On 24 Apr 2022, at 23:34, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
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/CALLw9YxYcoX3mvDhzrLFyy9hMdPWOxrfBfqQtbnb_6Cac3%2B%2BdA%40mail.gmail.com.
arXiv:1709.00167 |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/03d612327498a4cb25d44f0f207a94db25d592a5.camel%40liu.se.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/03d612327498a4cb25d44f0f207a94db25d592a5.camel%40liu.se.
Thanks for your comment Richard:
First you say:
“Bryan is mistaken. Bell did not assume that the outcomes +/-1 always exist from source to destination. He only assumed that the outcomes appear upon measurement.”
My response:
This is categorically and emphatically untrue. Bell’s random variables only take values of +/-1, all the time, everywhere, no question. The immediate consequence of your statement is that qubits, superpositions of +/-1, only exist upon measurement! That will upset quantum computing programmers. Second that means that the singlet state is not (|up>|dn> - |dn>|up>). This expression is the only one I have seen for the singlet: flags always flying whether measured or not. Third spin is measured in a Stern-Gerlach experiment to have values of only |+/-1>, which is exactly what Bell uses. Sorry Richard, nice try.
I challenge you to point out anywhere in the literature that you have a spin, or a spin function, that is NOT composed of polarized up/dn states. I doubt you can.
Bell’s assumption is a result of Bell not being able to think quantum mechanically. I see that in his papers. He is tied to classical thought, just like his useful inequalities. He forced his classical system (socks) to be non-classical and the result is non-locality. It is that simple. Non-locality is the only consequence in the absence of other elements of reality.
Second you say:
“So instead of adding classical hidden variables, Bryan seems to be adding unobservable quantum observables: |+><-| and |-><+| are operators acting on the Hilbert space C^2, but they are not self-adjoint. Their eigenvalues are purely imaginary.”
My response:
This is exactly what I am saying. The coherences are unobservable (LHiddenV) which is why they have been missed for 100 years. Indeed, the states are non-Hermitian, but Richard is wrong, all the eigenvalues are real +/-1. They are not imaginary at all. Finally, the non-Hermiticity breaks up into two spaces, which are complementary and carry Hermitian operators (polarizations) and anti-Hermitian operators (coherences).
My space is not is Hilbert Space C^2 but a single space of 4x4 gamma matrices that describe a single spin which is embedded in spacetime.
I should point out that Bell’s Blunder is the first of very sobering results which you will find quite unsetting. It is interesting that you cannot come up with any other points of contention in that little Blunder paper. You will find, as I finally get these out, that one by one your notions will fall until finally you will convert to local realism.
Bryan,
It seems that everyone agrees that Bell’s inequalities were set in a classical context.
In a classical context, particles are distinguishable (although such distinguishability may be practically impossible in many cases – e.g., particles in a gas). In a classical context, a magnet has two distinct positions, and they are distinguishable, and they do not live in a superposition state.
This implies that a classical state can be perfectly copied, as many times as our resources allow (flying “flags” can be copied).
Also, derivation of quantum aspects within a classical context can lead to weird conclusions.
A quantum state, representing a spin (a quantum entity), represents our knowledge of that spin, and it may as well represent a superposition state.
An expected value for a measurement on that state includes a space axis for that measurement (e.g. a magnetic field orientation). That measurement axis can be set even after the spins have left their original site. While the preparation of the initial state of two spins (in the same position) could be made along an axis z0, a measurement could occur along any z axis.
(Calculated) Complementary measurements at position A and position B would always give – along an arbitrary z direction, the + and – results, regardless of the distances between A and B. That implies that the + and – are NOT rigidly attached to the initial axis z0 (=”flying flags”). It is also true that the correlation of the +/- results are only seen after the measured signals are compared (light speed bound correlation).
Quantum models allow entangled states, not the classical models.
I could not understand how you apply your idea of classical “locality” to explain correlations at distant places along arbitrary measurement axis. Are you also discarding quantum mechanics? Are you challenging the idea of correlation at distant positions? … I am a bit confused … Your note did not help me.
Geraldo
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/afd3c94e-ed47-4880-902d-20ff34de2053n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzULX4YJ-x90uNUBik%2BAe2O7YSE-bZz4KZdVpf4Vqq0cw%40mail.gmail.com.
On 25 Apr 2022, at 16:03, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/afd3c94e-ed47-4880-902d-20ff34de2053n%40googlegroups.com.
On 26 Apr 2022, at 01:26, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
HiThanks, I will wait for the journal response, and decide what to do. I do not want to delay much longer, not fair to delay.Bryan
On Mon., Apr. 25, 2022, 19:18 Richard Gill, <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear BryanYou can get peer review by publishing in a PPPR (post publication peer review) journal like F1000research.comIt’s perfectly suited for original non-mainstream work which gets held up by conventional, cautious, journals. I have several young friends who use it for the speed, and as a statement against the broken peer review and parasitical nature of the conventional commercially exploited journals.
RichardSent from my iPhone
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzULX4YJ-x90uNUBik%2BAe2O7YSE-bZz4KZdVpf4Vqq0cw%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0dea9045-1c8d-49ff-8516-05a7e5656568n%40googlegroups.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/6F91D55C-04B4-4A93-881D-9E8F2B949ECC%40gmail.com.
Dear Alexey, dear Bryan, dear Richard, dear all.
There seems to be much confusion around Bell's theorem. I completely agree with Richard's description of it, which implies that I have to disagree with some of the other considerations.
In my opinion, it is all connected with the decisions that we make in some given context. Some of these are based on our habits, some of our cultural background and upbringing, and some part of our decisions rely on the variables that we have in our mind during the decision process.
In this respect we are all limited. In connection to the Bell experiment, I have demonstrated this mathematically in the attached article, just accepted for publication in Foundations of Physics. Any actor observing the situation, even the actor which receives all the data after the experiment, is limited because he is not able to keep enough variables in his mind during his decision process. He may communicate with words with other people. According to Zwirn's convivial solipsism, such communication can also be seen as a measurement of each actor upon the other one. And it is related to the same limitation of actors.
We all go through life making decisions after decisions. Some of the same analysis can be made in this connection. Some of the decisions that certain people make, are cruel, and have terrible consequences; look at President Putin and his collaborators. Such decisions should be opposed by all sensible people. For the rest of us, we just must accept that we may make mistakes in our decisions.
The attached paper is based upon my views on the foundation of quantum mechanics; I mean that it should be based upon a general epistemic interpretation, which includes, but is not identical to QBism. I will of course wellcome any discussion of these views, but I will be grateful if this discussion could be based either upon my book 'Epistemic Processes' or upon some of my recent articles.
Best regards
Inge
Dear Alexey.
I simply disagree with your main thesis that 'realism and determinism are the regulative
principles of our reason which determine the very possibility of
empirical cognition'. What you call meaningless fantasies, are honest attempts to understand nature on the basis of empirical results, specifically that Bell's inequalities are violated in certain situations.
Inge
On 27 Apr 2022, at 12:50, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2022, at 14:47, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/71c26209-1e54-4c92-9b4a-9557eb709603n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ccd67969-6ee3-4c5b-8f41-6c5a8625f1b5n%40googlegroups.com.
Bryan (just for you)Your “hyperhelicity” is a quantum hidden variable. Bells theorem is about classical hidden variables.You have extended or modified conventional quantum theory. You have not disproved Bell’s theorem.The question of the locality of conventional quantum theory is much debated. Many people consider it to satisfy locality. For instance, it forbids “action at a distance”. If you consider the quantum state merely to encapsulate knowledge of a hypothetical agent, not to be something “real” and located in space-time, there is no non-locality in QM. Also the Schrödinger cat paradox is resolved by taking this point of view.Richard
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwmM3o01eeeqrgss7FvqJcRA%2Bv06b5e5TLvwvUAhngBLA%40mail.gmail.com.
On 27 Apr 2022, at 14:45, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steve Gull, in unpublished work available on his Cambridge University homepage, has outlined a proof of Bell's theorem using Fourier theory. Gull's philosophy is that Bell's theorem (or perhaps a key lemma in its proof) can be seen as a no-go theorem for a project in distributed computing with classical, not quantum, computers. We present his argument, correcting misprints and filling gaps. In his argument, there were two completely separated computers in the network. We need three in order to fill all the gaps in his proof: a third computer supplies a stream of random numbers to the two computers representing the two measurement stations in Bell's work. One could also imagine that computer replaced by a cloned, virtual computer, generating the same pseudo-random numbers within each of Alice and Bob's computers. Either way, we need an assumption of the presence of shared i.i.d. randomness in the form of a synchronised sequence of realisations of i.i.d. hidden variables underlying the otherwise deterministic physics of the sequence of trials. Gull's proof then just needs a third step: rewriting an expectation as the expectation of a conditional expectation given the hidden variables.
Hi Jan-ÅkeThank you. "Outcomes at Alice and Bob": I calculate the EPR correlation, that is enough. I am not counting clicks but simply agreeing with the coincidence experiments and the violation. That is all that is necessary at this stage.
I mention that I use von Neumann's projective measure, equation (4). My state operators are Eq. 2 and 3 are pure states. So that should answer your question about statistical averages."I can calculate the correlation directly from a vector expression (the singlet quantum state)"I am not sure I understand, the singlet is not viable after the local pair separate if that is what you mean. Can you explain more about this please?
The Born rule is ok for polarizations, but it has a hard time with coherences I use, as I said, von Neumann and the quantum trace accounts for pure and mixed states.
So you disagree that hyperhelicty does not provide a counter example. Why not?
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/e00acad89c9750195f53299166e116cc931eb997.camel%40liu.se.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/03f93bfdb615e1f697812330391043f4ef0b4e26.camel%40liu.se.
On 27 Apr 2022, at 15:41, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f261c3048c9a5e2320c6c502bf525e823cd835e3.camel%40liu.se.
On 27 Apr 2022, at 17:00, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YyhmSFhHND%2B7g3N57f48SVEmTMmKOY50AVDHsrdh04qjw%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi Bryan,
TKS for your paper “Spin Helicity”. Your treatment of spin algebra and the treatment of possible spin products for a single state is text-book clear but your inferences may not be so clear, in my understanding. For example,
1) At your conclusion, “We conclude with Bell’s theorem gone, nothing stands in the way of EPR: quantum mechanics is incomplete”. That QM is incomplete is a conclusion that did not need analysis of Bell’s theorem at all. Lack of a unified view for electrodynamics, gravitation … should more than enough for such conclusion.
Moreover, strictly, Bell’s inequalities only deal with classical entities. This weakens your conclusion and makes it disconnected from a larger perspective. Using Bell’s theorem to attack QM seems completely inappropriate.
2) “In addition to polarization, we report a hitherto missed property of spin, its handedness, or hyperhelicity”. Missing property of spin? Helicity has been used for so long that I don’t know what you mean as a “discover” of a missed property.
3) It seems that you have not touched the crucial fact that the correlation in the spin pair can be measured at separation distances that violates the possibility for signal propagation for that distance – with the caveat that the verification of such violation is bounded by the speed of light (difference of detection times in the experiment). This implies:
· Your treatment is “local” by definition.
· If we say that all your reasoning is valid for any distances between detection systems, that you are assuming an infinite speed for signal propagation. In this case, you have another serious problem at your hands.
4) Your matrix rho12 (Eq. (2)), admits entanglement. Then you say that a local singlet presents a correlation between spin – and you keep your discussion locally and present “general” discussions with a “local” calculation. (Connected to 3) above)
5) The comment “helicity is destroyed in anisotropy” is correct, but it was not used in your discussion. Is this relevant in your treatment?
Just as a curiosity, there is some literature along this subject (isotropy or anisotropy) applied to entangled states. Arnaut & Barbosa, in PRL 85, 286 (2000) shows that “States of light that are simultaneously eigenstates of orbital, intrinsic, and total angular momentum are found and eigenstates describing pairs of photons from spontaneous parametric down-conversion reveal classes of photon conversion with angular momentum conservation and cases where the initial angular momentum from the pump laser beam is shared between the converted photons and the generating medium. These angular momentum conservation laws open up a wide range of applications to be explored.”
That analysis shows that entangled photons from parametric down conversion will satisfy eigenvalues of the total angular momentum Jz of the electromagnetic field associated with the photons.
In case of interest in the subject, it was also shown (GAB, PRA 80, 063833 (2009)),
that there are cases of conservation and non-conservation of Jz depending on the crystal classes (symmetry classes) used to obtain the parametric down-conversion:
“Several wave-function approximations describing spontaneous parametric down-conversion can be found in the literature. Basically, all cases are derived from the standard Hamiltonian for parametric down-conversion. Most frequently, particular cases describing collinear or paraxial approximations are described. This work presents a wave function in compact form, valid for all cases of single photon-pair conversion (Type I or Type II), for all angles allowed by the phase-matching conditions and for all orbital angular momentum values l.
Examples are given of coincidence structures to be expected for signal and idler photons. Partial transfer of orbital angular momentum from the pump laser to the photon pair is discussed. Some hypotheses for the decay channels of the non-transferred part of the orbital angular momentum is made.”
Geraldo
GeraldoThanks very much for that feedback and comments. I basically agree with everything you say. One point about knowledge (of a spin) which I now say is incomplete. We observe polarizations but not coherences. This actually goes against the No-hiding theorem which says all info is available. You cannot see information contained in spin coherence, a real property of Nature.You are absolutely right that I did not convince you because I left out the key point. I am really at a loss as to what to do. Waiting for the 4th journal to decide to review not, has been going on for three months.If I am refused a peer review the fourth time I will have to make them public somehow, maybe my blog."A Peer Review, A Peer Review, a horse for a Peer Review!"Thank you for your patience. It is appreciated.BryanOn Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:40 PM GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa <geraldo...@gmail.com> wrote:Bryan,
It seems that everyone agrees that Bell’s inequalities were set in a classical context.
In a classical context, particles are distinguishable (although such distinguishability may be practically impossible in many cases – e.g., particles in a gas). In a classical context, a magnet has two distinct positions, and they are distinguishable, and they do not live in a superposition state.
This implies that a classical state can be perfectly copied, as many times as our resources allow (flying “flags” can be copied).
Also, derivation of quantum aspects within a classical context can lead to weird conclusions.
A quantum state, representing a spin (a quantum entity), represents our knowledge of that spin, and it may as well represent a superposition state.
An expected value for a measurement on that state includes a space axis for that measurement (e.g. a magnetic field orientation). That measurement axis can be set even after the spins have left their original site. While the preparation of the initial state of two spins (in the same position) could be made along an axis z0, a measurement could occur along any z axis.
(Calculated) Complementary measurements at position A and position B would always give – along an arbitrary z direction, the + and – results, regardless of the distances between A and B. That implies that the + and – are NOT rigidly attached to the initial axis z0 (=”flying flags”). It is also true that the correlation of the +/- results are only seen after the measured signals are compared (light speed bound correlation).
Quantum models allow entangled states, not the classical models.
I could not understand how you apply your idea of classical “locality” to explain correlations at distant places along arbitrary measurement axis. Are you also discarding quantum mechanics? Are you challenging the idea of correlation at distant positions? … I am a bit confused … Your note did not help me.
Geraldo
Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhDKeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190E-Mail: Geraldo...@gmail.comSkype: geraldo.a.barbosaCellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:03 AM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comment Richard:
First you say:
“Bryan is mistaken. Bell did not assume that the outcomes +/-1 always exist from source to destination. He only assumed that the outcomes appear upon measurement.”
My response:
This is categorically and emphatically untrue. Bell’s random variables only take values of +/-1, all the time, everywhere, no question. The immediate consequence of your statement is that qubits, superpositions of +/-1, only exist upon measurement! That will upset quantum computing programmers. Second that means that the singlet state is not (|up>|dn> - |dn>|up>). This expression is the only one I have seen for the singlet: flags always flying whether measured or not. Third spin is measured in a Stern-Gerlach experiment to have values of only |+/-1>, which is exactly what Bell uses. Sorry Richard, nice try.
I challenge you to point out anywhere in the literature that you have a spin, or a spin function, that is NOT composed of polarized up/dn states. I doubt you can.
Bell’s assumption is a result of Bell not being able to think quantum mechanically. I see that in his papers. He is tied to classical thought, just like his useful inequalities. He forced his classical system (socks) to be non-classical and the result is non-locality. It is that simple. Non-locality is the only consequence in the absence of other elements of reality.
Second you say:
“So instead of adding classical hidden variables, Bryan seems to be adding unobservable quantum observables: |+><-| and |-><+| are operators acting on the Hilbert space C^2, but they are not self-adjoint. Their eigenvalues are purely imaginary.”
My response:
This is exactly what I am saying. The coherences are unobservable (LHiddenV) which is why they have been missed for 100 years. Indeed, the states are non-Hermitian, but Richard is wrong, all the eigenvalues are real +/-1. They are not imaginary at all. Finally, the non-Hermiticity breaks up into two spaces, which are complementary and carry Hermitian operators (polarizations) and anti-Hermitian operators (coherences).
My space is not is Hilbert Space C^2 but a single space of 4x4 gamma matrices that describe a single spin which is embedded in spacetime.
I should point out that Bell’s Blunder is the first of very sobering results which you will find quite unsetting. It is interesting that you cannot come up with any other points of contention in that little Blunder paper. You will find, as I finally get these out, that one by one your notions will fall until finally you will convert to local realism.
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:36:28 AM UTC-4 Richard Gill wrote:
Bryan writes:
“The error in Bell’s Theorem [11] is his assumption that his random variables always carry the values of ±1. This is not supported by the existence of LHV. Bell assumed polarization, |±⟩ ⟨±|, always exists from the source to detection: the flags are always flying. However, the flags only appear upon the measurement of spin. In contrast, for coherence, |±⟩ ⟨∓|, the flags are furled, and describes a spin in isotropy. [11] Bell, J. S. (2004). p. 139 or 147, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy. Cambridge university press.”Bryan is mistaken. Bell did not assume that the outcomes +/-1 always exist from source to destination. He only assumed that the outcomes appear upon measurement.Bryan sees spin from a quantum-mechanical point of view. He argues that all these years, we have been missing something connected to complementarity. We have missed:“that spin components do not commute, that quantum mechanics reveals ‘inverse’ spaces. What, then, is the inverse space for spin angular momentum? All we know of spin is its measured vector polarizations, |±⟩ ⟨±|. It turns out that the inverse spin space is the coherencies expressed by, |±⟩ ⟨∓|. These support other spin properties which account for the missing correlation”So instead of adding classical hidden variables, Bryan seems to be adding unobservable quantum observables: |+><-| and |-><+| are operators acting on the Hilbert space C^2, but they are not self-adjoint. Their eigenvalues are purely imaginary.
Sent from my iPad
On 24 Apr 2022, at 23:34, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi allHere is a link to my view of the error Bell made in his Theorem,Bryan
--
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/CALLw9YxYcoX3mvDhzrLFyy9hMdPWOxrfBfqQtbnb_6Cac3%2B%2BdA%40mail.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/afd3c94e-ed47-4880-902d-20ff34de2053n%40googlegroups.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/2d2fc100bccb96d57b76fad4c3101e624197e918.camel%40liu.se.Attachments:
- smime.p7s
Hi ScottI do not think you have read my paper,Here is the NUTSHELL: Bell says " if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local"Hyperhelicity is a LHV, that accounts for the violation of BI, Therefore I have disproven Bell's Theorem by counter example.END OF STORY.WIth that we do not have to waste our time talking about the issues you raise. His theorem is toast.In short, from now on there is no reason to even mention the theorem, let alone worry about its proof. It is wrong. The reason it is wrong is he made a bad assumption just like von Neuman did.I have no interest in discussing anything of Bell's Theorem. It is now relegated to the "Annals of Lost causes and Bad Ideas" Bell's theorem are now only of historical interest and must be removed from physicsDo you agree?BryanOn Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:15 PM 'sgl...@nist.gov' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Bryan,To understand what you mean when you say that you have disproved the statement "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local.", we need to have a mapping between all of the words in that statement and mathematical concepts. If you think that the statement is false and Bell thinks that the statement is true, the disagreement could be caused by you and Bell having different interpretations of those words as mathematical concepts. To me, that quote seems like an informal summary of the statements 1, 2, and 3 that I mentioned earlier. I think that Bell was trying to translate some formal statements about probability distributions into natural, English language. When Bell says "If a [hidden variable theory] is local", I think that he simply means those theories that produce probability distributions that are constrained by Bell Inequalities.Could the disagreement be that you think that "local hidden variable theory" is not a good description of those theories whose probability distributions obey Bell Inequalities? Or do you think the disagreement lies elsewhere?ScottOn Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 PM UTC-6 bryancs...@gmail.com wrote:Hi ScottI state Bell's THeorem:``If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."I really have never been interested in the veracity of BI I went through the math years ago and am not interested in any challenge. I accept and in fact really see them as Bell's achievement. Its just that his theorem is wrong.I just posted my first paper. I resolves the EPR paradox, it is hereThanksBryanOn Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 7:04 PM 'sgl...@nist.gov' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Bryan,When you say that you have found an error in the proof of "Bell's Theorem", I am not certain about the precise theorem that you think is in error. I wasn't able to find a statement of the theorem in your "Bell's Blunder" paper.
I can think of a few different possibilities for theorems related to Bell:
1. The marginal distributions produced by joint probability distributions obey some inequalities ("Bell Inequalities").2. Quantum theory predicts that the marginal distributions produced by some entangled systems can violate the Bell Inequalities.3. Spacelike separated measurements on entangled particles cannot be described by a fixed joint probability distribution.I haven't stated any of those formally, but it would be helpful if you could specify which statement you object to. Then we might work on where exactly you think the mathematical error lies.ScottOn Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:47:26 AM UTC-6 bryancs...@gmail.com wrote:Hi Richard
I can understand why you are upset. You are a Bellist and have great regard for the work John Stewart Bell, especially his Theorem. I am attacking that but I am not denigrating his career at CERN (of which I know little) or his other successes or him personally. However he made an enormous Blunder in the proof of his theorem and that is his legacy now. Still, 60 years on, people are using his Theorem to justify so much work that is misleading and incorrect, like the Big Bell Test*, and for quantum teleportation**. It must change.*BIG Bell Test Collaboration. "Challenging local realism with human choices." Nature 557.7704 (2018): 212-216.**Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., & Wootters, W. K. (1993). Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical review letters, 70(13), 1895.The reason for Bell's error is he believed that spin is always polarized, and it is not. That means to me, he could not image beyond his classical states--hence my comment about his Positivist attitude.The end result is that his theorem, and then the CHSH successful experiment, has seared into physics the absurd notion on non-locality. I find it boggling that the world of Physics succumbed and accepted such nonsense in the first place, because, think of it, non-locality, EPR channels make no sense, and constitutes, as Alexey says, religion.MY GOAL: This is an academic war about knowledge. I will win but first I must fight. I did not fight until I had the ammunition. My intention is to completely change the world view of spin from a two level vector observable to a four level hyperspin. From this, gobsmacking consequences arise, like the Dirac equation does NOT produce anti-matter. (First time I told you that).I know what I am up against: a chemist with little credibility is telling physics they have spin wrong, Quantum Information Theory must change, and that antimatter is not produced!! No wonder there is skepticism and disbelieve.If in a meek and mild way I posted somewhere, my work would be ignored. How long did Bell's 1964 paper sit unnoticed? By delaying the repudiation of non-locality, billions of research funds are being wasted and myriad research projects will result in misleading ideas. If I am to change the field of Quantum Information and stop teleportation nonsense, I have to attack Bell's Theorem. I also must be assertive. I only bet you to get attention, and, of course, the certainty that I will win.There will be casualties in my attack, like your papers being retracted, and the gurus who have hyped the field for so long will convert to local realism, or retire. I have no qualms about personal consequences: hey it has had a number of negative effects on me by sticking to my values.In my short Bell's Blunder paper, please tell me where I am not truthful, obfuscating or wrong. So far you have nothing credible so I surmise that if I give you that LHV part, and you accept this as a counter example, then Bell's Theorem is disproven,Finally, in this, my intention is absolute honesty and integrity. I would never think of "putting any words" in any one's mouth. Any other approach than honesty will fail and I will lose. Hence I am forceful, assertive, but guided by truth, justice and the (well I'll not finish that).I guess there are various editions of speakable, with the pages not the same. Sorry about that. I attach the page with Bell's quote" The others are there somewhere in your edition, I hope you find them. I made nothing up: Bell said:"If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local." Bell, John S., (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. p. 65.Brest wishes,BryanOn Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:42:52 PM UTC-4 Richard Gill wrote:Dear BryanYou are categorically and emphatically wrong. I will write to you personally with exact with quotes from Bell, proving this.You refer to two page numbers of your edition of “Speakable and unspeakable”. Please send me a pdf/photo of each of those pages, or quote a salient sentence from each.You apparently utterly mistake Bell’s intention. You say Bell could only think classically. His main work at CERN was top level orthodox QM work. The point of his foundational work was to prove that classical thinking could not explain certain QM predictions. He succeeded in showing exactly why this was so.In other words: you agree with Bell. Feynman already said: we already knew this! It’s not interesting, not useful!You could have more success with your mission if you would stop maligning Bell by putting claims into his mouth which he never made. It gives everyone a license to ignore the “meat” in your work.
RichardSent from my iPhone
On 25 Apr 2022, at 16:03, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comment Richard:
First you say:
“Bryan is mistaken. Bell did not assume that the outcomes +/-1 always exist from source to destination. He only assumed that the outcomes appear upon measurement.”
My response:
This is categorically and emphatically untrue. Bell’s random variables only take values of +/-1, all the time, everywhere, no question. The immediate consequence of your statement is that qubits, superpositions of +/-1, only exist upon measurement! That will upset quantum computing programmers. Second that means that the singlet state is not (|up>|dn> - |dn>|up>). This expression is the only one I have seen for the singlet: flags always flying whether measured or not. Third spin is measured in a Stern-Gerlach experiment to have values of only |+/-1>, which is exactly what Bell uses. Sorry Richard, nice try.
I challenge you to point out anywhere in the literature that you have a spin, or a spin function, that is NOT composed of polarized up/dn states. I doubt you can.
Bell’s assumption is a result of Bell not being able to think quantum mechanically. I see that in his papers. He is tied to classical thought, just like his useful inequalities. He forced his classical system (socks) to be non-classical and the result is non-locality. It is that simple. Non-locality is the only consequence in the absence of other elements of reality.
Second you say:
“So instead of adding classical hidden variables, Bryan seems to be adding unobservable quantum observables: |+><-| and |-><+| are operators acting on the Hilbert space C^2, but they are not self-adjoint. Their eigenvalues are purely imaginary.”
My response:
This is exactly what I am saying. The coherences are unobservable (LHiddenV) which is why they have been missed for 100 years. Indeed, the states are non-Hermitian, but Richard is wrong, all the eigenvalues are real +/-1. They are not imaginary at all. Finally, the non-Hermiticity breaks up into two spaces, which are complementary and carry Hermitian operators (polarizations) and anti-Hermitian operators (coherences).
My space is not is Hilbert Space C^2 but a single space of 4x4 gamma matrices that describe a single spin which is embedded in spacetime.
I should point out that Bell’s Blunder is the first of very sobering results which you will find quite unsetting. It is interesting that you cannot come up with any other points of contention in that little Blunder paper. You will find, as I finally get these out, that one by one your notions will fall until finally you will convert to local realism.
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:36:28 AM UTC-4 Richard Gill wrote:
Bryan writes:
“The error in Bell’s Theorem [11] is his assumption that his random variables always carry the values of ±1. This is not supported by the existence of LHV. Bell assumed polarization, |±⟩ ⟨±|, always exists from the source to detection: the flags are always flying. However, the flags only appear upon the measurement of spin. In contrast, for coherence, |±⟩ ⟨∓|, the flags are furled, and describes a spin in isotropy. [11] Bell, J. S. (2004). p. 139 or 147, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy. Cambridge university press.”Bryan is mistaken. Bell did not assume that the outcomes +/-1 always exist from source to destination. He only assumed that the outcomes appear upon measurement.Bryan sees spin from a quantum-mechanical point of view. He argues that all these years, we have been missing something connected to complementarity. We have missed:“that spin components do not commute, that quantum mechanics reveals ‘inverse’ spaces. What, then, is the inverse space for spin angular momentum? All we know of spin is its measured vector polarizations, |±⟩ ⟨±|. It turns out that the inverse spin space is the coherencies expressed by, |±⟩ ⟨∓|. These support other spin properties which account for the missing correlation”So instead of adding classical hidden variables, Bryan seems to be adding unobservable quantum observables: |+><-| and |-><+| are operators acting on the Hilbert space C^2, but they are not self-adjoint. Their eigenvalues are purely imaginary.
Sent from my iPad
On 24 Apr 2022, at 23:34, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi allHere is a link to my view of the error Bell made in his Theorem,Bryan
--
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/CALLw9YxYcoX3mvDhzrLFyy9hMdPWOxrfBfqQtbnb_6Cac3%2B%2BdA%40mail.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/afd3c94e-ed47-4880-902d-20ff34de2053n%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0dea9045-1c8d-49ff-8516-05a7e5656568n%40googlegroups.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/71c26209-1e54-4c92-9b4a-9557eb709603n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/25aa5499-80ae-4bc9-8cc0-5c100f5f263dn%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/25aa5499-80ae-4bc9-8cc0-5c100f5f263dn%40googlegroups.com.
On 29 Apr 2022, at 13:41, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0700a328-d3ae-4e93-966c-632eeb1f5a21%40www.fastmail.com.
On 29 Apr 2022, at 13:56, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
What if the particle carries a complex phase??
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ff3838a8-f9e0-4128-872b-ef90efb2cdban%40googlegroups.com.
Dear BryanBell poses the question: "Can there exist a local hidden variable model?" (you call it "classical") His theorem proves that the answer is "No".(He proves that one can not hammer your "square peg" into your "round hole".)There is no dispute that a quantum description can give the outcomes. All of us understand that it can.But that is not the kind of model Bell asks his question about.Your paper is not a counterexample.Best
Jan-Åke
On ons, 2022-04-27 at 09:55 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:
Hi Jan-ÅkeHelicity is local, hidden and a variable. It accounts for the correlation as a LHV. Bell is disproven, it is math.I disagree that I must use Bell's classical description to describe a quantum system. I do not have to pay any attention to Bell's work. All I have to do is agree with the experimental results and I do: I account for the violation using helicity. Then others can scratch their heads and wonder why it disagrees with Bell. You want to stay classical. I want to be quantum.Bell's approach does not include coherence. It is classical and you want me to hammer a square peg into a round hole like Bell did. It will not work, so you must give up Bell and turn to quantum LHVThe Born rules works, of course, for coherences. I did not say it did not. I like von Neumann better which is much easier for me than states. The two are equivalent so I do not need to use the Born rule.Hope you accept these arguments.
Bryan
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:40 AM Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:
On ons, 2022-04-27 at 06:19 -0700, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:Hi Jan-ÅkeThank you. "Outcomes at Alice and Bob": I calculate the EPR correlation, that is enough. I am not counting clicks but simply agreeing with the coincidence experiments and the violation. That is all that is necessary at this stage.No it is not, it is necessary to describe measurement outcomes using a local hidden variable model, and statistics thereof.Bell's theorem is specifically about the possibility of providing such descriptions.If you do not provide such a description, then your claim fails.I mention that I use von Neumann's projective measure, equation (4). My state operators are Eq. 2 and 3 are pure states. So that should answer your question about statistical averages."I can calculate the correlation directly from a vector expression (the singlet quantum state)"I am not sure I understand, the singlet is not viable after the local pair separate if that is what you mean. Can you explain more about this please?The singlet is the quantum-mechanical description of the entangled spin state of the combined pair system even when the pair has separated.Born's rule gives the probabilities of the measurement outcomes, for such a system.We know this is a good description because it describes the outcome statistics well.The Born rule is ok for polarizations, but it has a hard time with coherences I use, as I said, von Neumann and the quantum trace accounts for pure and mixed states.Born's rule, as used in modern textbooks, works well with mixed states.So you disagree that hyperhelicty does not provide a counter example. Why not?Because it does not provide a local hidden variable model.The paper you posted will not convince me, nor Richard, nor any of the other people you mention.Like Richard wrote, your description may be correct (or may not), but either way it does not contradict Bell's result.Best
Jan-Åke
Look forward to your reply
Bryan
> On 27 Apr 2022, at 05:15, 'sgl...@nist.gov' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> If
--
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/6F91D55C-04B4-4A93-881D-9E8F2B949ECC%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/kuJe3CJ_mrM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/e00acad89c9750195f53299166e116cc931eb997.camel%40liu.se.
Hello
everyone.
It would be
great if it works.
I tried to do this for 2 years..
I'm curious about the method used.
"What if the
particle carries a complex phase??"
It's not a problem, as long as it's calculable.
Pierre
On 29 Apr 2022, at 22:24, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jan-Åke
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/989fc7af-cec0-4db8-ad07-7332f4c84af2n%40googlegroups.com.
On 30 Apr 2022, at 21:50, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:I am extremely surprised that the respected authors [1-3] did not
understand that if the results of measurements do not depend on the
order of measurements of particles, then quantum mechanics cannot
contradict locality since in this case the measurement of one particle
cannot change the quantum states of other particles.