Re: from Frank Lad RE: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Quantum Locality

[Richard Gill]

Dear Frank

The experiments in Delft and Munich exhibited observed values of S equal to about 2.4 and 2.6 respectively, albeit with pretty big standard deviation (0.2 and 0.1 respectively). The experiments in Vienna and at NIST saw values of S approximately equal to 2.00001 with about 50 standard deviations distance from 2.0 So does this mean that quantum mechanics is wrong? There is a wonderful paper by the Singapore group which does a Bayesian analysis of that data and concludes that QM fits very, very well to that data; LR not at all. They allow the data to determine the QM parameters (joint state and measurements), just assuming a 2 x 2 Hilbert space and projective measurements with, in the case of Vienna and NIST, independent losses (ie “no detection”) Gu, Lu, Evans and Englert 

https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.022112

I’m surprised your paper in Entropy did not refer to this and other relevant work (muonen I particular!). And angry about the refereeing at Entropy which it seems to me was very inadequate in your case.

I’m still very puzzled at what you seem to be saying in your paper. I must read your papers more carefully but I’m very busy with Corona statistics at present! Moreover I would like to see a younger generation take up the necessary ongoing struggle to clarify misunderstandings about Bell, which are endemic. The physics establishment hadn’t helped by raising conventional wisdom to the level of dogma, treating genuine critics both of theory and experiment very unfairly (David Bohm; Caroline Thompson). There was a deliberate and organized agreement to *ignore* David Bohm (instigated by his former mentor and teacher Oppenheimer) ... after a secret meeting of top physicists organized by O. failed to uncover any error in Bohm’s model! And Bohm had some left wing leanings and was a bit too Jewish. 

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jul 2020, at 03:34, Frank Lad <fran...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:



Hello dear Richard Gill and members of your discussion group     :)

Thank you very much for your note and for your kind invitation to join your discussions.  On that count I am sorry that I must decline for the moment because of pressing responsibilities at home which I must mix with my professional life.  These would prevent me from serious participation which your discussions merit.  Hopefully I will be able to engage at some point in the future.

On the substantive matters mentioned in your message I must admit to thinking there has been some miscommunication.  Again I apologise if I have been source of confusion.  Firstly as to my article on the GHSZ publication, mine is not a literature review, but the identification and a detailed reassessment of an error in a specific influential article.  The error has long gone unrecognised and has had unfortunate consequences for general understandings of quantum matters within the professional literature.  The article speaks for itself, and I feel very pleased that it has been published, reviewed by professional experts.  I would hope that evaluation of my findings might be based on assessment of their mathematical detail rather than on extraneous matters.

Secondly, as to the computer simulations I have engaged in assessing the empirical work of Aspect and the quantum mysteries proposed by Mermin (in articles available through Researchgate) I have never touted these as being widely believed to be impossible.  What is widely regarded to be impossible in well known literature is a mathematical formalisation of the supplementary variables proposition.  That is another matter which I have addressed in a separate manuscript that is also available among my Researchgate files.  I have submitted this ms for consideration for publication in Entropy as well, and I hope it will be addressed on its merits.  It involves no simulations.

What I do hope that you might consider on its merits is my surprising proposition that the mathematical derivation of the expectation of the CHSH quantity E(s) = 2 sqrt(2) is also based on a mathematical error.  This derives from the fact that the imagined components of the CHSH quantity s, when it pertains to polarization products on the same pair of photons in a gedankenexperiment, entail four symmetric functional restrictions on their numerical values.  As a result of this, the specification of E(s) supported by quantum probabilities turns out to be resolvable only via the computation of a linear programming routine which you would recognise through your work with Peter Whittle.  I have also submitted my assessment of this matter to the special issue of Entropy on Bell's inequality.  My hope is that you might be one of the first to recognise the error in the Bell defiance as understood by the mistaken assessment of  E(s) = 2sqrt(2), rather than one of the last to deny it.   :)   I believe this would have interesting implications for your thoughts regarding several matters.

This note has become a longer tome than I had imagined when I had started to write it, Richard.  But I had been thinking about the issues you raised in your message last week for some time.

Again I thank you for your interest in my work, and I send you my best wishes.

Sincerely,   Frank Lad

---

From: Richard Gill [gill...@gmail.com]

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Date: 16 July 2020 at 11:50:53 CEST
To: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:  [Bell_quantum_foundations] Quantum Locality

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

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 7:36:40 PM UTC+2 nikulo...@gmail.com wrote:

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>:

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:

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>:

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).

El mié., 1 jul. 2020 a las 13:47, Richard Gill (<gill...@gmail.com>) escribió:

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:



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

 

--
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.

--
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/CAKAF9vUn35MxPWZDr7_Up6etaO-DGQW6YRKsTfcazXKFT%2BdJtQ%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/8d68a9e9-1680-432f-b2eb-ce88925c5fadn%40googlegroups.com.