--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/8eca5042-4562-4cbf-8192-cf7fea1c83bbn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.
Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.
On 23 Jan 2023, at 07:26, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.
On 23 Jan 2023, at 10:10, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:
Thanks Richard - I have not seen these yet (I was trying to avoid the topic, but... it seems I get drawn in again :-).In your opinion, which is *the one* experiment that is the most convincing, the one that clearly has no loopholes and is statistically significant? Is it the one you listed below?(You know, given that people consider all kinds of crazy explanations, including retrocausality, parallel universes, instant communication and so on, I think it is not so crazy to look at these experiments critically :-).Best wishes,ChantalOn Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Richard Gill wrote:
There are repeats and *improvements* of the best experiment. I’ve said this several times before, but here I go again (sorry to those who me say this N times before where N is about 10 or so).
Take a look at:Zhang, W., van Leent, T., Redeker, K. et al.A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users.Nature 607, 687–691 (2022).You can find it on arXiv too.I extracted the Bell test part of the experiment and took a look at the data here:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/065F6016-F164-463C-B2E1-F66EE1F84A55%40gmail.com.
... Bell's experiment is a brilliant test to settle the issue (and photon based experiments appear to show that Quantum Theory wins). But computer experiments [20] that model results with LHV (Local Hidden Variable) models, show that photon based experiments have an un-accounted for "selective detect loophole" (requiring close to 100% detection, not the approximately 70% detection rates currently allowed), and Bell CHSH experiments may actually settle the issue in EPRs favor.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAD%3DV2Ruhy4m-AxBYUMdHOvTTuK%2BS%2BF94FmquGpOVpnYUKsQCUg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bell's experiment is a brilliant test to settle the issue, and computer models show that Bell's inequalities do conclusively detect the difference between QM vs ERP modeled reality. Computer CHSH experiments [20] with LHV (Local Hidden Variable) models also show that photon loss in polarizing beam splitters using Malus Law distribution, cause a false positive violation of Bell's inequalities at any loss level. This is the "Malus Law Detection Loophole", it is much more strict than the standard detection loophole, and requires CHSH experiments to exclude "Malus Law distribution" photon loss completely. CHSH experiments using polarizing beam splitters suffer from the "Malus Law Distribution Loophole" and always provide false positive violations of Bell's inequalities. Electron spin tests do not suffer from "Malus Law Detection Loophole" and should be conducted with large data sets to settle the Bell's inequalities test.
[2] Testing Bells Theorem, https://sites.google.com/site/physicschecker/unsettled-physics/testing-bells-theorem-paper (access 2023-01-22)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJwNsPKTmQ2Cur-1KbG8wz-mdP1tT5_Z8Rfz8ReCaoK6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Alexey,What you are saying is simply wrong. And is refuted by experiments
I've never come across that postulate. It's unnecessary and as you show it is wrong. It may be a good working assumption for systems that are not entangled.
In QM the expected outcome of of an experiment is given by the Trace of the state operator and measurement operator. I'd say that was axiomatic. Try deriving your postulate from the axiom. I think you will find it only follows as a special case.
In EPR the beam is unpolarised. It can be expressed as a classical mixture up/down + down/up The decomposition is not unique. A measurement of one side reveals which of the two it is.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1hbT_uLmtfhkf%3DURS1OMbN00-zM4moEXdsUZSRz9GuEA%40mail.gmail.com.
Alexey,
Your conflict with quantum mechanics may arise from conceptual differences about fundamental points. If two particles are entangled, they have a common quantum state. It cannot be written as a product state-regardless of space-time separation involved in the measurements. Many researchers have or may have had a distinct view, but those views were defeated by experimental results.
The quantum operators act on the quantum state (no need for simultaneity), written in this abstract space. You may also want to call it an “imagination” state, it does not matter. This quantum state reveals many very interesting properties.
If you treat each particle always as independent, that is, as independent elements of a “reality”, of course you would expect quite different results for many measurements.
But the concept of “reality” must be questioned. I posit that the concept of reality is just a “feeling” connected to human consciousness and activated by our sensorial elements.
For example, if several observations lead to the same result, these results express an element of “reality.” We may agree with this, even understanding that this concept of “reality” is nothing more than a model.
Even if some believe that there is substance underlying a model, this substance is beyond the human capacity for understanding. It is, and will likely remain, incomplete. Defining a model as a “reality” or as any other entity does not eliminate this intrinsic lack of knowledge. “Reality” will remain tied to human consciousness and our limited sensory array.
In summary, it is fair to say that your view of reality, quantum mechanics, or quantum computers and so on, is likely in error because basic assumptions are erroneous.
This a subject that goes well with a glass of beer.
Geraldo
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iLDt9-vEg5TGaRzAc_1z0hKT994aZFh1my0dkR5mLmeaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Richard and Alexey,
I happen to disagree with both parts of your e-mail to Chantal, Alexey. For the second part, I refer to Richard's argument, but also to my recent article on the Bell experiment in Foundations of Physics.
Then to the first part: We do have a theory, quantum theory. The problem is only that this theory is founded on a very abstract formalism, which is very difficult to understand.
In my recent published articles I have tried to argue for a new foundation, where quantum theory is not a description of the world, but of our knowledge of the world. What is knowledge? Well, in part it must be said that knowledge can consist of definite answers to questions of the form 'What is t?', or 'What will t be if I measure it?'. where t is some variable. So the notion of a variable is important. Somehow the variables may have connection to the physical world, but in my opinion it is equally important that the variables are connected to the mind of an observer or to the joint minds of a group of communicating observers.
By combining the notion with certain symmetry assumptions, the very abstract formulations of quantum mechanics can be derived. The argument is not easy, but everybody is invited to read my articles.
Inge
--
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/CAKiL4iJXOCRc38Oa1cALU_W70o%3DRvpJuvusYb%3DWode23vaE2Pg%40mail.gmail.com.