Einstein's dream is dead

[John Clark]

In the August 7, 2024 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters is the strongest evidence ever reported that Einstein's dream of a quantum theory that is deterministic, realistic and local is dead; at least one of those three things must be false. They use something called "Hardy's Violation" that is a slight variation of Bell's Inequality that is a little easier for experimenters to use.  

By the way, when they say "local realism" is violated they are assuming a deterministic universe, that's why Objective Collapse Theories are still in the running for the title of the correct fundamental description of nature, they are not deterministic. Many Worlds is also still in the running because it is not realistic, and Pilot Wave Theory it's still in the running because it is not local.  As for Copenhagen, it's basically "shut up and calculate" so it can't win or lose because it's not playing the game. Einstein is the only clear loser in all this.

Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy’s violation

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

edd

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 6:44:04 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

In the August 7, 2024 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters is the strongest evidence ever reported that Einstein's dream of a quantum theory that is deterministic, realistic and local is dead; at least one of those three things must be false.

I will be studying your long post with the view of determining if you really proved what you claim above. I am presently skeptical since I have a naive view that all three can be simultaneously true.  CMIIAW, but a deterministic interpretation of a probability theory must mean that the wf collapse can be modeled dynamically, and this is what Objective Collapse theories are attempting to construct. In my view, this would be an extension of Copenhagen, not its capitulation. AG

[Giulio Prisco]

Thank you for sharing John. I'm already persuaded that local realism
is untenable, but it is always good to see more experimental evidence.
G.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3KqyGuc-DtydFpuE5FGG_Pioi6e_9RqhbsKjL9pOC7nQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:25 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a deterministic interpretation of a probability theory must mean that the wf collapse can be modeled dynamically, and this is what Objective Collapse theories are attempting to construct.

No. Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic but the Objective Collapse people modified it by adding a new term to it that is random. As I may have mentioned before, Many Worlds is my favorite quantum interpretation but my second favorite would be objective collapse because it's testable; it makes some specific predictions that would be different than standard quantum mechanics. 

Today we don't yet have the technology to perform these experiments but I wouldn't be surprised if we do in a decade or so. If their predictions turn out to be correct then Many Worlds is definitely wrong, and if their predictions are wrong then Objective Collapse is definitely wrong.  The reason Objective collapse is not my favorite interpretation right now is that by introducing a random element into Schrodinger's Equation they've made it vastly more difficult to solve, and it was already fiendishly difficult. That's why nobody has yet found a way to make the modified Schrodinger Equation compatible with Special Relativity, Paul Dirac was able to do that for the unmodified version as far back as 1927.

> In my view, this would be an extension of Copenhagen, not its capitulation. 

Some Copenhagen fans might agree with you but certainly not all. Copenhagen believers can't agree among themselves about much of anything, the only thing they agree on is what we should do now, and that would be to give up, shut up and just calculate with numbers.   

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jsu

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:47 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing John. I'm already persuaded that local realism
is untenable, but it is always good to see more experimental evidence.

Actually what they've proven is that local realism is untenable in a deterministic universe; that's why this experiment doesn't rule out objective collapse theories, they are local and realistic but not deterministic. You can't have determinism and localism and realism, you've got to get rid of at least one of those 3 things. Today nobody knows for sure which one of the 3 needs to go to the chopping block, my guess would be realism and that's why I'm a Many Worlds fan, but I could be wrong. 

John K Clark

[Giulio Prisco]

I chop (Laplacian) determinism and localism. Non-locality kills
Laplacian determinism but it is not incompatible with global
determinism. I keep realism in the sense that something exists and can
be known better.
G.

> John K Clark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0VCEeiDOyDD9-iwRenUiN3yQGizXCDAUWY3jvy%3Dh2psw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 8:36:47 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:25 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a deterministic interpretation of a probability theory must mean that the wf collapse can be modeled dynamically, and this is what Objective Collapse theories are attempting to construct.

No. Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic

Of course, but the measurement PROBLEM is collapse of the wf, and this is what Objective Collapse is trying to solve to make Copenhagen deterministic.  I don't know who you discuss Copenhagen with, but I rarely, if ever, hear anyone say, "Shut up and calculate."  AG

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:35 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a deterministic interpretation of a probability theory must mean that the wf collapse can be modeled dynamically, and this is what Objective Collapse theories are attempting to construct.

No. Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic

> Of course, but the measurement PROBLEM is collapse of the wf, and this is what Objective Collapse is trying to solve to make Copenhagen deterministic. 

NO! Objective Collapse theories are NOT deterministic, Schrodinger's equation is but they add a random element so the wave collapses at a RANDOM time. And an objective collapse fan would be insulted if you said he was a believer in Copenhagen.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

OCT

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > I keep realism in the sense that something exists and can be known

In physics realism has a very specific technical meaning; something is realistic if it exists in one and only one state even before it is measured. Many Worlds is NOT realistic because it says before a thing is measured it exists in not one but in every quantum state that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation. An electron moves left and a version of Giulio Prisco will see it move left, and  an electron moves right and a version of  Giulio Prisco will see it move right, but nobody will ever see an electron turn into a proton because that would violate Schrodinger's equation. 

John K Clark

[Alan Grayson]

I really don't know much about Objective Collapse theories, so I shouldn't speculate what it might be about. But one thing is clear, and what Penrose asserts; that the measurement problem in QM is the collapse of the wf. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 11:56:58 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > I keep realism in the sense that something exists and can be known

In physics realism has a very specific technical meaning; something is realistic if it exists in one and only one state even before it is measured. Many Worlds is NOT realistic because it says before a thing is measured it exists in not one but in every quantum state that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation.

Does this mean that if someone imagines a thing before it's measured, that it will obey Schrodinger's equation IF it's measured, all those quantum states will exist? IOW, no need to do any measurements; just imagine the possibility of doing it and, viola, all those states come into being. This is a scenario that will be appreciated by our resident consciousness expert. AG

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:20 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does this mean that if someone imagines a thing before it's measured, that it will obey Schrodinger's equation IF it's measured, all those quantum states will exist?

Nope.

John K Clark

[Alan Grayson]

Liar, liar, pants on fire. LOL. That's what you wrote. I CAN read English. AG 

John K Clark

[Alan Grayson]

Think about it. Suppose you've set "the thing" up for measurement, maybe you've even written S's equation in your notebook and solved it, but you still haven't actually DONE the measurement. So it's in your imagination of what you're going do, AND, miraculously, "the thing" is in all quantum states satisfied by S's equation.  QED, AG

John K Clark

[Cosmin Visan]

All materialists dreams are dead given that consciousness is all there is.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 1:27:23 PM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

All materialists dreams are dead given that consciousness is all there is.

You should get a real job and stop behaving like a nuisance. AG

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 3:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Think about it. Suppose you've set "the thing" up for measurement, maybe you've even written S's equation in your notebook and solved it, but you still haven't actually DONE the measurement. So it's in your imagination

It makes no difference if it's in your imagination or not. If there is a solution for Schrodinger's equation that an electron is going to go left then it will go left regardless of if you solve the equation for it or not, but that most certainly will NOT be the only solution of Schrodinger's equation for that electron. There may also be a solution for the electron going right, so if you perform the experiment there will be a version of you observing the electron going to the right just as there is a version of you observing the electron going to the left. But there will be no version of you observing the electron turning into a proton because there is no solution of Schrodinger's equation for that. In Many Worlds consciousness and imagination have nothing to do with it.

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

   e3q

 

of what you're going do, AND, miraculously, "the thing" is in all quantum states satisfied by S's equation.  QED, AG

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/002287fd-6e30-4862-b425-7f68ed760db9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jesse Mazer]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:48 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:47 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing John. I'm already persuaded that local realism
is untenable, but it is always good to see more experimental evidence.

Actually what they've proven is that local realism is untenable in a deterministic universe; that's why this experiment doesn't rule out objective collapse theories, they are local and realistic but not deterministic. You can't have determinism and localism and realism, you've got to get rid of at least one of those 3 things.

In the setup Bell envisioned (and most other setups where Bell inequality is violated), if the two experimenters both choose the same measurement setting, the laws of QM say they should get identical (or opposite, depending on the type of particle) measurement results with probability 1, despite the fact that these choices can be made at a spacelike separation. So in a local realist theory without superdeterminism (i.e. no statistical correlation between experimenter's choices and detailed states of the particles they are going to measure, prior to measurement), isn't the only way to explain this by supposing the particles already have pre-set matching answers to how they will respond to each measurement setting, with this pre-setting having happened in the past, somewhere in the region of spacetime where their past light cones at the time of measurement are overlapping? In that case even though other aspects of the world (including the experimenter's choices) might be non-deterministic, the particle states that determine their response to different possible measurements must be pre-determined prior to measurement--allowing a non-deterministic "collapse on measurement" wouldn't help solve the problem of a local realist account of how you get this perfect match on trials where the measurement settings are the same.

Jesse

 

 

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0VCEeiDOyDD9-iwRenUiN3yQGizXCDAUWY3jvy%3Dh2psw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 2:11:15 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 3:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Think about it. Suppose you've set "the thing" up for measurement, maybe you've even written S's equation in your notebook and solved it, but you still haven't actually DONE the measurement. So it's in your imagination

It makes no difference if it's in your imagination or not. If there is a solution for Schrodinger's equation that an electron is going to go left then it will go left regardless of if you solve the equation for it or not, but that most certainly will NOT be the only solution of Schrodinger's equation for that electron. There may also be a solution for the electron going right, so if you perform the experiment there will be a version of you observing the electron going to the right just as there is a version of you observing the electron going to the left. But there will be no version of you observing the electron turning into a proton because there is no solution of Schrodinger's equation for that. In Many Worlds consciousness and imagination have nothing to do with it.

You've gone off the reservation. Now actual measurement is irrelevant, imagination is enough for the quantum states to be manifested, and you claim none of this matters. AG q

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 2:28:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 2:11:15 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 3:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Think about it. Suppose you've set "the thing" up for measurement, maybe you've even written S's equation in your notebook and solved it, but you still haven't actually DONE the measurement. So it's in your imagination

It makes no difference if it's in your imagination or not. If there is a solution for Schrodinger's equation that an electron is going to go left then it will go left regardless of if you solve the equation for it or not, but that most certainly will NOT be the only solution of Schrodinger's equation for that electron. There may also be a solution for the electron going right, so if you perform the experiment there will be a version of you observing the electron going to the right just as there is a version of you observing the electron going to the left. But there will be no version of you observing the electron turning into a proton because there is no solution of Schrodinger's equation for that. In Many Worlds consciousness and imagination have nothing to do with it.

You've gone off the reservation. Now actual measurement is irrelevant, imagination is enough for the quantum states to be manifested, and you claim none of this matters. AG 

And all of this is in principle untestable and you call it science. OMG, AG 

[Alan Grayson]

You go left or right, people go left or right, cars goes left or right, insects go left or right, and the worlds of MW metastasize virtually without limit?  And this makes perfect sense to you because of some equation that doesn't even satisfy Relativity? OMG^100+, AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/10/2024 10:56 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > I keep realism in the sense that something exists and can be known

In physics realism has a very specific technical meaning; something is realistic if it exists in one and only one state even before it is measured. Many Worlds is NOT realistic because it says before a thing is measured it exists in not one but in every quantum state that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation.

Is that counting a superposition of states as a state?

Brent

An electron moves left and a version of Giulio Prisco will see it move left, and  an electron moves right and a version of  Giulio Prisco will see it move right, but nobody will ever see an electron turn into a proton because that would violate Schrodinger's equation. 

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ETPUAUro4%2BFGCCkqwmyDGCTQAj7dBK8UHdAViSDVeMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. You should first become a millionaire like me and then tell me to get a real job, lol. So, what is the point of discussions about hallucinations ? Yes, the chair in front of you doesn't exist. So why do you keep talking about it ? You people are like those from the special hospital that talk that they saw Elvis last night in their room. "Chair, chair! Look, chair! I swear, is a chair! Look! Look! Look!". Yes, little Alan, Elvis is in your room. Now be a good boy and take your pills.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, October 11, 2024 at 2:54:40 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. You should first become a millionaire like me and then tell me to get a real job, lol. So, what is the point of discussions about hallucinations ? Yes, the chair in front of you doesn't exist. So why do you keep talking about it ? You people are like those from the special hospital that talk that they saw Elvis last night in their room. "Chair, chair! Look, chair! I swear, is a chair! Look! Look! Look!". Yes, little Alan, Elvis is in your room. Now be a good boy and take your pills.

You really don't get it. Although I agree with your central claim about consciousness, much too much is hidden, to get anywhere on issues discussed on this mb. Stop being a nuisance! Millionaire or not, you need a real job. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 6:49:46 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/10/2024 10:56 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > I keep realism in the sense that something exists and can be known

In physics realism has a very specific technical meaning; something is realistic if it exists in one and only one state even before it is measured. Many Worlds is NOT realistic because it says before a thing is measured it exists in not one but in every quantum state that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation.

Is that counting a superposition of states as a state?

Subtle. AG

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. You want to get to truth by not putting any effort ? Go 5 years in the mountains, think deep, and then you will realize that you will make progress. How else ? How is understanding consciousness different from any other task ? If to understand quantum mechanics you go 4 years through university, what makes you think that when it comes to consciousness you can understand it in an afternoon ?

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, October 11, 2024 at 4:48:24 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. You want to get to truth by not putting any effort ? Go 5 years in the mountains, think deep, and then you will realize that you will make progress. How else ? How is understanding consciousness different from any other task ? If to understand quantum mechanics you go 4 years through university, what makes you think that when it comes to consciousness you can understand it in an afternoon ?

If you're enlightened, why do you make assumptions there's no evidence for? What was your profession in this world of illusions, aka Maya? AG

[Cosmin Visan]

What assumptions are you referring to ?

I have no profession, I am an enlightened spirit, I don't waste time with illusions.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 13, 2024 at 3:18:24 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

What assumptions are you referring to ?

Read what you wrote about me and cease asking stupid questions. AG

I have no profession, I am an enlightened spirit, I don't waste time with illusions.

So how did you become a millionaire? By twisting in the wind? AG 

If you were really enlightened, you'd know two things; 1), that consciousness is the core of being and reality, and 2), that its useless in solving any problem.  Consciousness cannot even help us change a tire, much less solve any of the problems being discussed here. AG

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. You are just being lazy. Who is stopping you from thinking for years about consciousness and deducing from it the present day science ?

You can make millions by buying bitcoins when is 1$ and selling it when is 10k$.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 13, 2024 at 8:47:55 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. You are just being lazy. Who is stopping you from thinking for years about consciousness and deducing from it the present day science ?

 

It's occult, that is, hidden, hardly deducible from present day science. I was blessed with the discovery, so don't lecture me. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. I didn't say to deduce it from present day science. I said the other way around: Go and understand consciousness and then from its functioning deduce present day science. Who is stopping you ?