the obvious
contradictions of the theories recognized by the majority are ignored.
Most scientists rather believe than understand these theories. Almost
all scientists are sure that no perpetuum mobile is possible. But most
of them do not understand that a perpetuum mobile can be impossible
only because of the irreversibility postulated by the second law of
thermodynamics. The dissipation of kinetic energy of a car or electric
current into heat is an irreversible process according to the second
law of thermodynamics. Most experts on superconductivity have
forgotten about this basis of thermodynamics. Therefore, they do not
understand that the Meissner effect is experimental evidence of the
process reverse to the irreversible process of dissipation of the
electric current into Joule heat [1]. Modern scientists are sure that
no perpetuum mobile is possible even when they observe it.
The faith in quantum mechanics is no less blind. The majority believed
in quantum mechanics because of its success and therefore ignored the
arguments of Einstein, Schrodinger and a few other critics who tried
to explain that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory because
of its contradiction with realism. Blind faith in quantum mechanics
has reached the point of refuting realism in [2,3] and other numerous
publications. The authors of these publications, unlike Einstein, did
not understand that realism is the presupposition of every kind of
physical thinking rather than a claim which can be disproved with any
experimental results. The mistakes made in [2,3] demonstrate with the
greatest clarity that the rejection of realism leads to the
degradation of physical thinking.
This degradation began with the proposal of young Heisenberg to
describe the observed rather than the existing. Heisenberg's proposal
was implemented by Born, who proposed to consider Schrodinger’s wave
function as a description of the amplitude of the observation
probability. Born’s proposal to describe the knowledge of the observer
about a probability of the results of the upcoming observation led to
the need for the Dirac jump, which postulated a change in the state of
a quantum system under the influence of a change in the observer's
knowledge. Dirac postulated in 1930 that the state only measured
particles can change at the observation.
The authors [2,3] made obvious mistakes because they did not
understand that quantum mechanics could not predict the EPR
correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if only the Dirac
jump was postulated. The prediction of non-locality became possible
only in 1951 when Bohm extended the Dirac jump on the state of the
particle which was not measured. I call this jump of the both
particles of the EPR pair ”into an eigenstate of the dynamical
variable that is being measured” as the Bohr jump since Bohm
postulated this jump under influence of Bohr claim about ’spooky
action at a distant’. The authors of [2,3] and many other publications
did not understand that Bohm had to reject the well-known principle of
quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute only if they
act on the same particle, in order to postulate the Bohr jump.
The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the
misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe
realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our
reason, and not the absence of reality. The obvious mistakes made in
deducing the GHZ theorem [2,3] are a consequence of the arrogance of
the reason of modern scientists who do not want to admit that the
possibilities of our reason may be limited even in the realm of our
experience.
[1] A. V. Nikulov, The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner
Effect. Entropy 24, 83 (2022); see abstract at
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83 and the PDF file at
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83/pdf .
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
I wrote to you in January about my publication [1] in which I draw
attention to obvious mistakes made after the discovery of the Meissner
effect in 1933. Physicists postulated after 1933 the obvious
contradictions with logic (see section 5.4. “Contradiction with
Elementary Logic” of [1]) and even with the law of energy conservation
(see section 5.5. “Contradiction with the Law of Energy Conservation”
of [1]) because of blind faith in the second law of thermodynamics. No
one noticed these obvious contradictions for almost ninety years.
Recently I submitted in Physical Review A a manuscript “Physical
thinking and the GHZ theorem”, see attached file, in which I draw
attention to no less obvious contradictions made by D. M. Greenberger,
M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger at the deduction of the GHZ
theorem [2] and the GHSZ theorem [3]. The contradictions are so
obvious that it is surprising that no one has noticed them for more
than thirty years. The authors [3] try to prove ”that the premises of
the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paper are inconsistent when applied to
quantum systems consisting of at least three particles” on the base of
the main premise of the Einstein - Podolsky – Rosen: measurement of
one particle cannot change quantum state of other particles. The EPR
premise was used in the derivation of the equation (F3) from the
equation (F1) in the Appendix F of the paper [3], see attached paper.
The use of the EPR premise to refute locality and realism is not the
only contradiction in the publication [3]. The polar and azimuthal
angles in the expression (8) for the expectation value in [3] are the
angles between a direction in which the spin projection will be
measured and the direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.
Measurements of the spin projection in the eigenstate will give spin
up with probability 1. According to the expression (F1) of [3] all
four particles have eigenstates in the same direction and the
expression (F2) predicts that measurements in this direction of each
particle in the GHSZ state will give spin up with probability 1. But
the expression (7) in [3] for the GHSZ state predicts that the first
measurement of the spin projection in any direction of one of the
particles will give spin up with the probability 0.5. This obvious
contradiction in the paper [3] is a consequence of the lack of
understanding by its authors that only non-entangled spin states can
be eigenstate in one of the directions of the real three-dimensional
space.
I draw attention in the manuscript submitted to Physical Review A that
the obvious mistakes made at the deduction of the GHZ theorem [2] and
the GHSZ theorem [3] are direct consequences of the rejection of
realism by the creators of quantum mechanics. These mistakes are quite
obvious. But I am not sure that my manuscript will be published. Most
physicists do not want to admit even the most obvious contradictions
of quantum mechanics. I submitted in December 2018 in Physical Review
A a manuscript “Only the critics understood quantum mechanics”. Daniel
T. Kulp, Editorial Director American Physical Society informed me 19
February 2019 that my manuscript is not suitable for publication in
any APS journal. This manuscript was rejected in ten more physics
journals.
This censorship is one of the causes that even the obvious
contradictions of the theories recognized by the majority are ignored.
Most scientists rather believe than understand these theories. Almost
all scientists are sure that no perpetuum mobile is possible. But most
of them do not understand that a perpetuum mobile can be impossible
only because of the irreversibility postulated by the second law of
thermodynamics. The dissipation of kinetic energy of a car or electric
current into heat is an irreversible process according to the second
law of thermodynamics. Most experts on superconductivity have
forgotten about this basis of thermodynamics. Therefore, they do not
understand that the Meissner effect is experimental evidence of the
process reverse to the irreversible process of dissipation of the
electric current into Joule heat [1]. Modern scientists are sure that
no perpetuum mobile is possible even when they observe it.
The faith in quantum mechanics is no less blind. The majority believed
in quantum mechanics because of its success and therefore ignored the
arguments of Einstein, Schrodinger and a few other critics who tried
to explain that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory because
of its contradiction with realism. Blind faith in quantum mechanics
has reached the point of refuting realism in [2,3] and other numerous
publications. The authors of these publications, unlike Einstein, did
not understand that realism is the presupposition of every kind of
physical thinking rather than a claim which can be disproved with any
experimental results. The mistakes made in [2,3] demonstrate with the
greatest clarity that the rejection of realism leads to the
degradation of physical thinking.
This degradation began with the proposal of young Heisenberg to
describe the observed rather than the existing. Heisenberg's proposal
was implemented by Born, who proposed to consider Schrodinger’s wave
function as a description of the amplitude of the observation
probability. Born’s proposal to describe the knowledge of the observer
about a probability of the results of the upcoming observation led to
the need for the Dirac jump, which postulated a change in the state of
a quantum system under the influence of a change in the observer's
knowledge. Dirac postulated in 1930 that the state only measured
particles can change at the observation.
The authors [2,3] made obvious mistakes because they did not
understand that quantum mechanics could not predict the EPR
correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if only the Dirac
jump was postulated. The prediction of non-locality became possible
only in 1951 when Bohm extended the Dirac jump on the state of the
particle which was not measured. I call this jump of the both
particles of the EPR pair ”into an eigenstate of the dynamical
variable that is being measured” as the Bohr jump since Bohm
postulated this jump under influence of Bohr claim about ’spooky
action at a distant’. The authors of [2,3] and many other publications
did not understand that Bohm had to reject the well-known principle of
quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute only if they
act on the same particle, in order to postulate the Bohr jump.
The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the
misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe
realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our
reason, and not the absence of reality. The obvious mistakes made in
deducing the GHZ theorem [2,3] are a consequence of the arrogance of
the reason of modern scientists who do not want to admit that the
possibilities of our reason may be limited even in the realm of our
experience.
[1] A. V. Nikulov, The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner
Effect. Entropy 24, 83 (2022); see abstract at
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83 and the PDF file at
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83/pdf .
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
Richard Gill
Apr 21, 2022, 12:54:57 AM4/21/22
to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Dear Alexey
You write "Only a few authors [41] were critical of the GHZ theorem. No one, including the critics, did not notice that the authors [34] used the main assumption of the EPR [1], which was been contesting by Bohr [2]."
On a point of English grammar: one of those negatives should go out. "No one did not notice" means "everyone did notice". And "which was been contesting" should be "which was contested".
I think that what you are trying to say is nonsense! Everybody who studies quantum foundations and Bell's theorem knows these things. Of course, lots of people do not read the literature carefully but just repeat folk-lore assertions which are often wrong.
Bohr contested the concept of local realism. It is incompatible with quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Bell's theorem says. Feynman said about Bell's theorem "it's not interesting. Everybody knew this already". Bell's theorem is a mathematical triviality. It is mathematically amusing. Lots of physicists who are soaked in quantum mechanics and not so good at clear logical and mathematical thinking just keep on repeating nonsense about it,and this will go on for ever, since there are always new generations who are taught some nonsense in standard textbooks by teachers who were brainwashed themselves by their teachers and never sat down and did the careful thinking...
Which is irrelevant if you are only interested in "practical purposes". The practical quantum physicist needs have no interest in Bell's theorem. They learn by indoctrination how to do quantum mechanics and do not waste brain energy wondering what it all means.
Richard
Алексей Никулов
Apr 21, 2022, 12:10:04 PM4/21/22
to Richard Gill, Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Dear Richard,
Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors. I wanted to say “No
one, including the critics, noticed that the authors [34] used the
main assumption of the EPR [1], which was contested by Bohr [2]”.
You think that what I am trying to say is nonsense because you do not
understand what I say. You may not know that a principle is in quantum
mechanics that operators acting on different particles commute.
Quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality in the sense of the EPR
correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities according to this
principle. Therefore, I was very surprised when I noticed that this
principle is used in the derivation of the GHZ theorem [1] and the
GHSZ theorem [2]. The authors of the book [3], in which the GHZ
theorem is been popularizing, write in section 6.6 “The
Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Theorem”: “We know that the three
operators Sx(a), Sy(b), and Sy(c) commute. (This is because each acts
on a different particle. Only if Sx and Sy act on the same particle do
they fail to commute.) Thus, we can apply them to the GHZ state in any
order”, see p. 175 in [3].
You wrote that “Everyone who studies quantum fundamentals and Bell's
theorem knows these things” I'm saying about. But I see that the
authors [1-3] do not know that quantum mechanics cannot contradict
locality if operators acting on different particles commute. I draw
your attention that quantum mechanics predicts violation of Bell’s
inequality due to the expression (4) in the Bell article [4] and (9)
in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. According to
this expression the probability to observe spin up of the second
particle differs fundamentally from the probability of 0.5 to observe
spin up of the first particle. I hope you understand that this
difference is mathematically impossible if the operators acting on
different particles commute. I repeat in section 4. THE ASSUMPTION
USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE GHZ THEOREM MAKES IMPOSSIBLE THE
PREDICTION OF VIOLATION OF BELL’S INEQUALITIES the Bell deduction of
violation of Bell’s inequality for the EPR pair in [4] for single
particles in order to accentuate that quantum mechanics predicts
violation of obvious inequalities only when operators do not commute.
You wrote: “Of course, lots of people do not read the literature
carefully but just repeat folk-lore assertions which are often wrong”.
I should say that you repeat folk-lore of the majority when you write:
“Bohr contested the concept of local realism. It is incompatible with
quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Bell's theorem says”. First of
all, I must say that the meaningless term ‘local realism’ belongs to
the folklore of the majority. Realism cannot be local or non-local.
Quantum mechanics is indeed incompatible with realism because of
folk-lore assertion that quantum mechanics is incompatible with
locality because of Bell's theorem is wrong. Quantum mechanics cannot
predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if we
do not reject the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting
on different particles commute.
No one has ever rejected this principle. Therefore the authors [1-3]
use this principle. This principle was not rejected by Bohr when he
claimed that the EPR [5] expression ”without in any way disturbing a
system” is ambiguous [6] although the EPR premise that measured of a
particle A cannot disturb in any way the state of other particle B is
deduced from the principle that operators, which act on different
particles, commute.
The illusion that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and
violation of Bell’s inequalities appeared only in 1951 when Bohm
extended the postulate about the Dirac jump to a particle that is not
measured. This absurd jump, which I call the Bohr jump, contradicts
obviously the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting on
different particles commute. Bohm did not draw reader’s attention
that we must reject this quantum principle in order his postulate
about the Bohr jump does not contradict quantum mechanics. Bell also
said nothing about the fact that this principle must be rejected in
order for quantum mechanics to predict the violation of his
inequalities. Therefore, internally contradictory theorems [1,2]
appeared and even became popular among the majority.
I should say that Feynman belongs to the majority who rather believe
than understand quantum mechanics. He did not understand why the EPR
paradox is a paradox and he did not understand the essence of Bell's
theorem. Therefore he made funny mistake, to which I draw attention in
the report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman» presented at the
conference "Quantum Informatics — 2021” see slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman
. Feynman did not take into account that the complexity of computing
increases exponentially with the number of elements, not because the
system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is
calculated. This mistake of Feynman is important for "practical
purposes" since it created the illusion for the majority who believe
rather than understand, that a quantum computer can be real.
I agree with you that Bell's theorem is a mathematical triviality. But
I think Bell's theorem has nothing to do with mathematics. Bell's
inequalities became popular only due to the degradation of physical
thinking among physicists. This degradation is a direct consequence of
the rejection of realism by creators of quantum mechanics since
realism is ”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” as
Einstein was understanding correctly. The decision of Editors of
Physical Review A to reject my manuscript "Physical thinking and the
GHZ theorem" two days after its submission, see below, is one of the
manifestations of the degradation of physical thinking.
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edn. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006).
[4] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).
[5] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).
[6] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
[7] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
Your_manuscript AR12116 Nikulov
Subject: Your_manuscript AR12116 Nikulov
From: p...@aps.org
Data: 21.04.2022, 14:49
To: nik...@iptm.ru
Re: AR12116
Dear Dr. Nikulov,
We have examined your manuscript and conclude that it is not suited
for Physical Review A. We make no judgment on the correctness of the
work, only on its suitability according to our other criteria.
To be publishable in Physical Review A, manuscripts must contain
significant new results in physics, be of high quality and scientific
interest, and be recognized as an important contribution to the
literature.
We do not believe that your paper meets these criteria and feel that
it will be more productive for you to seek publication in another,
more specialized journal.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Gabriele De Chiara (he/him/his)
Associate Editor
Physical Review A
Email: p...@aps.org
https://journals.aps.org/pra/
чт, 21 апр. 2022 г. в 07:55, 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/23d05bb9-ce4e-4f2a-9463-4fce51665985n%40googlegroups.com.
Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors. I wanted to say “No
one, including the critics, noticed that the authors [34] used the
main assumption of the EPR [1], which was contested by Bohr [2]”.
You think that what I am trying to say is nonsense because you do not
understand what I say. You may not know that a principle is in quantum
mechanics that operators acting on different particles commute.
Quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality in the sense of the EPR
correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities according to this
principle. Therefore, I was very surprised when I noticed that this
principle is used in the derivation of the GHZ theorem [1] and the
GHSZ theorem [2]. The authors of the book [3], in which the GHZ
theorem is been popularizing, write in section 6.6 “The
Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Theorem”: “We know that the three
operators Sx(a), Sy(b), and Sy(c) commute. (This is because each acts
on a different particle. Only if Sx and Sy act on the same particle do
they fail to commute.) Thus, we can apply them to the GHZ state in any
order”, see p. 175 in [3].
You wrote that “Everyone who studies quantum fundamentals and Bell's
theorem knows these things” I'm saying about. But I see that the
authors [1-3] do not know that quantum mechanics cannot contradict
locality if operators acting on different particles commute. I draw
your attention that quantum mechanics predicts violation of Bell’s
inequality due to the expression (4) in the Bell article [4] and (9)
in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. According to
this expression the probability to observe spin up of the second
particle differs fundamentally from the probability of 0.5 to observe
spin up of the first particle. I hope you understand that this
difference is mathematically impossible if the operators acting on
different particles commute. I repeat in section 4. THE ASSUMPTION
USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE GHZ THEOREM MAKES IMPOSSIBLE THE
PREDICTION OF VIOLATION OF BELL’S INEQUALITIES the Bell deduction of
violation of Bell’s inequality for the EPR pair in [4] for single
particles in order to accentuate that quantum mechanics predicts
violation of obvious inequalities only when operators do not commute.
You wrote: “Of course, lots of people do not read the literature
carefully but just repeat folk-lore assertions which are often wrong”.
I should say that you repeat folk-lore of the majority when you write:
“Bohr contested the concept of local realism. It is incompatible with
quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Bell's theorem says”. First of
all, I must say that the meaningless term ‘local realism’ belongs to
the folklore of the majority. Realism cannot be local or non-local.
Quantum mechanics is indeed incompatible with realism because of
Born’s proposal to describe the knowledge of the observer about a
probability of the results of the upcoming observation. But your
folk-lore assertion that quantum mechanics is incompatible with
locality because of Bell's theorem is wrong. Quantum mechanics cannot
predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if we
do not reject the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting
on different particles commute.
No one has ever rejected this principle. Therefore the authors [1-3]
use this principle. This principle was not rejected by Bohr when he
claimed that the EPR [5] expression ”without in any way disturbing a
system” is ambiguous [6] although the EPR premise that measured of a
particle A cannot disturb in any way the state of other particle B is
deduced from the principle that operators, which act on different
particles, commute.
The illusion that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and
violation of Bell’s inequalities appeared only in 1951 when Bohm
extended the postulate about the Dirac jump to a particle that is not
measured. This absurd jump, which I call the Bohr jump, contradicts
obviously the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting on
different particles commute. Bohm did not draw reader’s attention
that we must reject this quantum principle in order his postulate
about the Bohr jump does not contradict quantum mechanics. Bell also
said nothing about the fact that this principle must be rejected in
order for quantum mechanics to predict the violation of his
inequalities. Therefore, internally contradictory theorems [1,2]
appeared and even became popular among the majority.
I should say that Feynman belongs to the majority who rather believe
than understand quantum mechanics. He did not understand why the EPR
paradox is a paradox and he did not understand the essence of Bell's
theorem. Therefore he made funny mistake, to which I draw attention in
the report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman» presented at the
conference "Quantum Informatics — 2021” see slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman
. Feynman did not take into account that the complexity of computing
increases exponentially with the number of elements, not because the
system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is
calculated. This mistake of Feynman is important for "practical
purposes" since it created the illusion for the majority who believe
rather than understand, that a quantum computer can be real.
I agree with you that Bell's theorem is a mathematical triviality. But
I think Bell's theorem has nothing to do with mathematics. Bell's
inequalities became popular only due to the degradation of physical
thinking among physicists. This degradation is a direct consequence of
the rejection of realism by creators of quantum mechanics since
realism is ”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” as
Einstein was understanding correctly. The decision of Editors of
Physical Review A to reject my manuscript "Physical thinking and the
GHZ theorem" two days after its submission, see below, is one of the
manifestations of the degradation of physical thinking.
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
[3] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edn. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006).
[4] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).
[5] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).
[6] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
[7] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
Subject: Your_manuscript AR12116 Nikulov
From: p...@aps.org
Data: 21.04.2022, 14:49
To: nik...@iptm.ru
Re: AR12116
Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem
by Alexey Nikulov
Dear Dr. Nikulov,
We have examined your manuscript and conclude that it is not suited
for Physical Review A. We make no judgment on the correctness of the
work, only on its suitability according to our other criteria.
To be publishable in Physical Review A, manuscripts must contain
significant new results in physics, be of high quality and scientific
interest, and be recognized as an important contribution to the
literature.
We do not believe that your paper meets these criteria and feel that
it will be more productive for you to seek publication in another,
more specialized journal.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Gabriele De Chiara (he/him/his)
Associate Editor
Physical Review A
Email: p...@aps.org
https://journals.aps.org/pra/
чт, 21 апр. 2022 г. в 07:55, 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/23d05bb9-ce4e-4f2a-9463-4fce51665985n%40googlegroups.com.
Richard Gill
Apr 21, 2022, 12:56:45 PM4/21/22
to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Dear Alexei
You wrote "You may not know that a principle is in quantum mechanics that operators acting on different particles commute.”
Yes I do know all this standard stuff which you can find in any text book.
You say "Quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality in the sense of the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities according to this principle.” The GHZ argument is an argument about three particles, in a special three-particle state, not two. So of course the EPR and Bell arguments don’t apply to it. GHZ have different arguments. However, there is a concept of generalised Bell inequalities, see Tsirelson’s famous paper
It seems you just don’t know the “modern” literature on generalised Bell inequalities for cases with any number of parties (each party measuring one particle) in any number of different ways and getting outcomes of any finite number of possible values. I can recommend you several papers of my own, which you clearly don’t know.
For instance, this one:
See section 8, “Better Bell inequalities”
Richard
PS For a physicist’s story see: Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V. and Wehner, S. (2014). Bell nonlocality. Rev. Modern Phys. 86 419; Erratum Rev. Modern Phys. 86 839.
Richard Gill
Apr 21, 2022, 1:06:35 PM4/21/22
to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
You also wrote "First of all, I must say that the meaningless term ‘local realism’ belongs to the folklore of the majority. Realism cannot be local or non-local.”
The phrase “local realism” as used nowadays in discussions on the foundations of quantum mechanics has a perfectly clear mathematical definition. You say that what you think of as “realism” cannot be local or non-local - that’s because you are using the word “realism” in a sense which most people in physics are completely unaware of nowadays! That two word combination was perhaps unfortunate. It has unfortunately become standard. Anyway, nowadays, when people see the phrase “local realism” they are not using the word “realism” in the sense of 19th century philosophers.
> <es2022apr19_522.pdf><GHSZ1990.pdf>
The phrase “local realism” as used nowadays in discussions on the foundations of quantum mechanics has a perfectly clear mathematical definition. You say that what you think of as “realism” cannot be local or non-local - that’s because you are using the word “realism” in a sense which most people in physics are completely unaware of nowadays! That two word combination was perhaps unfortunate. It has unfortunately become standard. Anyway, nowadays, when people see the phrase “local realism” they are not using the word “realism” in the sense of 19th century philosophers.
Алексей Никулов
Apr 21, 2022, 2:21:08 PM4/21/22
to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Richard,
You surprised me. Don't you, as a mathematician, understand that if
operators acting on different particles commute, then the measurement
results of the first and second particles cannot differ, how they
differ in the expression (4) in the Bell article [1] and (9) in my
manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”? Don't you
understand that no correlation can be in the measurement results of
different particles if operators acting on different particles
commute? This mathematical fact does not depend on the number of
particles. Quantum mechanics predicts the observation spin up with the
probability 0.5 of all particle both in the EPR ((1) in my manuscript)
state and in the GHSZ state ((15) in my manuscript) if operators
acting on different particles commute and therefore the measurement of
spin projection of one of the particles cannot change the states of
other particles.
The rejection of realism leads to the rejection of physical thinking
primarily because no one can give up realism in their thinking. You
demonstrate this when you write about a special three-particle GHZ
state. I draw your attention that even two entangled particles in the
EPR state can have only a subjective sense since the spin states of
entangled particles cannot be eigenstates. The other and main mistake
of the GHSZ is that they assume that eigenstates exist. I write about
this mistake in section 7. ’DOGMATIC REALISM’ AND ’METAPHYSICAL
REALISM’ of my manuscript.
The entangled spin state cannot exist in the real three-dimensional
space since the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system
can be applied only to non- entangled spin states. Therefore the EPR
state can describe only the knowledge of the observer who knows that
first measurement of the spin projection in any direction of any of
the particles will give the result spin up with the probability of
0.5. Due to the Bohr jump postulated by Bohm the observer also knows
that the probability to observe spin up of the second particle depends
on the angle between the measurement directions of the spin
projections of the first and second particles. The GHZ state and in
the GHSZ state cannot have even this subjective sense, since no one
has postulated how the measurement of one particle can affect the
state of two or three other particles. Therefore the “modern”
[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
чт, 21 апр. 2022 г. в 20:06, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
You surprised me. Don't you, as a mathematician, understand that if
operators acting on different particles commute, then the measurement
results of the first and second particles cannot differ, how they
differ in the expression (4) in the Bell article [1] and (9) in my
manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”? Don't you
understand that no correlation can be in the measurement results of
different particles if operators acting on different particles
commute? This mathematical fact does not depend on the number of
particles. Quantum mechanics predicts the observation spin up with the
probability 0.5 of all particle both in the EPR ((1) in my manuscript)
state and in the GHSZ state ((15) in my manuscript) if operators
acting on different particles commute and therefore the measurement of
spin projection of one of the particles cannot change the states of
other particles.
The rejection of realism leads to the rejection of physical thinking
primarily because no one can give up realism in their thinking. You
demonstrate this when you write about a special three-particle GHZ
state. I draw your attention that even two entangled particles in the
EPR state can have only a subjective sense since the spin states of
entangled particles cannot be eigenstates. The other and main mistake
of the GHSZ is that they assume that eigenstates exist. I write about
this mistake in section 7. ’DOGMATIC REALISM’ AND ’METAPHYSICAL
REALISM’ of my manuscript.
The entangled spin state cannot exist in the real three-dimensional
space since the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system
can be applied only to non- entangled spin states. Therefore the EPR
state can describe only the knowledge of the observer who knows that
first measurement of the spin projection in any direction of any of
the particles will give the result spin up with the probability of
0.5. Due to the Bohr jump postulated by Bohm the observer also knows
that the probability to observe spin up of the second particle depends
on the angle between the measurement directions of the spin
projections of the first and second particles. The GHZ state and in
the GHSZ state cannot have even this subjective sense, since no one
has postulated how the measurement of one particle can affect the
state of two or three other particles. Therefore the “modern”
literature on generalised Bell inequalities for cases with any number
of parties can be only a meaningless fantasy.
[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
Richard Gill
Apr 22, 2022, 4:47:36 AM4/22/22
to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
That is absolute nonsense. It depends on the joint state of the particles.
Алексей Никулов
Apr 22, 2022, 5:25:55 AM4/22/22
to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Richard,
People who use the phrase “local realism”, they do not use the word
“realism” not only in the sense of the philosophers of the 19th
century, but also in the sense of Heisenberg, Einstein and other
creators of quantum theory, who understood “realism” in the sense
’cultured men’ about 1750, Hume, Kant and others. This ignorance is
one of the causes and consequences of the degradation of physical
thinking among modern physicists. The term “local realism”, as well as
the internally contradictory GHZ theorem [1,2], is a consequence of a
false understanding by most physicists of the essence of the EPR
paradox [3].
The GHZ theorem appeared and became popular because most physicists
did not understand (or did not want to understand!) that the EPR
paradox reveals the internal contradiction of quantum mechanics, the
contradiction of the principle that operators acting on different
particles commute with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the
Bohr complementarity principle. This contradiction is not the only
obvious contradiction of quantum mechanics that most physicists do not
want to notice. Other obvious contradiction is the contradiction
between the Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has
been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [4]
and the statement of Bohr and Heisenberg that the first measurement
increases the indeterminacy in the result of the second.
We can agree with Heisenberg and Bohr that the first measurement can
increase the uncertainty of the result of the second measurement. But
it is impossible to understand how an interaction with the measuring
instruments during the first measurement can ensure the determinacy of
the result of the second measurement. Dirac obviously wrote in [4]
measurement instead of observation. We know from our everyday
experience that after the first observation has been made, there is no
indeterminacy in the result of the second observation since our
knowledge changes at the first observation.
Heisenberg understood that our knowledge should change discontinuously
because of the observation: ”Since through the observation our
knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical
representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we
speak of a quantum jump” [5]. But Dirac postulated the jump of the
quantum system into an eigenstate rather than the jump of our
knowledge. This postulate was needed in order to avoid the obvious
absurd: quantum mechanics could predict a possibility to see one
particle in different places at each observation of the same dynamical
variable without the Dirac jump. But the change in the quantum system
under the influence of the change in the observer's knowledge
postulated by Dirac results logically to another absurdity, which I
draw attention to in section 6. THE REJECTION OF REALISM RESULTS TO
THE ABSURD of my manuscript: the mind of two observers can create
different spin states of the same particles.
The EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities appeared only because most
physicists did not want to admit that quantum mechanics postulates the
absurdity and thought that one could limit oneself to measurement
instead of observation. Most physicists, in contrast to Schrodinger
and few other critics, did not want to understand also that quantum
mechanics is a trick rather than physical theory. The trick is to hide
all the complexities of describing quantum phenomena in the process of
observation or even measurement, which cannot be described. The term
local realism appeared only because the measurement process does not
contradict realism, and the observation process contradicts. The EPR
and Bell decided that the requirement of locality is the only way to
distinguish the first from the second if both processes are
inaccessible to our understanding. Bell’s inequalities allow only to
distinguish the trick with ’observation’ in quantum mechanics from the
trick with ’measurement’ in a theory of hidden variables.
I quote at the end of the manuscript Einstein's prophetic words
written in a letter to Schrodinger in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy -
or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that for
the present it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which
they are not easily chased away. Let us therefore let them rest. · · ·
This religion does damned little for me”. The decision of Editors of
Physical Review A to reject my manuscript “Physical thinking and the
GHZ theorem” without any consideration indicates that quantum
mechanics remains for them the religion they believe in rather than a
scientific theory they understand.
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Press, 1958).
[5] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. (George Allen and Unwin
Edition, 1959).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 11:47, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
People who use the phrase “local realism”, they do not use the word
“realism” not only in the sense of the philosophers of the 19th
century, but also in the sense of Heisenberg, Einstein and other
creators of quantum theory, who understood “realism” in the sense
’cultured men’ about 1750, Hume, Kant and others. This ignorance is
one of the causes and consequences of the degradation of physical
thinking among modern physicists. The term “local realism”, as well as
the internally contradictory GHZ theorem [1,2], is a consequence of a
false understanding by most physicists of the essence of the EPR
paradox [3].
The GHZ theorem appeared and became popular because most physicists
did not understand (or did not want to understand!) that the EPR
paradox reveals the internal contradiction of quantum mechanics, the
contradiction of the principle that operators acting on different
particles commute with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the
Bohr complementarity principle. This contradiction is not the only
obvious contradiction of quantum mechanics that most physicists do not
want to notice. Other obvious contradiction is the contradiction
between the Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has
been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [4]
and the statement of Bohr and Heisenberg that the first measurement
increases the indeterminacy in the result of the second.
We can agree with Heisenberg and Bohr that the first measurement can
increase the uncertainty of the result of the second measurement. But
it is impossible to understand how an interaction with the measuring
instruments during the first measurement can ensure the determinacy of
the result of the second measurement. Dirac obviously wrote in [4]
measurement instead of observation. We know from our everyday
experience that after the first observation has been made, there is no
indeterminacy in the result of the second observation since our
knowledge changes at the first observation.
Heisenberg understood that our knowledge should change discontinuously
because of the observation: ”Since through the observation our
knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical
representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we
speak of a quantum jump” [5]. But Dirac postulated the jump of the
quantum system into an eigenstate rather than the jump of our
knowledge. This postulate was needed in order to avoid the obvious
absurd: quantum mechanics could predict a possibility to see one
particle in different places at each observation of the same dynamical
variable without the Dirac jump. But the change in the quantum system
under the influence of the change in the observer's knowledge
postulated by Dirac results logically to another absurdity, which I
draw attention to in section 6. THE REJECTION OF REALISM RESULTS TO
THE ABSURD of my manuscript: the mind of two observers can create
different spin states of the same particles.
The EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities appeared only because most
physicists did not want to admit that quantum mechanics postulates the
absurdity and thought that one could limit oneself to measurement
instead of observation. Most physicists, in contrast to Schrodinger
and few other critics, did not want to understand also that quantum
mechanics is a trick rather than physical theory. The trick is to hide
all the complexities of describing quantum phenomena in the process of
observation or even measurement, which cannot be described. The term
local realism appeared only because the measurement process does not
contradict realism, and the observation process contradicts. The EPR
and Bell decided that the requirement of locality is the only way to
distinguish the first from the second if both processes are
inaccessible to our understanding. Bell’s inequalities allow only to
distinguish the trick with ’observation’ in quantum mechanics from the
trick with ’measurement’ in a theory of hidden variables.
I quote at the end of the manuscript Einstein's prophetic words
written in a letter to Schrodinger in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy -
or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that for
the present it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which
they are not easily chased away. Let us therefore let them rest. · · ·
This religion does damned little for me”. The decision of Editors of
Physical Review A to reject my manuscript “Physical thinking and the
GHZ theorem” without any consideration indicates that quantum
mechanics remains for them the religion they believe in rather than a
scientific theory they understand.
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
[3] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).
[4] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University
777 (1935).
Press, 1958).
[5] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. (George Allen and Unwin
Edition, 1959).
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
Алексей Никулов
Apr 22, 2022, 5:40:07 AM4/22/22
to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Richard,
You, like most people including Feynman, keep forgetting that quantum
mechanics describes only the results of observation, or rather the
probability of the results of upcoming observations, and not the joint
state or other states of the particles. The rejection of realism as
”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” has led to the
degradation of physical thinking precisely because no one can abandon
realism, even those who disprove realism.
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 12:25, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:
You, like most people including Feynman, keep forgetting that quantum
mechanics describes only the results of observation, or rather the
probability of the results of upcoming observations, and not the joint
state or other states of the particles. The rejection of realism as
”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” has led to the
degradation of physical thinking precisely because no one can abandon
realism, even those who disprove realism.
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
Richard Gill
Apr 22, 2022, 8:50:21 AM4/22/22
to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Alexei, you keep imagining what I think, and you keep getting it completely wrong.
I know that quantum mechanics describes the probabilities of results of observations.
What people nowadays call the quantum state is merely a compact mathematical description
of all the probability distributions of all the measurements which could be made.
I know that quantum mechanics describes the probabilities of results of observations.
What people nowadays call the quantum state is merely a compact mathematical description
of all the probability distributions of all the measurements which could be made.
GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
Apr 22, 2022, 9:39:59 AM4/22/22
to Richard Gill, Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
"It depends on the joint state of the particles" 👍
Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD
KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC
7309 Gardenview Drive, Elkridge MD 21075 US
Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US)
+55-31-989909882 (Brazil)
--
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/170027D7-8BFC-4F6B-A533-D69F359EC6F8%40gmail.com.
Алексей Никулов
Apr 22, 2022, 10:10:09 AM4/22/22
to Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Richard,
I do not doubt that you know that quantum mechanics describes the
probabilities of results of observations with the help of the quantum
state. But you, like most physicists, do not understand that precisely
the description of the probabilities of results of observations with
the help of the quantum states is misleading. The probabilities of
results of observations describe the knowledge of the observer whereas
the quantum states are described as real states existing in the real
three-dimensional space. The creators of quantum mechanics, on the one
hand, rejected realism by accepting Born's proposal to describe the
knowledge of the observer, and on the other hand, they did not abandon
realism by describing the knowledge of the observer with the help of
real states.
It logically follows from this inconsistency of the creators, that a
change in the observer's knowledge because of observation should
change real states. The Dirac jump postulates precisely this absurd
influence of the subject on the object, in Schrodinger's words. I draw
your attention that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and
violation of Bell’s inequalities only because Bohm extended the Dirac
jump, i.e. the influence of the subject on the object, to the particle
that is not measured.
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 16:39, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:
I do not doubt that you know that quantum mechanics describes the
probabilities of results of observations with the help of the quantum
state. But you, like most physicists, do not understand that precisely
the description of the probabilities of results of observations with
the help of the quantum states is misleading. The probabilities of
results of observations describe the knowledge of the observer whereas
the quantum states are described as real states existing in the real
three-dimensional space. The creators of quantum mechanics, on the one
hand, rejected realism by accepting Born's proposal to describe the
knowledge of the observer, and on the other hand, they did not abandon
realism by describing the knowledge of the observer with the help of
real states.
It logically follows from this inconsistency of the creators, that a
change in the observer's knowledge because of observation should
change real states. The Dirac jump postulates precisely this absurd
influence of the subject on the object, in Schrodinger's words. I draw
your attention that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and
violation of Bell’s inequalities only because Bohm extended the Dirac
jump, i.e. the influence of the subject on the object, to the particle
that is not measured.
With best wishes,
Alexey Nikulov
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:
Richard Gill
Apr 22, 2022, 11:18:43 AM4/22/22
to Алексей Никулов, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Andrei, I disagree
Whether the “quantum state” is something out there in reality
[I don’t know what that means - I am a mathematician, not a philosopher or a physicist]
or whether it only a function of the knowledge of some hypothetical agent makes no
difference to me. It makes no difference to the mathematics. It makes no difference
to the statistical predictions. There exist different interpretations. Right now I verge towards qBism
where I personally interpret the “B” to stand for Buddhist rather than Bayesian.
Possibly “convivial solipsism” would also be a good name for this point of view.
Richard
Whether the “quantum state” is something out there in reality
[I don’t know what that means - I am a mathematician, not a philosopher or a physicist]
or whether it only a function of the knowledge of some hypothetical agent makes no
difference to me. It makes no difference to the mathematics. It makes no difference
to the statistical predictions. There exist different interpretations. Right now I verge towards qBism
where I personally interpret the “B” to stand for Buddhist rather than Bayesian.
Possibly “convivial solipsism” would also be a good name for this point of view.
Richard
Алексей Никулов
Apr 23, 2022, 8:34:53 AM4/23/22
to Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Richard,
It is extremely strange that by participating in the debate about Bell
inequalities and publishing articles about this problem, you do not
know whether or not the quantum state is real. Bell's inequalities
appeared only because of the misconception of most physicists who
believed that the quantum state is real, despite the fact that it
describes the knowledge of the observer. Quantum state cannot be real
if Bell's inequalities are violated. But even authors who, like the
authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2], disprove realism are sure that even
entangled spin states are real. This illusion is the main reason for
obvious mathematical mistakes made in [1,2].
I draw your attention that the prediction of perfect correlation in
[1,2] is based precisely on mathematical mistakes. Therefore, you
cannot fail to understand the sense of these mistakes even without
being a physicist or a philosopher. I hope you know how non-entangled
spin states differ from entangled states mathematically. The spin
states of non-entangled particles along a z-axis can be described as
the product of the spin state of each of the particles, see the
expression (11) in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ
theorem”. The spin state of each of the particles in this case can be
expressed through the angles between this z-axis and the direction in
which this spin state is eigenstate. I hope you know that measurement
in this direction will give spin up with the probability 1.
But the spin states of entangled particles, for example in the EPR
state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state, cannot be described as the
product of the spin state of each of the particles. Therefore the
particles in the EPR state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state cannot
have a direction in the real three-dimensional space in which their
spin state is eigenstate. Nevertheless the prediction of of perfect
correlation in [2] is based on the assumption that all four particles
in the GHSZ state have eigenstates in the same direction and the
angles in the expression (8) of [2] for the expectation value is the
angles between this direction and the directions in which spin
projections of each particles will be measured.
The directions of measurements are quite real directions in the real
three-dimensional space. But the direction in which all four particles
in the GHSZ state are eigenstates cannot be real since the authors [2]
chose it arbitrarily. If they choose a different direction, then the
angles and the expectation value in (8) of [2] will change. The
expression (F2a) in [2] predicts that measurement of spin projection
of each particle in the GHSZ state in the direction which the authors
chose arbitrarily will give spin up with the probability of 1. This
prediction, determined by the arbitrariness of the authors,
contradicts the prediction of the GHSZ state, (7) in [2], according
to which the measurement of any particle in any direction will give a
spin up with a probability of 0.5.
This obvious mathematical contradiction became possible because the
authors [2], like most physicists, falsely consider even entangled
spin states to really exist in the real three-dimensional space. Such
an illusion of naive realists contradicts mathematics, according to
which the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system
cannot be applied to the entangled spin states. The confidence of
most people in the reality of a quantum computer is based on this
illusion of naive realists, which contradicts mathematics. I drew
attention to the contradiction of the idea of a quantum register with
the mathematics in the report “Quantum register cannot be real”, see
slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
.
The qBism and especially “convivial solipsism” are nonsense, which is
the limit consequence of the degradation of physical thinking, as a
consequence of the refusal by the creators of quantum mechanics from
realism and blind faith in quantum mechanics.
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
It is extremely strange that by participating in the debate about Bell
inequalities and publishing articles about this problem, you do not
know whether or not the quantum state is real. Bell's inequalities
appeared only because of the misconception of most physicists who
believed that the quantum state is real, despite the fact that it
describes the knowledge of the observer. Quantum state cannot be real
if Bell's inequalities are violated. But even authors who, like the
authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2], disprove realism are sure that even
entangled spin states are real. This illusion is the main reason for
obvious mathematical mistakes made in [1,2].
I draw your attention that the prediction of perfect correlation in
[1,2] is based precisely on mathematical mistakes. Therefore, you
cannot fail to understand the sense of these mistakes even without
being a physicist or a philosopher. I hope you know how non-entangled
spin states differ from entangled states mathematically. The spin
states of non-entangled particles along a z-axis can be described as
the product of the spin state of each of the particles, see the
expression (11) in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ
theorem”. The spin state of each of the particles in this case can be
expressed through the angles between this z-axis and the direction in
which this spin state is eigenstate. I hope you know that measurement
in this direction will give spin up with the probability 1.
But the spin states of entangled particles, for example in the EPR
state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state, cannot be described as the
product of the spin state of each of the particles. Therefore the
particles in the EPR state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state cannot
have a direction in the real three-dimensional space in which their
spin state is eigenstate. Nevertheless the prediction of of perfect
correlation in [2] is based on the assumption that all four particles
in the GHSZ state have eigenstates in the same direction and the
angles in the expression (8) of [2] for the expectation value is the
angles between this direction and the directions in which spin
projections of each particles will be measured.
The directions of measurements are quite real directions in the real
three-dimensional space. But the direction in which all four particles
in the GHSZ state are eigenstates cannot be real since the authors [2]
chose it arbitrarily. If they choose a different direction, then the
angles and the expectation value in (8) of [2] will change. The
expression (F2a) in [2] predicts that measurement of spin projection
of each particle in the GHSZ state in the direction which the authors
chose arbitrarily will give spin up with the probability of 1. This
prediction, determined by the arbitrariness of the authors,
contradicts the prediction of the GHSZ state, (7) in [2], according
to which the measurement of any particle in any direction will give a
spin up with a probability of 0.5.
This obvious mathematical contradiction became possible because the
authors [2], like most physicists, falsely consider even entangled
spin states to really exist in the real three-dimensional space. Such
an illusion of naive realists contradicts mathematics, according to
which the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system
cannot be applied to the entangled spin states. The confidence of
most people in the reality of a quantum computer is based on this
illusion of naive realists, which contradicts mathematics. I drew
attention to the contradiction of the idea of a quantum register with
the mathematics in the report “Quantum register cannot be real”, see
slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
.
The qBism and especially “convivial solipsism” are nonsense, which is
the limit consequence of the degradation of physical thinking, as a
consequence of the refusal by the creators of quantum mechanics from
realism and blind faith in quantum mechanics.
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
Alexey
пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 18:18, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
With best wishes,
Alexey
Bryan Sanctuary
Apr 23, 2022, 8:56:22 AM4/23/22
to Алексей Никулов, Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
I note that there are endless perennial debates and disagreements about Bell and the foundations. I see this as evidence for our muddled view of Nature due to the lack of clarity about what violations of BI mean. There are many conflicting views and there is little consensus. The debates get tied up in semantics, and even personal attacks.
I see this as evidence that something is wrong, and that something is Bell's theorem. Only when it is accepted that Bell's theorem is incorrect can we move on.
My two bits.
Bryan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJLxdegAm5-Dr6C-NMSDsC1uG6TgCHvXLQ0csWVt_5b5w%40mail.gmail.com.
Алексей Никулов
Apr 23, 2022, 4:20:28 PM4/23/22
to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Dear Bryan,
The endless perennial debates and disagreements about Bell and the
foundations are the result of the unwillingness of the disputants to
admit that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory.You don't want
to admit it either, preferring to think that Bell's theorem is
incorrect. Bell's theorem cannot be incorrect because it is trivial.
I quote at the end of the manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ
theorem” Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to Schrodinger
like most people, do not want to admit that quantum mechanics is a
religion they believe in, and not a scientific theory they understand.
People believe in quantum mechanics because of its success, as they
believe in miracles. Quantum mechanics is indeed very successful. But
it is a trick rather than physical theory, as Schrodinger and few
other critics understood. The trick is to hide all the complexities of
illusion of describing paradoxical quantum phenomena. But quantum
mechanics contradicts realism because of this trick. Einstein was
understanding correctly that realism is ”the presupposition of every
kind of physical thinking”. Therefore the rejection of realism by the
creators of quantum mechanics has resulted in the degradation of
physical thinking.
Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics are one of the
manifestations of this degradation. A theory, if it is really a
scientific theory, and not a trick, should not have interpretations,
since a scientific theory should clearly and definitely state what and
how it describes. Another manifestation of the degradation of thinking
is the well-known statement of Richard Feynman that nobody understands
quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, as well as any theory, is
created by our (humans) reason. Therefore our reason must understand
quantum mechanics unambiguously. But Feynman, like most people, did
not want to understand quantum mechanics, since to understand quantum
mechanics means to understand its absurdity, which religious faith did
not allow to do. This religious faith has resulted finally in the GHZ
theorem, the obviousness of the contradictions of which is surprising.
The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the
misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe
realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our
reason, and not the absence of reality. Modern scientists do not want
mechanics is not a scientific theory and we will not pretend that we
were able to describe quantum phenomena despite the fact that they
cannot be described can we move on. To do this, scientists must stop
blindly believing and start thinking critically.
With best wishes,
Alexey
сб, 23 апр. 2022 г. в 15:56, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>:
The endless perennial debates and disagreements about Bell and the
foundations are the result of the unwillingness of the disputants to
admit that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory.You don't want
to admit it either, preferring to think that Bell's theorem is
incorrect. Bell's theorem cannot be incorrect because it is trivial.
I quote at the end of the manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ
theorem” Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to Schrodinger
in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr
is so cleverly concocted that for the present it offers the believers
a soft resting pillow from which they are not easily chased away. Let
us therefore let them rest. · · ·This religion does damned little for
me”. Editors of Physical Review A rejected my manuscript since they,
is so cleverly concocted that for the present it offers the believers
a soft resting pillow from which they are not easily chased away. Let
us therefore let them rest. · · ·This religion does damned little for
like most people, do not want to admit that quantum mechanics is a
religion they believe in, and not a scientific theory they understand.
People believe in quantum mechanics because of its success, as they
believe in miracles. Quantum mechanics is indeed very successful. But
it is a trick rather than physical theory, as Schrodinger and few
other critics understood. The trick is to hide all the complexities of
describing quantum phenomena in the process of observation or even
measurement, which cannot be described. This trick created the
illusion of describing paradoxical quantum phenomena. But quantum
mechanics contradicts realism because of this trick. Einstein was
understanding correctly that realism is ”the presupposition of every
kind of physical thinking”. Therefore the rejection of realism by the
creators of quantum mechanics has resulted in the degradation of
physical thinking.
Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics are one of the
manifestations of this degradation. A theory, if it is really a
scientific theory, and not a trick, should not have interpretations,
since a scientific theory should clearly and definitely state what and
how it describes. Another manifestation of the degradation of thinking
is the well-known statement of Richard Feynman that nobody understands
quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, as well as any theory, is
created by our (humans) reason. Therefore our reason must understand
quantum mechanics unambiguously. But Feynman, like most people, did
not want to understand quantum mechanics, since to understand quantum
mechanics means to understand its absurdity, which religious faith did
not allow to do. This religious faith has resulted finally in the GHZ
theorem, the obviousness of the contradictions of which is surprising.
The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the
misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe
realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our
to admit that the possibilities of our reason may be limited even in
the realm of our experience. Only when it is accepted that quantum
mechanics is not a scientific theory and we will not pretend that we
were able to describe quantum phenomena despite the fact that they
cannot be described can we move on. To do this, scientists must stop
blindly believing and start thinking critically.
With best wishes,
Alexey
сб, 23 апр. 2022 г. в 15:56, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>:
Bryan Sanctuary
Apr 23, 2022, 5:37:07 PM4/23/22
to Алексей Никулов, Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy
Hi Alexey
I agree that Bell's sock proof is not difficult but his assumption, like von Neumann's, is wrong. Spin is not polarized all the time, only when measured. With that, a lot unfolds.
I have long said that non-locality is revelation, the cult of quantum weirdness. Amazing that the field of quantum info is based upon that.
I do think that qm is a scientific theory but only without Bell's theorem. However it is a theory of measurement, but not of Nature. I do agree that most of the problems are, as you say, about measurement. Qm explains all our observation, except for the violation and double slit, as far as I know, (leaving out gravity and cosmology problems however). QM is correct, but incomplete. Of course by disproving Bell, nothing stands in the way of the veracity of EPR's question in their title.
I agree QM hides stuff, but that is not a trick, but rather the power of qm to keep what is relevant. I also reject Copenhagen with objective reasons.
Soon, I hope, my papers will be out, and I'll be interested in your reaction. I want them peer reviewed, but I am on my 4th journal, (along with arXiv refusing the ). Not peer reviewed yet. The reasons were, 1. Not interesting to our readers (hey I disprove Bell and want the Standard model changed! ) 2. Topic is not covered by our journal. And arXiv said, "get it published first.
I think Richard got it right, the Journals are too conservative he said. However I am hopeful for the present journal, we'll see.
Good we are almost on the same wavelength
Bryan
.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJLxdegAm5-Dr6C-NMSDsC1uG6TgCHvXLQ0csWVt_5b5w%40mail.gmail.com.9
Richard Gill
Apr 24, 2022, 3:50:40 AM4/24/22
to Bryan Sanctuary, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Bryan
I think you experience difficulties getting your work published because you have completely misunderstood Bell’s work. You suppose that Bell assumes that spin is polarised all the time. Bell makes no such assumption at all.
If you disagree with me on this point, please tell us where, exactly, Bell makes this assumption.
Andrei
You wrote "It is extremely strange that by participating in the debate about Bell inequalities and publishing articles about this problem, you do not know whether or not the quantum state is real.” It seems you have no understanding of the work of a mathematician. In a mathematical theorem, the names we give to the mathematical objects we talk about are irrelevant. What counts are the mathematical relationships between those objects.
Richard
Bryan Sanctuary
Apr 24, 2022, 4:11:34 PM4/24/22
to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Bell's theorem proves that to account for the violation, he must force classical polarization, aka socks, to account for the data. The only way he can do that is by non-local connection between socks. But he doesn't know how to pull Bertlmann's socks up or down.The one line disproof,"...and therefore Bell's theorem is disproven by counter example"Bryan
GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
Apr 24, 2022, 5:16:25 PM4/24/22
to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
"... The only way he can do that is by non-local connection between socks. But he doesn't know how to pull Bertlmann's socks up or down. ..."
I got lost in this argument.
Polarization may get defined only in the act of measurement. Bell's conception is only about statistics, not about explaining mechanisms: up and down are only expressed as probabilities.
1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190
--
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/CALLw9YycBPMSf%2B89B2tt6GOkmee-VBvB52vs8cw1mW9w8cCF_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Bryan Sanctuary
Apr 24, 2022, 5:52:02 PM4/24/22
to GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Hi Geraldo,
I just posted Bell's Blunder, hope that answers your question.
Bryan
GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
Apr 24, 2022, 7:19:17 PM4/24/22
to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Hi Bryan,
Would you please send me a PDF to my email, to avoid using DropBox?
Geraldo
Алексей Никулов
Apr 25, 2022, 6:11:08 AM4/25/22
to Richard Gill, Bryan Sanctuary, Scott Glancy, Ilja Schmelzer, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
Dear Richard,
I understand that the names we give to the mathematical objects we
talk about are irrelevant. I draw attention in the report «Funny
mistake of Richard Feynman» (see slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman
) that Richard Feynman made funny mistake precisely because he forgot
that a specific subject of description is irrelevant for mathematics.
Feynman in 1982 and Russian mathematician Yuri Manin in 1980 drew
attention to the mathematical fact that the complexity of computing a
quantum system increases exponentially with the number of its
elements. This mathematical fact became the basis of the idea of
quantum computing. But Feynman and Manin did not take into account
spin up or spin down.
It is irrelevant for mathematics the probability of which one of the
two possible results of observation to calculate: spin up or spin
down, coin with face up or coin with face down, the cat is alive or
the cat is dead. If we replace in the expression for the quantum
register (see slide 7 of my report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman»)
the spin up with the cat is alive and the spin down with the cat is
dead, then mathematically nothing will change in this expression.
Therefore, if numerous creators of a quantum computer are sure that a
quantum computer can be made on the base of particles with spin 1/2,
then they should be sure that a quantum computer can be made on the
base of cats (Schrodinger's cats of course).
The illusion that a quantum register can be made on the basis of
particles with spin 1/2 and cannot be made on the basis of cats became
possible because quantum mechanics describes the observer's knowledge
about the probability to observe ‘spin up’ with the help of a spin
state that really exists in the real three-dimensional space. A
direction exists for each spin state in which this state is an
eigenstate and measurement will give ‘spin up’ with the probability of
1. The probability to observe ‘spin up’ in any other direction is
calculated with the help of the operators of finite rotation of the
coordinate axes.
But these operators can be applied only to non-entangled spin states.
Therefore we cannot even think that entangled spin states can exist in
the real three-dimensional space. Mathematics proves that the
definition of the EPR correlation as the entanglement of our knowledge
given by Schrodinger in 1935 is the only correct and possible one. I
prove in the report “Quantum register cannot be real” (see slides on
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
) that the quantum register cannot be real because it is impossible to
answer the question "To which coordinate system of the real
three-dimensional space do its amplitudes belong?" The lack of
understanding of this logic and mathematics indicates the degradation
of not only physical thinking among modern scientists.
Ignorance or ignoring of the mathematical fact that the operators of
finite rotation of the coordinate axes are not applicable to entangled
spin states has misled not only the creators of the quantum computer,
but also the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2]. You didn't say whether
you have understood the obviousness of the mathematical mistakes made
by the authors [2]. Or you don't want to hear about these obvious
mistakes like Editors of Physical Review A?
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
rather Alexey than Andrei
пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 02:19, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAMhtMsb4oQPU%2B0B%2BqRP5s2CiUeFnugA2Nhqvd5-sF4md4zaA7A%40mail.gmail.com.
I understand that the names we give to the mathematical objects we
talk about are irrelevant. I draw attention in the report «Funny
mistake of Richard Feynman» (see slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman
) that Richard Feynman made funny mistake precisely because he forgot
that a specific subject of description is irrelevant for mathematics.
Feynman in 1982 and Russian mathematician Yuri Manin in 1980 drew
attention to the mathematical fact that the complexity of computing a
quantum system increases exponentially with the number of its
elements. This mathematical fact became the basis of the idea of
quantum computing. But Feynman and Manin did not take into account
that the complexity of computing increases exponentially with the
number of elements, not because the system is quantum, but because
quantum mechanics describes the probability to observe, for example
number of elements, not because the system is quantum, but because
spin up or spin down.
It is irrelevant for mathematics the probability of which one of the
two possible results of observation to calculate: spin up or spin
down, coin with face up or coin with face down, the cat is alive or
the cat is dead. If we replace in the expression for the quantum
register (see slide 7 of my report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman»)
the spin up with the cat is alive and the spin down with the cat is
dead, then mathematically nothing will change in this expression.
Therefore, if numerous creators of a quantum computer are sure that a
quantum computer can be made on the base of particles with spin 1/2,
then they should be sure that a quantum computer can be made on the
base of cats (Schrodinger's cats of course).
The illusion that a quantum register can be made on the basis of
particles with spin 1/2 and cannot be made on the basis of cats became
possible because quantum mechanics describes the observer's knowledge
about the probability to observe ‘spin up’ with the help of a spin
state that really exists in the real three-dimensional space. A
direction exists for each spin state in which this state is an
eigenstate and measurement will give ‘spin up’ with the probability of
1. The probability to observe ‘spin up’ in any other direction is
calculated with the help of the operators of finite rotation of the
coordinate axes.
But these operators can be applied only to non-entangled spin states.
Therefore we cannot even think that entangled spin states can exist in
the real three-dimensional space. Mathematics proves that the
definition of the EPR correlation as the entanglement of our knowledge
given by Schrodinger in 1935 is the only correct and possible one. I
prove in the report “Quantum register cannot be real” (see slides on
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
) that the quantum register cannot be real because it is impossible to
answer the question "To which coordinate system of the real
three-dimensional space do its amplitudes belong?" The lack of
understanding of this logic and mathematics indicates the degradation
of not only physical thinking among modern scientists.
Ignorance or ignoring of the mathematical fact that the operators of
finite rotation of the coordinate axes are not applicable to entangled
spin states has misled not only the creators of the quantum computer,
but also the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2]. You didn't say whether
you have understood the obviousness of the mathematical mistakes made
by the authors [2]. Or you don't want to hear about these obvious
mistakes like Editors of Physical Review A?
[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 02:19, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:
Алексей Никулов
Apr 25, 2022, 1:57:59 PM4/25/22
to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, Scott Glancy, Ilja Schmelzer, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
Dear Bryan,
You wrote: “I do think that qm is a scientific theory but only without
But isn't measurement a real process occurring in Nature? Why would
the creators of quantum mechanics distinguish this process from other
processes occurring in Nature if quantum mechanics is not a trick? And
how can one draw a line between the measurement process and other
processes occurring in Nature? Bell, who was guessing that quantum
mechanics is a trick, was asking this question, which cannot be
answered unequivocally.
But Bell wasn't consistent. David Mermin quoted Bell in section III
“Von Neumann’s silly assumption” of the paper [1]: ”You may quote me
on that: The proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish!”
Von Neumann has proved that some quantum phenomena, for example the
Stern – Gerlach effect, cannot be described without the trick with
measurement. The claim of Bell and Mermin that the proof of von
Neumann is foolish means that they believed, like you, that the trick
with 'measurement' is much better than the trick with 'observation'. I
don't think Bell wanted to advertise his no-go theorem, which allows
us to distinguish the trick with 'measurement' from the trick with
'observation'. But Bell clearly did not understand that the trick with
'measurement' is much worse than the trick with 'observation', since
this trick has created the illusion among several generations of
physicists that quantum mechanics describes reality rather than the
knowledge of the observer.
If the creators of quantum mechanics had honestly said that quantum
mechanics postulates the influence of the mind of the observer on the
state of a quantum system, then it is unlikely that many physicists
would have believed in quantum mechanics even despite its success. But
they were constantly obscuring, substituting ‘observation’ for
‘measurement’, while contradicting themselves and logic. For example,
Dirac clearly substituted ‘observation’ for ‘measurement’ in his
which he postulated the Dirac jump. Anyone who knows how to think at
least a little should understand that no first measurement can provide
determinacy in the result of the second measurement if there is no
observer whose knowledge about the probability of observation changes
at the first observation.
But most physicists seem to have stopped thinking, because of blind
faith in quantum mechanics, even such physicists as David Mermin.
Mermin was agreeing with Bell that “von Neumann's no-hidden-variables
proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly”
[2]. But von Neumann's theorem is not as silly as the GHZ theorem
[3,4]. At least there are no obvious mathematical mistakes in von
Neumann's theorem. Mermin knew the GHZ theorem well, see [4], but did
not notice its obvious mathematical mistakes.
I quoted earlier Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to
Schrodinger in 1928 about ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of
Heisenberg-Bohr”. Critics and advocates of Bell's inequalities belong
to the same quantum religion, but to different religious
denominations. Catholics and Protestants fought in Europe for thirty
years. The battles about Bell's inequalities continue no less. The
contradiction between Catholics and Protestants is legitimate from the
point of view of reason, since faith in God belongs to the realm of
the incognizable for our reason. But theories and theorems cannot
belong to the realm of the incognizable since they were created by our
reason. Therefore battles about Bell's inequalities indicate a
degradation of thinking.
[1] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).
[2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University
Press, 1958).
[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 13:11, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:
You wrote: “I do think that qm is a scientific theory but only without
Bell's theorem. However it is a theory of measurement, but not of
Nature”.
But isn't measurement a real process occurring in Nature? Why would
the creators of quantum mechanics distinguish this process from other
processes occurring in Nature if quantum mechanics is not a trick? And
how can one draw a line between the measurement process and other
processes occurring in Nature? Bell, who was guessing that quantum
mechanics is a trick, was asking this question, which cannot be
answered unequivocally.
But Bell wasn't consistent. David Mermin quoted Bell in section III
“Von Neumann’s silly assumption” of the paper [1]: ”You may quote me
on that: The proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish!”
Von Neumann has proved that some quantum phenomena, for example the
Stern – Gerlach effect, cannot be described without the trick with
measurement. The claim of Bell and Mermin that the proof of von
Neumann is foolish means that they believed, like you, that the trick
with 'measurement' is much better than the trick with 'observation'. I
don't think Bell wanted to advertise his no-go theorem, which allows
us to distinguish the trick with 'measurement' from the trick with
'observation'. But Bell clearly did not understand that the trick with
'measurement' is much worse than the trick with 'observation', since
this trick has created the illusion among several generations of
physicists that quantum mechanics describes reality rather than the
knowledge of the observer.
If the creators of quantum mechanics had honestly said that quantum
mechanics postulates the influence of the mind of the observer on the
state of a quantum system, then it is unlikely that many physicists
would have believed in quantum mechanics even despite its success. But
they were constantly obscuring, substituting ‘observation’ for
‘measurement’, while contradicting themselves and logic. For example,
Dirac clearly substituted ‘observation’ for ‘measurement’ in his
assumption that ”after the first measurement has been made, there is
no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [2], on the basis of
which he postulated the Dirac jump. Anyone who knows how to think at
least a little should understand that no first measurement can provide
determinacy in the result of the second measurement if there is no
observer whose knowledge about the probability of observation changes
at the first observation.
But most physicists seem to have stopped thinking, because of blind
faith in quantum mechanics, even such physicists as David Mermin.
Mermin was agreeing with Bell that “von Neumann's no-hidden-variables
proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly”
[2]. But von Neumann's theorem is not as silly as the GHZ theorem
[3,4]. At least there are no obvious mathematical mistakes in von
Neumann's theorem. Mermin knew the GHZ theorem well, see [4], but did
not notice its obvious mathematical mistakes.
I quoted earlier Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to
Schrodinger in 1928 about ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of
Heisenberg-Bohr”. Critics and advocates of Bell's inequalities belong
to the same quantum religion, but to different religious
denominations. Catholics and Protestants fought in Europe for thirty
years. The battles about Bell's inequalities continue no less. The
contradiction between Catholics and Protestants is legitimate from the
point of view of reason, since faith in God belongs to the realm of
the incognizable for our reason. But theories and theorems cannot
belong to the realm of the incognizable since they were created by our
reason. Therefore battles about Bell's inequalities indicate a
degradation of thinking.
[1] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).
[2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University
Press, 1958).
[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
[4] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
Alexey
With best wishes,
пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 13:11, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:
Bryan Sanctuary
Apr 25, 2022, 3:05:58 PM4/25/22
to Алексей Никулов, Richard Gill, Scott Glancy, Ilja Schmelzer, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
Dear Alexey
Thank you for that which generally makes sense and reason to me, and thought provoking too. I see measurement as an interaction like any other. Nature does not care what we might know. The involvement of the human mind in qm always seemed far-fetched to me. When I said qm was a theory of measurement but not of Nature," I mean in the sense of EPR that qm is incomplete. That is, beyond the polarizations we "measure", there are coherences, which complete qm, making it locally real.
Of course with von Neumann and Bell's theorem gone, what stands in the way of EPR?
I have not thought deeply about measurement vs observation and the tricks much beyond this group discussion, but the trick seems to cover up variables. I don't have strong views on this. I find the semantic debates surrounding the foundations confusing, like about the meaning of the violation of BI and the measurement problem. I don't get motivated by current philosophy because I think the completion of qm will resolve many of the issues and simplify our view.
Best wishes
Bryan
Bryan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages