Quantum Locality

[jupalam]

Dear Friends

Professor Griffiths published the article

Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics(Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 – Published 28 February 2020)

In it he explains the locality in a Bell inequality scenario:

"Alice’s choice of measurement on particle a has no influence at all on Bob’s particle b and whatever measurements may be carried out on it. However, her knowledge of the

outcome of a measurement of a particular component of angular momentum allows her to infer a property possessed by particle a before the measurement took place. Combined with what she knows about the preparations protocol, in particular, the initial state |ψ_s>, this allows her to infer something about particle b, from which she can also infer the probability of the outcome of a measurement of particle b."

In ResearchGate I ask him this question. He did not answer so I suppose my question is silly

"It seems to me that your interpretation can be put to test by experiments.

In a Bell test, only the correlations E(a,b) are measured and we know these correlations are invariant with respect to who measures fist, Alice, or Bob. However, according to QM that who measures first finds a 1/2 probability whatever direction he/she chooses and the second to measure finds different probabilities for +1 and -1. Suppose Alice is half a distance to the source compared to Bob. According to your explanation, Alice's measurement has no effect on the real state of affairs of Bob's particle, and the different probabilities she assigns to Bob's measurement changes only according to her knowledge. If we run an experiment where Alice performs no measurement on her particle and let it pass unperturbed while Bob measures his in some fixed direction he should find fifty percent of times +1 and fifty percent -1. Then if we run a second experiment where Alice measures her particle the probabilities found by Bob should no longer be fifty/fifty. Doesn't this prove that the real state of affairs actually changes for Bob's particle when Alice measures hers?"

Justo

 

[Richard Gill]

Dear Justo

You get no answer because your assumptions are wrong. Whatever Bob measures, and whatever result Bob sees, Alice’s *marginal* probabilities of her outcomes are the same. Already in advance, Alice could use the known statistics of past experiments to find her probabilities of each outcome given what Bob might do and given what Bob might see. Those conditional probabilities (based on the statistics of many past experiments!) do not change by what Bob might do, now.

Of course, Alice’s predictions of what she will see, might in principle change, if she is informed what Bob actually does. In fact, they don’t. Bob’s measurement setting does not alter Alice’s measurement outcome. This is called “no signalling”. If you had read my 2014 paper in “Statistical Science” you would know what a fundamental concept this is. Bob’s measurement setting *and* his measurement outcome can change Alice’s predictions about her outcome. No surprise! Bertlmann’s socks...

Justo, it seems you haven’t understood a word of what Bell was saying. You don’t distinguish between marginal and conditional probability. You don’t know what “probability” means. No wonder Griffiths didn’t answer you.

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Jul 2020, at 16:22, jupalam <jup...@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/97524ed0-e73d-4cdc-a15b-56528d24169ao%40googlegroups.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Justo,  
The publication in Physical Review A of Robert B. Griffiths rather than your question is silly. The publication in the respectable physics journal of the article whose author does not 
understanding what he is writing is another evidence of the crisis of physics. Daniel Kulp, Editorial Director of American Physical Society, forbade the publication of my manuscript "Only 
the critics understood quantum mechanics" not only in Physical Review A but also in any APS journal. 
	Now I understand why. They publish the article whose author does not understand that neither Hilbert-space nor any mathematics have anything to do with the nonlocality predicted 
by quantum mechanics. The nonlocality and the contradiction with realism are deduced logically from the Dirac jump, which postulates instantaneous and nonlocal change of the quantum 
system state under the influence of the mind of the observer. This miracle, like any miracle, cannot be described by any mathematics. No miracle has to have a place in scientific theory. 
But if the Dirac jump is removed from the theory, then quantum mechanics will not predict non-locality and violation of Bell's inequalities.
	It must be obvious from Bell's article about  Bertlmann’s socks [1] which Richard doesn't want to understand. Richard does not want to understand why in Bell's inequality deduced by 
Bell in [1] the probability of the first measurement equal 1/2 for any direction, whereas the probability of the second measurement, (sin 22.5)^2, (sin 22.5)^2, (sin 45)^2, depends on the 
angle between the directions of the first and second measurements of spin projections. Richard claims that “Whatever Bob measures, and whatever result Bob sees, Alice’s 'marginal' 
probabilities of her outcomes are the same”. This claim is correct only if Alice measures before Bob. But this claim is wrong if Alice measures after Bob. I think Richard rather than “you 
haven’t understood a word of what Bell was saying”. 
	Your question is right in the main. But I'm surprised you don't think it's absurd that “Alice's measurement has effect on the real state of affairs of Bob's particle”. This ’spooky action 
at a distant’ was claimed by Bohr in his response the EPR for which Bell rightly called him the obscurantist. Bohr was the obscurantist since quantum mechanics postulates ’spooky action 
at a distant’ because of observation rather than  measurement. The experiment you propose may be interesting. But you have suggested one of the methods of superluminal signaling. 
Richard believes in the “no signalling” theorem which is obviously wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts many methods of  superluminal signaling due to the postulate about instantaneous and 
nonlocal influence of the mind of the observer on quantum system. 
	
[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality, Journal de Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey

ср, 1 июл. 2020 г. в 20:47, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/B4413712-AB14-46B3-99E4-2EBE1A1F9BA1%40gmail.com.

[Justo Pastor Lambare]

Dear Alexei

“Whatever Bob measures, and whatever result Bob sees, Alice’s 'marginal'
probabilities of her outcomes are the same”. This claim is correct only if Alice measures before Bob. But this claim is wrong if Alice measures after Bob.

R: I agree with you that this is what QM predicts.

Your question is right in the main. But I'm surprised you don't think it's absurd that “Alice's measurement has effect on the real state of affairs of Bob's particle”. This ’spooky action at a distant’ was claimed by Bohr in his response the EPR for which Bell rightly called him the obscurantist. 

R: I do not think is absurd because that has a logical implication. I do think is surprising and would like a better explanation. We must not conflate our intuition with logic. Yes, I agree, it is spooky action at a distance, however, I do not agree that this is what Bohr replied to EPR. Bohr explicitly rejected spooky action at a distance.

There is another problem with regard to the Bell inequalities that you seem to overlook every time. The Bell inequalities and its experimental verification can be interpreted without any reference to quantum mechanics, i.e., QM is not to be blamed for the violations of BI, it is the failure of local realism.

Cheers,

                     Justo

[Ilja Schmelzer]

First, let's have some fun with the quote of the day https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/06/is-covid-there-before-you-measure-it.html thanks to Sabine Hossenfelder:

"So when Donald Trump claims that not testing people for COVID means there will be fewer cases, rather than just fewer cases you know about, then that demonstrates his deep knowledge of quantum mechanics."

Am Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 04:43:00 UTC+6:30 schrieb nikulovalexey:

The publication in Physical Review A of Robert B. Griffiths rather than your question is silly. The publication in the respectable physics journal of the article whose author does not 
understanding what he is writing is another evidence of the crisis of physics. 

Wow, a case where you name something silly and I agree with you.  The title is complete nonsense (a claim of inconsistency can be shown to be wrong by a single counterexample, which is given by dBB theory).  The content is not much better.  Namely, he provides an example of a violation of the BI in a situation where no non-locality is involved. So what?  Looks like he is one of those who have not understood that Einstein causality was necessary in the proof given for the BI.  So, examples of BI violations where everything is local are completely useless.

It follows some type of "explanation" in terms of his own (in)"consistent histories interpretation".  Let's forget it. Then he tries to show that something is wrong with usual proofs, which start with 

"It will suffice to focus on the factorization condition, which always appears in some form or another in a derivation of the CHSH or other Bell inequalities:"  

We can be sure here that he will not bother about the place where it appears in the proof.  This remembers a child who looks at a proof of A starting with "let's assume not A. Then .... if follows that B and not B" and yells "but B and not B cannot be true at the same time, so that proof is invalid".  Indeed, what follows after that factorization condition is quite trivial math which proves the BI, which taken together with the observed violations defines a "B and not B". So, we are at least quite close to this child.  

 

Daniel Kulp, Editorial Director of American Physical Society, forbade the publication of my manuscript "Only 
the critics understood quantum mechanics" not only in Physical Review A but also in any APS journal. 
	Now I understand why. They publish the article whose author does not understand that neither Hilbert-space nor any mathematics have anything to do with the nonlocality predicted 
by quantum mechanics. The nonlocality and the contradiction with realism are deduced logically from the Dirac jump, which postulates instantaneous and nonlocal change of the quantum 
system state under the influence of the mind of the observer. This miracle, like any miracle, cannot be described by any mathematics.

It can be, and has been, described in standard dBB theory (as well as in all other less well-known realistic interpretations).  

It must be obvious from Bell's article about  Bertlmann’s socks [1] which Richard doesn't want to understand. Richard does not want to understand why in Bell's inequality deduced by 
Bell in [1] the probability of the first measurement equal 1/2 for any direction, whereas the probability of the second measurement, (sin 22.5)^2, (sin 22.5)^2, (sin 45)^2, depends on the 
angle between the directions of the first and second measurements of spin projections. Richard claims that “Whatever Bob measures, and whatever result Bob sees, Alice’s 'marginal' 
probabilities of her outcomes are the same”. This claim is correct only if Alice measures before Bob. But this claim is wrong if Alice measures after Bob. I think Richard rather than “you 
haven’t understood a word of what Bell was saying”. 

The probabilities which are relevant for Alice, as long as she does not know Bob's measurement choice and his result, are the same 1/2. Once she does not know what Bob has measured and seen as the result, she has to sum up over all possibilities. The result will be the same 1/2. (Not sure if "marginal" is a good word to describe this, but I don't know how the word is used in that statistical community, it may be the established use.  I know it from economics, price theory, where the meaning has nothing to do with this.)

 

Richard believes in the “no signalling” theorem which is obviously wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts many methods of  superluminal signaling due to the postulate about instantaneous and 
nonlocal influence of the mind of the observer on quantum system. 

Wrong. The no signalling theorem is quite trivial QM math.  Every sentence containing "mind of the observer" is not QM, but some (usually nonsensical) interpretation of QM.  

[Richard Gill]

Marginal: If (X,Y) is a pair of random variables defined on a single probability space, then they have a joint or simultaneous probability distribution. The joint distribution can be decomposed into the marginal distribution of X (which is uniquely defined) and a family of conditional distributions of Y given X=x. The decomposition is almost surely unique (I.e. any two decompositions will only differ on a set of x with probability zero). 

This is Probability 101 or perhaps also Statustics 101. I find it hard to understand why people who are interested in Bell’s theorem seem to know so little basis concepts from probability and statistics. A. Fine already noted in the early 80s how the physicist’s debate on Bell’s theorem was notable for the naïevety of understanding of elementary notions of statistics, compared to the generally sophisticated knowledge of, e.g., econometricians or psychometricians.

  

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Jul 2020, at 07:40, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.sc...@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/6e606643-dddf-43c2-bdeb-5708a806fc48o%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

PS re: “marginal”, see Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_distribution

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Jul 2020, at 07:40, Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.sc...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

[Ilja Schmelzer]

Am Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 13:50:16 UTC+6:30 schrieb Richard Gill:

Marginal: If (X,Y) is a pair of random variables defined on a single probability space, then they have a joint or simultaneous probability distribution. The joint distribution can be decomposed into the marginal distribution of X (which is uniquely defined) and a family of conditional distributions of Y given X=x. The decomposition is almost surely unique (I.e. any two decompositions will only differ on a set of x with probability zero). 

This is Probability 101 or perhaps also Statustics 101. I find it hard to understand why people who are interested in Bell’s theorem seem to know so little basis concepts from probability and statistics. A. Fine already noted in the early 80s how the physicist’s debate on Bell’s theorem was notable for the naïevety of understanding of elementary notions of statistics, compared to the generally sophisticated knowledge of, e.g., econometricians or psychometricians.

First, my question was about the meaning of a word. I'm native German and have learned those things in Russian language, not in English. The concepts in your explanation are quite clear to me.  Also note that statistics is important for those related with experiments. I'm a pure theoretician, have never done any experiments. in relation to Bell's theorem I'm also not interested in the experiments at all. 

Moreover, there is no reason to wonder at all.

For econometricians or psychometricians statistics is essentially their main tool. What can they measure without using statistics? Nothing. In physics, you can do the whole of classical mechanics and GR without having to bother about statistics at all, and to do quantum theory a quite simple approach to probability theory is sufficient.  And even in thermodynamics there is not that much probability theory you need for its foundations. Those who need statistics are those doing experiments. 

And in particular the interest in Bell's theorem is, for a large part, not focused on the experimental part. Experimenters had a fine and interesting time doing those experiments, of course. But that was not the focus of interest of most of the physicists interested in this. They had no (or not much) doubt that the quantum predictions will be correct.  Their interest was about the consequences for the foundations of physics. One does not need statistics at all to evaluate them.  

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Justo,  
I advise you to read carefully “Appendix 1 - The position of Bohr” of the Bell article [1]. Bell clearly points out that Bohr in his response to the EPR rejected just the premise - 'no action at 
a distance' - rather than the EPR arguments. Bohr was so vague that only Bell and a few others understood that Bohr claimed ’spooky action at a distant’, while “most contemporary 
theorists have the impression that Bohr got the better of Einstein in the argument and are under the impression that they themselves share Bohr's views” [1]. 
	Bohr claimed ’spooky action at a distant’ because without this absurd it is logically impossible to save his quantum postulate, the principle of complementarity and the principle of 
uncertainty: if a measuring device cannot instantly act at any distance, then by accurately measuring the momentum of one particle and the coordinate of the second, we refute the 
uncertainty principle. The EPR proved just that. If “Bohr explicitly rejected spooky action at a distance” then he was agreed with the EPR who disproved the basis of quantum mechanics. 
	Bell's inequalities are unthinkable without quantum mechanics, if only because the binary outcomes of vector projections are considered. Vector projections can have binary 
outcomes only according to quantum mechanics, read please the beginning of [1]. The experimental verification Bell's inequalities could be unthinkable without the Stern-Gerlach 
experiment with its paradoxical binary outcomes, which quantum mechanics cannot describe realistically, see [1]. Therefore Bell's inequalities and its experimental verification cannot be 
interpreted without reference to quantum mechanics.  
	J. von Neumann understood that the quantum description of the Stern-Gerlach experiment contradicts realism and proposed as far back as 1932 the first ‘no-go’ theorem proving the 
impossibility of any realistic description of this experiment. The Stern-Gerlach experiment could be considered as the failure of realism if realism could be disproved with the help of any 
experimental results. Most modern authors do not understand that Bell's ‘no-go’ theorem differs from von Neumann's ‘no-go’ theorem only by the requirement of locality, without which it is 
impossible to separate the action of the the mind of the observer  (which is unreal and non-local) from the action of a soulless measuring  apparatus (which is real and must be local). The 
the meaningless term "local realism" could appear and become popular only because of this ignorance.

[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality, Journal de Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey

чт, 2 июл. 2020 г. в 10:39, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1D54DFE1-1788-465F-8A73-2DD12BC59229%40gmail.com.

[Justo Pastor Lambare]

Dear Alexei

I also advise you to read carefully Appendix I of [1]. Bell starts by recognizing that he does not understand Bohr's response and I believe that he was being sincere: "While imagining that I understand the position of Einstein, as regards the EPR correlations, I have very little understanding of the position of his principal opponent, Bohr."

Bohr in his response does not accept that action at a distance, the nature of Bohr's response is completely different, some say he was a positivist, but that is not important, what is important is that he did not admit action at a distance:  "Of course there is in a case like that just considered no question of a mechanical disturbance of the system under investigation".

You said:

" Bell's inequalities are unthinkable without quantum mechanics, if only because the binary outcomes of vector projections are considered. Vector projections can have binary outcomes only according to quantum mechanics, read please the beginning of [1]. The experimental verification Bell's inequalities could be unthinkable without the Stern-Gerlach experiment with its paradoxical binary outcomes, which quantum mechanics cannot describe realistically, see [1]. Therefore Bell's inequalities and its experimental verification cannot be interpreted without reference to quantum mechanics.  "

You said it yourself, "they cannot be interpreted without reference to quantum mechanics". That is not what I meant, I was not talking about any interpretation, I was referring to the experiments themselves, they are facts of nature and they do not depend on quantum mechanics. They exist independently of QM or any other theory. They seem incompatible with a local realistic view and, again, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with this fact.

Furthermore, you do not seem to understand that Einstein did not reject QM formalism, he rejected Bohr's interpretation while Einstein was in favor of the statistical interpretation, which assumes the incompleteness of QM and the existence of dispersion free states.

Alexei, it is always a pleasure to discuss with you and I always end up learning something. Although we strongly disagree, we always discuss ideas and never lower at the level of personal attacks.

                  Justo

[Justo Pastor Lambare]

Dear Richard

"Of course, Alice’s predictions of what she will see, might in principle change, if she is informed what Bob actually does. In fact, they don’t. Bob’s measurement setting does not alter Alice’s measurement outcome. This is called “no signalling”. If you had read my 2014 paper in “Statistical Science” you would know what a fundamental concept this is. Bob’s measurement setting *and* his measurement outcome can change Alice’s predictions about her outcome. No surprise! Bertlmann’s socks..."

R: Yes, you are right. It is my mistake, luckily I apologize for my question to Professor Griffiths in advance. Yes, it is called no signaling.

Justo, it seems you haven’t understood a word of what Bell was saying. You don’t distinguish between marginal and conditional probability. You don’t know what “probability” means. No wonder Griffiths didn’t answer you.

R: This is the beauty of Science, authority has no place, only truth matters. Unnecessarily pointing out others' ignorance only reveal a lack of humility and lack of arguments.

Parameter independence, outcome independence, and the associated no signaling issues appear after Bertlmann socks was written, so if you believe that they are necessary to understand the Bell theorem in Bertlmann socks then I am afraid it is you who did not understand a word of what Bell was saying [1].

I am not guilty that your use of counterfactual definiteness is nonsense, someone else was going to prove it sooner or later.

Yes, you are an expert academic and I am not, however, when discussing arguments that do not make you right.

If somebody is interested, I am attaching the manuscript that ignited Richard's demeaning attitude towards me. The manuscript proves that the use of counterfactual definiteness is untenable as a physical hypothesis.

      Justo

[1] The concept apparently was introduced by Jarrett in his Doctoral thesis in 1983 and was discussed by Shimony :

Shimony, A. (1984) Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality, In Kamefuchi, S. et al. (eds.) Foundations of
Quantum Mechanics in Light of the New Technology, The Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (reprinted in
A. Shimony, Search for a Naturalistic Worldview, vol. II, pp. 130–139, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1993).

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard, 
The author of the first publication [1] in the Special Issues “Violation of Bell’s Inequalities and the Idea of a Quantum Computer” 
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/special_issues/Bell_Inequalities , Frank Lad (University of Canterbury, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Christchurch 8140, New 
Zealand) is your colleague. But his attitude to Bell's inequalities is the opposite of yours. He seems genuinely outraged by them. I think his outrage is due to his lack of understanding of 
the absurdity of quantum mechanics. It is possible that he, like many others, cannot even imagine that a theory accepted by the majority of the scientific community can be so absurd.
	Bell understood the absurdity of quantum mechanics, although perhaps not fully, and his inequalities demonstrate this absurdity. But GHSZ did not understand the absurdity of 
quantum mechanics. Therefore the criticism by Frank Lad of their argument is enough valid. 
	 David Mermin expressed surprise in section III “ Von Neumann’s silly assumption” of the paper [2]: “A third of a century passed before John Bell, 1966, rediscovered the fact that von 
Neumann's no-hidden-variables  proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly - so silly, in fact, that one is led to wonder whether the proof was ever studied by either the 
students or those who appealed to it”. I would like to ask David Mermin: “Whether did he read the GHSZ article [3]?” I assume he know this article since the authors [3] thank David Mermin for 
some valuable suggestions. Then why didn't he notice that the deduction of the GHSZ theorem [3] contradicts to the postulate about the EPR correlation, accepted by most physicists? 
	David Mermin wasn't the only one who didn't notice this contradiction. The authors of the book [4] have written 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 GHZ in any order”. Indeed, it is written in many textbooks that operators acting on different particles should commute. 
	But this postulate from textbooks implies in particular what the EPR stated: the measurement of one particle cannot change the state of another particle [5]. Bohr 
claimed, in contrast to the EPR [5], that the measurement of one particle can change the state of another particle [6]. Therefore most physicists, by their agreement 
with Bohr [6] rather than with the EPR [5], canceled the postulate from textbooks, which has remained valid only for non-entangled states. It is obvious that quantum 
mechanics cannot predict violation of Bell's inequalities if operators acting on different particles commute in all cases. The GHSZ had not taken into account this change of 
quantum postulate with the acception of the EPR correlation, claimed by Bohr [6] but rejected by the EPR [5]. 
	The GHSZ had not taken also into account that the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate axes are not applicable to the entangled states. I draw attention on this mathematical 
fact in the preprint Logical proof of the absurdity of the EPR correlation available on ResearchGate  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Nikulov/research  and tried to explaine it 
Justo and Jan-Ake Larsson. But they didn't want to understand. 
	There is important to accentuate that the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate axes are deduced on the base of our notion that spin states exist in the real isotropic space, see 
section 8 “Spin” of [7]. These operators can be applied to any number of particles when their states are non-entangled and can be written as the product of the individual states. Therefore 
we can think that the non-entangled spin states exist in the real isotropic space. But we cannot even think that the entangled spin states exist in the real isotropic space. Therefore 
the  expression for the EPR pair can describe only knowledge of the observer about result of the first measurement whereas the  GHSZ state does not describe even 
knowledge. The  GHSZ, like many other authors, have forgotten that quantum mechanics describes only the results of observations rather than reality. 

[1] Frank Lad, The GHSZ Argument: A Gedankenexperiment Requiring More Denken. Entropy, 22 (7), 759 (2020), see https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/7/759 .

[2] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem without inequalities. Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131–1143 (1990). 
[4]  G. Greenstein and A.  Zajonc,  The  Quantum  Challenge.  Modern  Research  on  the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edn. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury 2006.

[5] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935).

[6] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).

[7] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: NonRelativistic Theory (Volume 3, Third Edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1977).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пт, 3 июл. 2020 г. в 00:19, Justo Pastor Lambare <jup...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKAF9vUn35MxPWZDr7_Up6etaO-DGQW6YRKsTfcazXKFT%2BdJtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

Why on earth do you call this person “my colleague”?

He comes from the other side of the world from me. His ancestors came from the same island as mine and we speak the same language, though no doubt with very different accents. He has a few publications in statistics journals about 30 years ago, and even one book. I had not heard of it before. It is of course well known that everything happens in New Zealand about a century after everywhere else.

The paper looks to me pretty useless. Why it got published I cannot imagine. The reviewing procedure of this paper has totally failed. But no matter, it will have zero impact. He does not refer to any of the recent relevant theoretical literature on the subject, in particular he has missed my masterpiece, an invited paper in the journal Statistical Science, one of the flagship journals of the premier mathematical statistical scientific society IMS (Institute of Mathematical Statistics). But published in the same journal and the same year as one paper by himself!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6440.pdf

It is a joint paper with two agricultural statisticians from Palermo, that raises warning bells for me. Indeed - he is a Bayesian! All probabilities are subjective! Already, Jaynes long ago dismissed Bell’s work through totally misunderstanding what it was about. I imagine this guy thinks the same way.

We can invite him to join our group. Possibly some of us do agree with his ideas.

Yours

Richard

[Richard Gill]

PS dear Frank, sorry for my personal and rude comments!

Alexei is usually sending emails to a small group of people who share privately opinions about quantum mechanics on a Google group. You are welcome to join. I expressed my immediate reaction to the material he sent me. I think it is a terrible shame that no editor or referee suggested to you also to look at, and possibly refer to, a paper by mine:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103

Statistics, Causality and Bell's Theorem

Richard D. Gill

Bell's [Physics 1 (1964) 195-200] theorem is popularly supposed to establish the nonlocality of quantum physics. Violation of Bell's inequality in experiments such as that of Aspect, Dalibard and Roger [Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804-1807] provides empirical proof of nonlocality in the real world. This paper reviews recent work on Bell's theorem, linking it to issues in causality as understood by statisticians. The paper starts with a proof of a strong, finite sample, version of Bell's inequality and thereby also of Bell's theorem, which states that quantum theory is incompatible with the conjunction of three formerly uncontroversial physical principles, here referred to as locality, realism and freedom. Locality is the principle that the direction of causality matches the direction of time, and that causal influences need time to propagate spatially. Realism and freedom are directly connected to statistical thinking on causality: they relate to counterfactual reasoning, and to randomisation, respectively. Experimental loopholes in state-of-the-art Bell type experiments are related to statistical issues of post-selection in observational studies, and the missing at random assumption. They can be avoided by properly matching the statistical analysis to the actual experimental design, instead of by making untestable assumptions of independence between observed and unobserved variables. Methodological and statistical issues in the design of quantum Randi challenges (QRC) are discussed. The paper argues that Bell's theorem (and its experimental confirmation) should lead us to relinquish not locality, but realism.

Statistical Science 2014, Vol. 29, No. 4, 512-528
DOI: 10.1214/14-STS490

[Richard Gill]

PPS I learnt optimisation and convexity theory from Peter Whittle at Cambridge, UK. He also took care that I got my first job, by writing a fantastic letter of recommendation to my future first boss in Amsterdam

On 15 Jul 2020, at 12:40, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard, 
Although you turned down my suggestion to be co-editor, the Special Issue “Violation of Bell’s Inequalities and the Idea of a Quantum Computer” appeared thanks to you. I proposed this 
Special Issue for Entropy due to the discussions in the Google Group "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" that you invited me to over a year ago. 
I draw your attention that the article by  Frank Lad [1] published in the  Special Issue is about the GHSZ theorem rather than  Bell's inequalities. 

[1] Frank Lad, The GHSZ Argument: A Gedankenexperiment Requiring More Denken. Entropy, 22 (7), 759 (2020), see https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/7/759 .

With best wishes,

Alexey

ср, 15 июл. 2020 г. в 15:40, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Frank Lad, dear members of our Google Group

I noticed that Frank claims to be able to run various computer simulations of some of the famous Bell type experiments. He seems to say that these computer simulations are widely believed to be impossible. I have several times challenged anti-Bellists to simulate violation of Bell inequalities under constraints which reflect the constraints deliberately self-imposed In so-called loophole-free experiments. The latest prize I offered was 65 thousand Euro. There is no  financial risk to hopeful prize-winners since they don’t have to pay me anything if they lose. I will appreciate it if they admit failure if and when they lose, but this turns out to be too high a cost for various losers of the past. By losers, I mean that they publicly announced that they could meet the challenge (and such a claim was implicit in their publications) but they then failed to deliver, as was noted by independent observers. I can give you names and documentation, if you are interested.

But I also read that Frank Lad disagrees with the QM prediction of 2 sqrt 2 for the CHSH “contrast” of one correlation minus the sum of three others, on grounds of symmetry. I didn’t understand that. On ResearchGate he has a lot of “unpublished “ material, apparently a whole book project.

If he is right, modern quantum information theory is destroyed, and a number of famous experiments are shown to be worthless. A computer simulation which simulated in a loophole-free way a loophole-free violation of Bell inequalities would, thanks to internet,  itself become immediately known and renowned around the world, despite the incredible threat it poses to the quantum establishment (the threat of total dissolution). 

It would also gain him a Nobel prize since a classical computer network is a real physical system and widely thought not to be able to even approximately manifest certain quantum features.

Yours

Richard

[Richard Gill]

This seems to me to be one of the reasons why physics is in some kind of crisis these days. Theoreticians lose touch with, and lose interest in, experiments. Experimenters are a kind of engineers who on the whole don’t understand theory, they just know how to carry out tricky calculations.

One of my recent talks was entitled: "towards evidence-based physics". In medicine, we have learnt that we need careful and good statistics and we need professional statisticians. Even lawyers have learnt that they need professional statisticians. The social scientists and the psychologists are in crisis because they need statistics but have been abusing it for decades. Rutherford said “if you need statistics, you did the wrong experiment”. But the most interesting experiments in modern physics definitely do need statistics. Physicists' mathematical education hasn’t changed since the time of Rutherford. Hence they make the most stupid mistakes and spend the most amount of time arguing about trivialities.

--
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/5df6f836-3c8e-4ff3-844e-747f55b46192o%40googlegroups.com.