Introducing new (and old) members

[Richard Gill]

Hi everyone

I thought it would be useful to have a topic (thread, conversation … whatever you like to call it) where old and new members introduce themselves; very briefly tell something about themselves and their interests, motivation, hopes, and desires.

Richard

Here’s mine: I’m a retired maths professor fascinated by quantum randomness. My maths fields are probability and mathematical statistics. I’m also intensively involved in applied statistics and data analysis. In particular: the statistical science of Bell experiments, old and new. I love arguing. I’m one of the two managers of this group. The questions I’ve been obsessed with for 25 years now, are: is quantum probability a different kind of probability? Is QM non-local? Right now I believe that the answers to both questions are “yes and no”. Any simple answer is insufficient: it is typically right and wrong at the same time. Of course, some answers are just stupid.

[Richard Gill]

PS *Please* everyone do not post in the conversation called “Local hidden variables”. It’s too long. Feel free to start new conversations with well chosen names. Do not include all past replies when replying to an email in the group. People with older computers have a lot of difficulties when conversations are long and full of long emails (most of which simply copy earlier emails).

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi to all members

I would like to make this post about personal details longer but am concerned that this is an open forum for readers/lurkers but also scammers.  In the last week I have had a sudden splurge of more than two dozen scam emails to this email address, which I use for physics and not for any business payments.  Scams such as: my TV licence has expired, my cloud payments have expired, my package is held in a warehouse, UPS delivery failed, my icloud is full and my photos and videos will be deleted, McAfee will suspend my account, Norton subscription may have ended etc etc. Plus another dozen or so unwanted cold calling advertisements.  I know with certainty that these are scams as I would not use this email address for business purposes.

It is tempting to suggest that I put personal life information on that very large thread as maybe lurkers will never be able to open the thread.  Group members will be able to access it easily via email posts but non-members will have difficulty.  Also having a very large thread could have the disadvantage of making it difficult for new people browsing to see our posts which is not good for inclusivity and growth of the forum.

[Richard Gill]

Indeed, do not give personal details. In my case my personal details are already all over internet and my university email address gets all the emails which Austin mentions. That’s a lot. The spam filters are getting unreliable, I have to check the junk email inbox every week because some real mails get in there too, regularly.

Yes, and once again I repeat: 

please keep threads short

do not automatically add the text of old posts in new ones

do not post in very long threads.

Richard

--
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/0Hj6a3OKnSY/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/4bef08d7-8163-4628-9143-13b7d74098e6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Inge:

I am also a retired statistics professor obsessed by quantum theory. During the last 10 years I have been searching for some foundation of quantum mechanics which also can be explained to statisticians. I have published some materials during this search, only to discover later errors in the published materials. Nevertheless I am determined not to give up. I believe firmly in some unity of science. And I believe that one can learn through communication. Finally, I believe that we all may have something to learn.

Sendt fra min iPhone

28. mai 2023 kl. 10:45 skrev Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

PS *Please* everyone do not post in the conversation called “Local hidden variables”. It’s too long. Feel free to start new conversations with well chosen names. Do not include all past replies when replying to an email in the group. People with older computers have a lot of difficulties when conversations are long and full of long emails (most of which simply copy earlier emails).

--
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/d99da1f6-cb01-4fd7-9e4a-0a15a2dc3a0cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Austin:

My youthful interest was in pure maths and physics (not experimental physics).  My degree is in maths and stats with physics as a subsid.  I worked for over 35 years as a researcher in secondary school examinations.  I could have taken computing as a subsid instead of physics but did not.  Was that a mistake?  I picked up programming anyway with the job.  Fortran, basic, oracle sql, and others, and used it at first when there were only mainframes. I bought the bible 'Gravitation' decades ago but never had time to study it!  I worked for professors and others across many subject area exams and always found physicists the most interesting.  I have just looked up my favourite two physicists of the time and found that one died in 2006 and I cannot find trace of the other.
I have managed to keep up a lifelong practice of fine arts painting.
   
I retired in 2006 and put away all my stats books.  (Next came a three year hiatus -pushed by my brother - to take my family tree back to 1580s.)  How little did I know then (even less now!) that QM is basically just stats.  I retired not even knowing all the fundamental particles. My first aim was simply to know their names and properties.  As there are so many fundamental particles, I tried to understand the Rishon preon model and was dubious about the neutral preons so set about making my own preon model which I have spent a decade improving. Although it is a non-mathematical model I was influenced by string theory and my model has at least 24 dimensions.  I have calculated the properties of the leptoquarks and await any slim chance of them establishing their existence at CERN.  (I regularly look at the vistars site of CERN and have a feeling that they are having trouble maintaining stable beams.)

My preon model allowed me to think of  other 4D spacetimes and realised that the KK fifth spatial dimension was just one part of a 4D spacetime block.  String theory used special relativity to explain how quantised information and compactification of dimensions arise. So the idea of an 'electric' 4D of KK is not alien to me.  Jay Yablon wrote a paper a year ago re-casting the KK spatial contravariant dimension as a temporal covariant dimension.  But it is all the same to me as different views of an underlying 4D electric spacetime.   Having a 4D compactified electric spacetime fits my retrocausal model of the explanation of QM strangeness.  Every 4D block has its own time direction (IMO given by its trivector) and the Bell result occurs because of the projection of the time direction for electric charge onto our spacetime, i either time direction, which allows retrocausality at the micro level of the compactified electric dimensions.  The electric 4D spacetime gives quantised measurements because of complete compactification of all its 4D dimensions.

Where would statisticians be without residual error?  There would be a lot of dividing by zero, just like in the renormalisation problems in quantum physics. Before retirement I was familiar with the Rasch model.  Rasch programs can abort because of overfitting when the patttern of data is perfect(ly Guttman).  I have realised that this is akin to the complete loss of a spacetime metric in Penrose's CCC end of cycle. Soon after retirement I had the idea that the Rasch model (David Andrich's version) could be used on entangled pairs to construct the spacetime metrics, where bosons pass info between fermions in space.  This still exists using entangled BHs in Susskind's ideas.  And in connections between dS and AdS spaces.  However, my following of Joy's forum dampened my belief in entanglement.  Nevertheless entanglement is now real to me because of my retrocausal model.

I am at present reading about entanglement swapping at https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Quantum_Tutorials_(Rioux)/08%3A_Quantum_Teleportation/8.59%3A_An_Entanglement_Swapping_Protocol

I am wondering if retrocausality prevents entanglement swapping for certain arrangements of pairs.  This is, maybe one cannot swap any two pairs willy nilly because of retrocausal properties of the pairs.  I am puzzled as to why one Bell experiment took millions of attempts to generate appropriate pairs.  Half an hour per pair generated?

We also get irreducible error because it is turtles all the way down.

[Richard Gill]

The internet book you quote says “The Bell states are the four maximally entangled two-qubit entangled basis for a four-dimensional Hilbert space”. This is a bad resource. The Bell states are *a* …  basis, not *the* … basis. The author is clearly not a mathematician. He does not really understand what he’s talking about. (Part of the problem is he’s a non-native speaker of English)

There are many such bases. They are equivalent to one another under local unitary transformations. So in a sense they are unique …

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 May 2023, at 15:10, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Austin:

--
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/0Hj6a3OKnSY/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/5d8a37cb-dd5a-4704-96d5-3791e3b453ffn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Marcus]

I have a degree in pure math, worked as an applied mathematician in industry for 22 years, and currently work for a database/medical records company. Some colleagues at my former job were interested in physics, so we formed a lunch-time group to learn some physics. We didn't get very far. Since then, I've read a good deal on quantum mechanics. I'm interested in topics where many of the "experts" don't understand something.

David

[Richard Gill]

The real experts are those who know you can’t understand it! But you can gain intuition and familiarity with the math.

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 May 2023, at 19:18, David Marcus <david.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:



I have a degree in pure math, worked as an applied mathematician in industry for 22 years, and currently work for a database/medical records company. Some colleagues at my former job were interested in physics, so we formed a lunch-time group to learn some physics. We didn't get very far. Since then, I've read a good deal on quantum mechanics. I'm interested in topics where many of the "experts" don't understand something.

David

--

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/0Hj6a3OKnSY/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/6fc4c1f5-3253-4710-9f85-6f51039f9a4fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alexandre de Castro]

   I liked that

 

--

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/9f2daa89-2d0a-4b20-9ae9-331d9f3cb0bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Richard

Thanks for the warning. I will not treat the paper as gospel, though it did make some sense in its aim.  (I never really believe any paper!)

I simply noted that the paper dealt with particles 1&2 being entangled and particles 3&4 being entangled.  All polarised to and fro in the same polarisation axis.  Then 2 and 3 are measured in a new polarisation axis, which makes them, 2&3, entangled.  Which also enforces 1&4 to become entangled.  I just wish to add time direction to the particles to see if it would still make sense to me.  For example, particles
1&2 and 3&4 being say -&+ and -&+ in time orientation might make the swapping entanglement possible but if they were -&+ and +&- in time orientation the swapping may be incompatible as particles 2&3 being + and + cannot become entangled retrocausally as a pair.  But maybe the entanglement can be maintained as a foursome chain even via retrocausality.

Austin

[Richard Gill]

Particles 1 and 4 are not changed at all. But given the measurement outcomes of 2+3, they are entangled. The probability mixture (over possible measurement outcomes) is the unentangled, original, (reduced) state of 1 and 4.

Sent from my iPad

On 28 May 2023, at 20:17, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Richard

--
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/0Hj6a3OKnSY/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/63d18923-bd54-4fa6-8eae-ba19cc2ac73an%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Richard

Thank you for the advice and comments.  It is early days for me in integrating retrocausality into entanglement swapping.  I am afraid that I work very slowly and it is not that long since I (wrongly) thought that all this entanglement area was rubbish.  This thread includes information about our aims, aspirations etc. so I will say some general points.  

I have already shown mathematically that retrocausality can bypass Bell's inequalities.  This is also easy to visualise in Costa de Beauregard's W shaped trajectories of particles in time. My own model, however, has particles which never zigzag but their influences do so.  But now I want to try to understand QM better by adding retrocausality into more models to try and get QM results.

First, I should say that I accept QM's results but do not believe in ontological particle pairs instantly affecting one another. So,  I accept that QM excellently describes our state of knowledge about the pairs of particles but does not describe their reality or ontology.  I have thought about this more since reading Inge's ideas a few months back.  This is comparable to the Monty Hall problem. Is the prize in box #3?  We can perform calculations to find the best strategy to win the prize but the prize is fixed in one of the boxes even though our knowledge of the probability can vary during the game.

This is IMO very much like what is happening in entangled pairs.  Because of retrocausality I can separate the states of the two particles (ontologically, or more ontological than using shared states) and still bypass the BI.  So while the QM probabilities may get more and more complicated (as in a quantum computer) the reality for the particle itself always remains very simple as in the Monty Hall scenario. Any particle has a polarisation vector and a phase (in my classical gyroscope model) at any one time, but our knowledge of it can get very complicated to calculate.  I have no reason at present not to fully accept the QM calculations as probabilities.

There is always a contradiction.  My retrocausality retains locality and shuns action at a distance within the particle trajectories.  So it is local for the particles themselves. But from Alice and Bob's viewpoint there is non-locality and action at a distance.  This is very much like special relativity where Alice and Bob are on a train and Charlie is at a station watching them pass.  A is moving wrt C, but is not moving wrt B.  So yes, there is non-locality and action at a distance in the lab but the particles themselves are moving locally in their own frames.

I have modeled Malus's Law using a classical gyroscope. This gives S-G outcomes which can also be found using QM.  QM can give the 0.707 correlation exceeding the Bell limit in a Bell experiment.  My classical gyroscope on the other hand can give the intensity equivalent to a Bell 0.707 correlation in an S-G measurement but it cannot give 0.707 in a Bell experiment.  But if I add in retrocausality, then my gyroscope model also allows a Bell experiment to give the 0.707 correlation, in addition to already giving Malus Law and S-G outcomes.  I ask myself why do I need to add retrocausality to my classical gyroscope model when QM does not need to do so?

Ahranov uses the TSVF which takes a QM calculation and tweaks it/ re-orders it/  to add in what look to me like advanced and retarded (in time) waves. So does QM already have retrocausality embedded within it.  Re Feynman and Wheeler etc etc. in QED.

So at the moment I am suspicious of entanglement swapping. I believe it is happening, but is it always possible to swap for any given pairs of entangled particles.  I am working on it ...