42 views

Skip to first unread message

Apr 20, 2022, 5:42:53 AM4/20/22

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations, Richard Gill, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Colleagues,

I wrote to you in January about my publication [1] in which I draw

attention to obvious mistakes made after the discovery of the Meissner

effect in 1933. Physicists postulated after 1933 the obvious

contradictions with logic (see section 5.4. “Contradiction with

Elementary Logic” of [1]) and even with the law of energy conservation

(see section 5.5. “Contradiction with the Law of Energy Conservation”

of [1]) because of blind faith in the second law of thermodynamics. No

one noticed these obvious contradictions for almost ninety years.

Recently I submitted in Physical Review A a manuscript “Physical

thinking and the GHZ theorem”, see attached file, in which I draw

attention to no less obvious contradictions made by D. M. Greenberger,

M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger at the deduction of the GHZ

theorem [2] and the GHSZ theorem [3]. The contradictions are so

obvious that it is surprising that no one has noticed them for more

than thirty years. The authors [3] try to prove ”that the premises of

the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paper are inconsistent when applied to

quantum systems consisting of at least three particles” on the base of

the main premise of the Einstein - Podolsky – Rosen: measurement of

one particle cannot change quantum state of other particles. The EPR

premise was used in the derivation of the equation (F3) from the

equation (F1) in the Appendix F of the paper [3], see attached paper.

The use of the EPR premise to refute locality and realism is not the

only contradiction in the publication [3]. The polar and azimuthal

angles in the expression (8) for the expectation value in [3] are the

angles between a direction in which the spin projection will be

measured and the direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.

Measurements of the spin projection in the eigenstate will give spin

up with probability 1. According to the expression (F1) of [3] all

four particles have eigenstates in the same direction and the

expression (F2) predicts that measurements in this direction of each

particle in the GHSZ state will give spin up with probability 1. But

the expression (7) in [3] for the GHSZ state predicts that the first

measurement of the spin projection in any direction of one of the

particles will give spin up with the probability 0.5. This obvious

contradiction in the paper [3] is a consequence of the lack of

understanding by its authors that only non-entangled spin states can

be eigenstate in one of the directions of the real three-dimensional

space.

I draw attention in the manuscript submitted to Physical Review A that

the obvious mistakes made at the deduction of the GHZ theorem [2] and

the GHSZ theorem [3] are direct consequences of the rejection of

realism by the creators of quantum mechanics. These mistakes are quite

obvious. But I am not sure that my manuscript will be published. Most

physicists do not want to admit even the most obvious contradictions

of quantum mechanics. I submitted in December 2018 in Physical Review

A a manuscript “Only the critics understood quantum mechanics”. Daniel

T. Kulp, Editorial Director American Physical Society informed me 19

February 2019 that my manuscript is not suitable for publication in

any APS journal. This manuscript was rejected in ten more physics

journals.

This censorship is one of the causes that even the obvious

contradictions of the theories recognized by the majority are ignored.

Most scientists rather believe than understand these theories. Almost

all scientists are sure that no perpetuum mobile is possible. But most

of them do not understand that a perpetuum mobile can be impossible

only because of the irreversibility postulated by the second law of

thermodynamics. The dissipation of kinetic energy of a car or electric

current into heat is an irreversible process according to the second

law of thermodynamics. Most experts on superconductivity have

forgotten about this basis of thermodynamics. Therefore, they do not

understand that the Meissner effect is experimental evidence of the

process reverse to the irreversible process of dissipation of the

electric current into Joule heat [1]. Modern scientists are sure that

no perpetuum mobile is possible even when they observe it.

The faith in quantum mechanics is no less blind. The majority believed

in quantum mechanics because of its success and therefore ignored the

arguments of Einstein, Schrodinger and a few other critics who tried

to explain that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory because

of its contradiction with realism. Blind faith in quantum mechanics

has reached the point of refuting realism in [2,3] and other numerous

publications. The authors of these publications, unlike Einstein, did

not understand that realism is the presupposition of every kind of

physical thinking rather than a claim which can be disproved with any

experimental results. The mistakes made in [2,3] demonstrate with the

greatest clarity that the rejection of realism leads to the

degradation of physical thinking.

This degradation began with the proposal of young Heisenberg to

describe the observed rather than the existing. Heisenberg's proposal

was implemented by Born, who proposed to consider Schrodinger’s wave

function as a description of the amplitude of the observation

probability. Born’s proposal to describe the knowledge of the observer

about a probability of the results of the upcoming observation led to

the need for the Dirac jump, which postulated a change in the state of

a quantum system under the influence of a change in the observer's

knowledge. Dirac postulated in 1930 that the state only measured

particles can change at the observation.

The authors [2,3] made obvious mistakes because they did not

understand that quantum mechanics could not predict the EPR

correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if only the Dirac

jump was postulated. The prediction of non-locality became possible

only in 1951 when Bohm extended the Dirac jump on the state of the

particle which was not measured. I call this jump of the both

particles of the EPR pair ”into an eigenstate of the dynamical

variable that is being measured” as the Bohr jump since Bohm

postulated this jump under influence of Bohr claim about ’spooky

action at a distant’. The authors of [2,3] and many other publications

did not understand that Bohm had to reject the well-known principle of

quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute only if they

act on the same particle, in order to postulate the Bohr jump.

The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the

misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe

realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our

reason, and not the absence of reality. The obvious mistakes made in

deducing the GHZ theorem [2,3] are a consequence of the arrogance of

the reason of modern scientists who do not want to admit that the

possibilities of our reason may be limited even in the realm of our

experience.

[1] A. V. Nikulov, The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner

Effect. Entropy 24, 83 (2022); see abstract at

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83 and the PDF file at

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83/pdf .

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

I wrote to you in January about my publication [1] in which I draw

attention to obvious mistakes made after the discovery of the Meissner

effect in 1933. Physicists postulated after 1933 the obvious

contradictions with logic (see section 5.4. “Contradiction with

Elementary Logic” of [1]) and even with the law of energy conservation

(see section 5.5. “Contradiction with the Law of Energy Conservation”

of [1]) because of blind faith in the second law of thermodynamics. No

one noticed these obvious contradictions for almost ninety years.

Recently I submitted in Physical Review A a manuscript “Physical

thinking and the GHZ theorem”, see attached file, in which I draw

attention to no less obvious contradictions made by D. M. Greenberger,

M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger at the deduction of the GHZ

theorem [2] and the GHSZ theorem [3]. The contradictions are so

obvious that it is surprising that no one has noticed them for more

than thirty years. The authors [3] try to prove ”that the premises of

the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paper are inconsistent when applied to

quantum systems consisting of at least three particles” on the base of

the main premise of the Einstein - Podolsky – Rosen: measurement of

one particle cannot change quantum state of other particles. The EPR

premise was used in the derivation of the equation (F3) from the

equation (F1) in the Appendix F of the paper [3], see attached paper.

The use of the EPR premise to refute locality and realism is not the

only contradiction in the publication [3]. The polar and azimuthal

angles in the expression (8) for the expectation value in [3] are the

angles between a direction in which the spin projection will be

measured and the direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.

Measurements of the spin projection in the eigenstate will give spin

up with probability 1. According to the expression (F1) of [3] all

four particles have eigenstates in the same direction and the

expression (F2) predicts that measurements in this direction of each

particle in the GHSZ state will give spin up with probability 1. But

the expression (7) in [3] for the GHSZ state predicts that the first

measurement of the spin projection in any direction of one of the

particles will give spin up with the probability 0.5. This obvious

contradiction in the paper [3] is a consequence of the lack of

understanding by its authors that only non-entangled spin states can

be eigenstate in one of the directions of the real three-dimensional

space.

I draw attention in the manuscript submitted to Physical Review A that

the obvious mistakes made at the deduction of the GHZ theorem [2] and

the GHSZ theorem [3] are direct consequences of the rejection of

realism by the creators of quantum mechanics. These mistakes are quite

obvious. But I am not sure that my manuscript will be published. Most

physicists do not want to admit even the most obvious contradictions

of quantum mechanics. I submitted in December 2018 in Physical Review

A a manuscript “Only the critics understood quantum mechanics”. Daniel

T. Kulp, Editorial Director American Physical Society informed me 19

February 2019 that my manuscript is not suitable for publication in

any APS journal. This manuscript was rejected in ten more physics

journals.

This censorship is one of the causes that even the obvious

contradictions of the theories recognized by the majority are ignored.

Most scientists rather believe than understand these theories. Almost

all scientists are sure that no perpetuum mobile is possible. But most

of them do not understand that a perpetuum mobile can be impossible

only because of the irreversibility postulated by the second law of

thermodynamics. The dissipation of kinetic energy of a car or electric

current into heat is an irreversible process according to the second

law of thermodynamics. Most experts on superconductivity have

forgotten about this basis of thermodynamics. Therefore, they do not

understand that the Meissner effect is experimental evidence of the

process reverse to the irreversible process of dissipation of the

electric current into Joule heat [1]. Modern scientists are sure that

no perpetuum mobile is possible even when they observe it.

The faith in quantum mechanics is no less blind. The majority believed

in quantum mechanics because of its success and therefore ignored the

arguments of Einstein, Schrodinger and a few other critics who tried

to explain that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory because

of its contradiction with realism. Blind faith in quantum mechanics

has reached the point of refuting realism in [2,3] and other numerous

publications. The authors of these publications, unlike Einstein, did

not understand that realism is the presupposition of every kind of

physical thinking rather than a claim which can be disproved with any

experimental results. The mistakes made in [2,3] demonstrate with the

greatest clarity that the rejection of realism leads to the

degradation of physical thinking.

This degradation began with the proposal of young Heisenberg to

describe the observed rather than the existing. Heisenberg's proposal

was implemented by Born, who proposed to consider Schrodinger’s wave

function as a description of the amplitude of the observation

probability. Born’s proposal to describe the knowledge of the observer

about a probability of the results of the upcoming observation led to

the need for the Dirac jump, which postulated a change in the state of

a quantum system under the influence of a change in the observer's

knowledge. Dirac postulated in 1930 that the state only measured

particles can change at the observation.

The authors [2,3] made obvious mistakes because they did not

understand that quantum mechanics could not predict the EPR

correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if only the Dirac

jump was postulated. The prediction of non-locality became possible

only in 1951 when Bohm extended the Dirac jump on the state of the

particle which was not measured. I call this jump of the both

particles of the EPR pair ”into an eigenstate of the dynamical

variable that is being measured” as the Bohr jump since Bohm

postulated this jump under influence of Bohr claim about ’spooky

action at a distant’. The authors of [2,3] and many other publications

did not understand that Bohm had to reject the well-known principle of

quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute only if they

act on the same particle, in order to postulate the Bohr jump.

The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the

misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe

realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our

reason, and not the absence of reality. The obvious mistakes made in

deducing the GHZ theorem [2,3] are a consequence of the arrogance of

the reason of modern scientists who do not want to admit that the

possibilities of our reason may be limited even in the realm of our

experience.

[1] A. V. Nikulov, The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner

Effect. Entropy 24, 83 (2022); see abstract at

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83 and the PDF file at

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83/pdf .

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

Apr 21, 2022, 12:54:57 AM4/21/22

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Alexey

You write "Only a few authors [41] were critical of the GHZ theorem. No one, including the critics, did not notice that the authors [34] used the main assumption of the EPR [1], which was been contesting by Bohr [2]."

On a point of English grammar: one of those negatives should go out. "No one did not notice" means "everyone did notice". And "which was been contesting" should be "which was contested".

I think that what you are trying to say is nonsense! Everybody who studies quantum foundations and Bell's theorem knows these things. Of course, lots of people do not read the literature carefully but just repeat folk-lore assertions which are often wrong.

Bohr contested the concept of local realism. It is incompatible with quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Bell's theorem says. Feynman said about Bell's theorem "it's not interesting. Everybody knew this already". Bell's theorem is a mathematical triviality. It is mathematically amusing. Lots of physicists who are soaked in quantum mechanics and not so good at clear logical and mathematical thinking just keep on repeating nonsense about it,and this will go on for ever, since there are always new generations who are taught some nonsense in standard textbooks by teachers who were brainwashed themselves by their teachers and never sat down and did the careful thinking...

Which is irrelevant if you are only interested in "practical purposes". The practical quantum physicist needs have no interest in Bell's theorem. They learn by indoctrination how to do quantum mechanics and do not waste brain energy wondering what it all means.

Richard

Apr 21, 2022, 12:10:04 PM4/21/22

to Richard Gill, Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Richard,

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors. I wanted to say “No

one, including the critics, noticed that the authors [34] used the

main assumption of the EPR [1], which was contested by Bohr [2]”.

You think that what I am trying to say is nonsense because you do not

understand what I say. You may not know that a principle is in quantum

mechanics that operators acting on different particles commute.

Quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality in the sense of the EPR

correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities according to this

principle. Therefore, I was very surprised when I noticed that this

principle is used in the derivation of the GHZ theorem [1] and the

GHSZ theorem [2]. The authors of the book [3], in which the GHZ

theorem is been popularizing, write 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 the GHZ state in any

order”, see p. 175 in [3].

You wrote that “Everyone who studies quantum fundamentals and Bell's

theorem knows these things” I'm saying about. But I see that the

authors [1-3] do not know that quantum mechanics cannot contradict

locality if operators acting on different particles commute. I draw

your attention that quantum mechanics predicts violation of Bell’s

inequality due to the expression (4) in the Bell article [4] and (9)

in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. According to

this expression the probability to observe spin up of the second

particle differs fundamentally from the probability of 0.5 to observe

spin up of the first particle. I hope you understand that this

difference is mathematically impossible if the operators acting on

different particles commute. I repeat in section 4. THE ASSUMPTION

USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE GHZ THEOREM MAKES IMPOSSIBLE THE

PREDICTION OF VIOLATION OF BELL’S INEQUALITIES the Bell deduction of

violation of Bell’s inequality for the EPR pair in [4] for single

particles in order to accentuate that quantum mechanics predicts

violation of obvious inequalities only when operators do not commute.

You wrote: “Of course, lots of people do not read the literature

carefully but just repeat folk-lore assertions which are often wrong”.

I should say that you repeat folk-lore of the majority when you write:

“Bohr contested the concept of local realism. It is incompatible with

quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Bell's theorem says”. First of

all, I must say that the meaningless term ‘local realism’ belongs to

the folklore of the majority. Realism cannot be local or non-local.

Quantum mechanics is indeed incompatible with realism because of

folk-lore assertion that quantum mechanics is incompatible with

locality because of Bell's theorem is wrong. Quantum mechanics cannot

predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if we

do not reject the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting

on different particles commute.

No one has ever rejected this principle. Therefore the authors [1-3]

use this principle. This principle was not rejected by Bohr when he

claimed that the EPR [5] expression ”without in any way disturbing a

system” is ambiguous [6] although the EPR premise that measured of a

particle A cannot disturb in any way the state of other particle B is

deduced from the principle that operators, which act on different

particles, commute.

The illusion that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and

violation of Bell’s inequalities appeared only in 1951 when Bohm

extended the postulate about the Dirac jump to a particle that is not

measured. This absurd jump, which I call the Bohr jump, contradicts

obviously the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting on

different particles commute. Bohm did not draw reader’s attention

that we must reject this quantum principle in order his postulate

about the Bohr jump does not contradict quantum mechanics. Bell also

said nothing about the fact that this principle must be rejected in

order for quantum mechanics to predict the violation of his

inequalities. Therefore, internally contradictory theorems [1,2]

appeared and even became popular among the majority.

I should say that Feynman belongs to the majority who rather believe

than understand quantum mechanics. He did not understand why the EPR

paradox is a paradox and he did not understand the essence of Bell's

theorem. Therefore he made funny mistake, to which I draw attention in

the report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman» presented at the

conference "Quantum Informatics — 2021” see slides on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman

. Feynman did not take into account that the complexity of computing

increases exponentially with the number of elements, not because the

system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is

calculated. This mistake of Feynman is important for "practical

purposes" since it created the illusion for the majority who believe

rather than understand, that a quantum computer can be real.

I agree with you that Bell's theorem is a mathematical triviality. But

I think Bell's theorem has nothing to do with mathematics. Bell's

inequalities became popular only due to the degradation of physical

thinking among physicists. This degradation is a direct consequence of

the rejection of realism by creators of quantum mechanics since

realism is ”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” as

Einstein was understanding correctly. The decision of Editors of

Physical Review A to reject my manuscript "Physical thinking and the

GHZ theorem" two days after its submission, see below, is one of the

manifestations of the degradation of physical thinking.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edn. Jones and

Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006).

[4] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de

Physique 42, 41 (1981).

[5] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical

Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,

777 (1935).

[6] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be

Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).

[7] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

Your_manuscript AR12116 Nikulov

Subject: Your_manuscript AR12116 Nikulov

From: p...@aps.org

Data: 21.04.2022, 14:49

To: nik...@iptm.ru

Re: AR12116

Dear Dr. Nikulov,

We have examined your manuscript and conclude that it is not suited

for Physical Review A. We make no judgment on the correctness of the

work, only on its suitability according to our other criteria.

To be publishable in Physical Review A, manuscripts must contain

significant new results in physics, be of high quality and scientific

interest, and be recognized as an important contribution to the

literature.

We do not believe that your paper meets these criteria and feel that

it will be more productive for you to seek publication in another,

more specialized journal.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Gabriele De Chiara (he/him/his)

Associate Editor

Physical Review A

Email: p...@aps.org

https://journals.aps.org/pra/

чт, 21 апр. 2022 г. в 07:55, Richard Gill <gill...@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/23d05bb9-ce4e-4f2a-9463-4fce51665985n%40googlegroups.com.

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors. I wanted to say “No

one, including the critics, noticed that the authors [34] used the

main assumption of the EPR [1], which was contested by Bohr [2]”.

You think that what I am trying to say is nonsense because you do not

understand what I say. You may not know that a principle is in quantum

mechanics that operators acting on different particles commute.

Quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality in the sense of the EPR

correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities according to this

principle. Therefore, I was very surprised when I noticed that this

principle is used in the derivation of the GHZ theorem [1] and the

GHSZ theorem [2]. The authors of the book [3], in which the GHZ

theorem is been popularizing, write 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 the GHZ state in any

order”, see p. 175 in [3].

You wrote that “Everyone who studies quantum fundamentals and Bell's

theorem knows these things” I'm saying about. But I see that the

authors [1-3] do not know that quantum mechanics cannot contradict

locality if operators acting on different particles commute. I draw

your attention that quantum mechanics predicts violation of Bell’s

inequality due to the expression (4) in the Bell article [4] and (9)

in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. According to

this expression the probability to observe spin up of the second

particle differs fundamentally from the probability of 0.5 to observe

spin up of the first particle. I hope you understand that this

difference is mathematically impossible if the operators acting on

different particles commute. I repeat in section 4. THE ASSUMPTION

USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE GHZ THEOREM MAKES IMPOSSIBLE THE

PREDICTION OF VIOLATION OF BELL’S INEQUALITIES the Bell deduction of

violation of Bell’s inequality for the EPR pair in [4] for single

particles in order to accentuate that quantum mechanics predicts

violation of obvious inequalities only when operators do not commute.

You wrote: “Of course, lots of people do not read the literature

carefully but just repeat folk-lore assertions which are often wrong”.

I should say that you repeat folk-lore of the majority when you write:

“Bohr contested the concept of local realism. It is incompatible with

quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Bell's theorem says”. First of

all, I must say that the meaningless term ‘local realism’ belongs to

the folklore of the majority. Realism cannot be local or non-local.

Quantum mechanics is indeed incompatible with realism because of

Born’s proposal to describe the knowledge of the observer about a

probability of the results of the upcoming observation. But your
folk-lore assertion that quantum mechanics is incompatible with

locality because of Bell's theorem is wrong. Quantum mechanics cannot

predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities if we

do not reject the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting

on different particles commute.

No one has ever rejected this principle. Therefore the authors [1-3]

use this principle. This principle was not rejected by Bohr when he

claimed that the EPR [5] expression ”without in any way disturbing a

system” is ambiguous [6] although the EPR premise that measured of a

particle A cannot disturb in any way the state of other particle B is

deduced from the principle that operators, which act on different

particles, commute.

The illusion that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and

violation of Bell’s inequalities appeared only in 1951 when Bohm

extended the postulate about the Dirac jump to a particle that is not

measured. This absurd jump, which I call the Bohr jump, contradicts

obviously the principle of quantum mechanics that operators acting on

different particles commute. Bohm did not draw reader’s attention

that we must reject this quantum principle in order his postulate

about the Bohr jump does not contradict quantum mechanics. Bell also

said nothing about the fact that this principle must be rejected in

order for quantum mechanics to predict the violation of his

inequalities. Therefore, internally contradictory theorems [1,2]

appeared and even became popular among the majority.

I should say that Feynman belongs to the majority who rather believe

than understand quantum mechanics. He did not understand why the EPR

paradox is a paradox and he did not understand the essence of Bell's

theorem. Therefore he made funny mistake, to which I draw attention in

the report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman» presented at the

conference "Quantum Informatics — 2021” see slides on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman

. Feynman did not take into account that the complexity of computing

increases exponentially with the number of elements, not because the

system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is

calculated. This mistake of Feynman is important for "practical

purposes" since it created the illusion for the majority who believe

rather than understand, that a quantum computer can be real.

I agree with you that Bell's theorem is a mathematical triviality. But

I think Bell's theorem has nothing to do with mathematics. Bell's

inequalities became popular only due to the degradation of physical

thinking among physicists. This degradation is a direct consequence of

the rejection of realism by creators of quantum mechanics since

realism is ”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” as

Einstein was understanding correctly. The decision of Editors of

Physical Review A to reject my manuscript "Physical thinking and the

GHZ theorem" two days after its submission, see below, is one of the

manifestations of the degradation of physical thinking.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

[3] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edn. Jones and

Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006).

[4] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de

Physique 42, 41 (1981).

[5] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical

Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,

777 (1935).

[6] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be

Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).

[7] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

Subject: Your_manuscript AR12116 Nikulov

From: p...@aps.org

Data: 21.04.2022, 14:49

To: nik...@iptm.ru

Re: AR12116

Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem

by Alexey Nikulov
Dear Dr. Nikulov,

We have examined your manuscript and conclude that it is not suited

for Physical Review A. We make no judgment on the correctness of the

work, only on its suitability according to our other criteria.

To be publishable in Physical Review A, manuscripts must contain

significant new results in physics, be of high quality and scientific

interest, and be recognized as an important contribution to the

literature.

We do not believe that your paper meets these criteria and feel that

it will be more productive for you to seek publication in another,

more specialized journal.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Gabriele De Chiara (he/him/his)

Associate Editor

Physical Review A

Email: p...@aps.org

https://journals.aps.org/pra/

чт, 21 апр. 2022 г. в 07:55, Richard Gill <gill...@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/23d05bb9-ce4e-4f2a-9463-4fce51665985n%40googlegroups.com.

Apr 21, 2022, 12:56:45 PM4/21/22

to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Alexei

You wrote "You may not know that a principle is in quantum mechanics that operators acting on different particles commute.”

Yes I do know all this standard stuff which you can find in any text book.

You say "Quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality in the sense of the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities according to this principle.” The GHZ argument is an argument about three particles, in a special three-particle state, not two. So of course the EPR and Bell arguments don’t apply to it. GHZ have different arguments. However, there is a concept of generalised Bell inequalities, see Tsirelson’s famous paper

It seems you just don’t know the “modern” literature on generalised Bell inequalities for cases with any number of parties (each party measuring one particle) in any number of different ways and getting outcomes of any finite number of possible values. I can recommend you several papers of my own, which you clearly don’t know.

For instance, this one:

See section 8, “Better Bell inequalities”

Richard

PS For a physicist’s story see: Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V. and Wehner, S. (2014). Bell nonlocality. Rev. Modern Phys. 86 419; Erratum Rev. Modern Phys. 86 839.

Apr 21, 2022, 1:06:35 PM4/21/22

to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

You also wrote "First of all, I must say that the meaningless term ‘local realism’ belongs to the folklore of the majority. Realism cannot be local or non-local.”

The phrase “local realism” as used nowadays in discussions on the foundations of quantum mechanics has a perfectly clear mathematical definition. You say that what you think of as “realism” cannot be local or non-local - that’s because you are using the word “realism” in a sense which most people in physics are completely unaware of nowadays! That two word combination was perhaps unfortunate. It has unfortunately become standard. Anyway, nowadays, when people see the phrase “local realism” they are not using the word “realism” in the sense of 19th century philosophers.

> <es2022apr19_522.pdf><GHSZ1990.pdf>

The phrase “local realism” as used nowadays in discussions on the foundations of quantum mechanics has a perfectly clear mathematical definition. You say that what you think of as “realism” cannot be local or non-local - that’s because you are using the word “realism” in a sense which most people in physics are completely unaware of nowadays! That two word combination was perhaps unfortunate. It has unfortunately become standard. Anyway, nowadays, when people see the phrase “local realism” they are not using the word “realism” in the sense of 19th century philosophers.

Apr 21, 2022, 2:21:08 PM4/21/22

to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Richard,

You surprised me. Don't you, as a mathematician, understand that if

operators acting on different particles commute, then the measurement

results of the first and second particles cannot differ, how they

differ in the expression (4) in the Bell article [1] and (9) in my

manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”? Don't you

understand that no correlation can be in the measurement results of

different particles if operators acting on different particles

commute? This mathematical fact does not depend on the number of

particles. Quantum mechanics predicts the observation spin up with the

probability 0.5 of all particle both in the EPR ((1) in my manuscript)

state and in the GHSZ state ((15) in my manuscript) if operators

acting on different particles commute and therefore the measurement of

spin projection of one of the particles cannot change the states of

other particles.

The rejection of realism leads to the rejection of physical thinking

primarily because no one can give up realism in their thinking. You

demonstrate this when you write about a special three-particle GHZ

state. I draw your attention that even two entangled particles in the

EPR state can have only a subjective sense since the spin states of

entangled particles cannot be eigenstates. The other and main mistake

of the GHSZ is that they assume that eigenstates exist. I write about

this mistake in section 7. ’DOGMATIC REALISM’ AND ’METAPHYSICAL

REALISM’ of my manuscript.

The entangled spin state cannot exist in the real three-dimensional

space since the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system

can be applied only to non- entangled spin states. Therefore the EPR

state can describe only the knowledge of the observer who knows that

first measurement of the spin projection in any direction of any of

the particles will give the result spin up with the probability of

0.5. Due to the Bohr jump postulated by Bohm the observer also knows

that the probability to observe spin up of the second particle depends

on the angle between the measurement directions of the spin

projections of the first and second particles. The GHZ state and in

the GHSZ state cannot have even this subjective sense, since no one

has postulated how the measurement of one particle can affect the

state of two or three other particles. Therefore the “modern”

[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de

Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

чт, 21 апр. 2022 г. в 20:06, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

You surprised me. Don't you, as a mathematician, understand that if

operators acting on different particles commute, then the measurement

results of the first and second particles cannot differ, how they

differ in the expression (4) in the Bell article [1] and (9) in my

manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”? Don't you

understand that no correlation can be in the measurement results of

different particles if operators acting on different particles

commute? This mathematical fact does not depend on the number of

particles. Quantum mechanics predicts the observation spin up with the

probability 0.5 of all particle both in the EPR ((1) in my manuscript)

state and in the GHSZ state ((15) in my manuscript) if operators

acting on different particles commute and therefore the measurement of

spin projection of one of the particles cannot change the states of

other particles.

The rejection of realism leads to the rejection of physical thinking

primarily because no one can give up realism in their thinking. You

demonstrate this when you write about a special three-particle GHZ

state. I draw your attention that even two entangled particles in the

EPR state can have only a subjective sense since the spin states of

entangled particles cannot be eigenstates. The other and main mistake

of the GHSZ is that they assume that eigenstates exist. I write about

this mistake in section 7. ’DOGMATIC REALISM’ AND ’METAPHYSICAL

REALISM’ of my manuscript.

The entangled spin state cannot exist in the real three-dimensional

space since the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system

can be applied only to non- entangled spin states. Therefore the EPR

state can describe only the knowledge of the observer who knows that

first measurement of the spin projection in any direction of any of

the particles will give the result spin up with the probability of

0.5. Due to the Bohr jump postulated by Bohm the observer also knows

that the probability to observe spin up of the second particle depends

on the angle between the measurement directions of the spin

projections of the first and second particles. The GHZ state and in

the GHSZ state cannot have even this subjective sense, since no one

has postulated how the measurement of one particle can affect the

state of two or three other particles. Therefore the “modern”

literature on generalised Bell inequalities for cases with any number

of parties can be only a meaningless fantasy.
[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de

Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

Apr 22, 2022, 4:47:36 AM4/22/22

to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

That is absolute nonsense. It depends on the joint state of the particles.

Apr 22, 2022, 5:25:55 AM4/22/22

to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Richard,

People who use the phrase “local realism”, they do not use the word

“realism” not only in the sense of the philosophers of the 19th

century, but also in the sense of Heisenberg, Einstein and other

creators of quantum theory, who understood “realism” in the sense

’cultured men’ about 1750, Hume, Kant and others. This ignorance is

one of the causes and consequences of the degradation of physical

thinking among modern physicists. The term “local realism”, as well as

the internally contradictory GHZ theorem [1,2], is a consequence of a

false understanding by most physicists of the essence of the EPR

paradox [3].

The GHZ theorem appeared and became popular because most physicists

did not understand (or did not want to understand!) that the EPR

paradox reveals the internal contradiction of quantum mechanics, the

contradiction of the principle that operators acting on different

particles commute with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the

Bohr complementarity principle. This contradiction is not the only

obvious contradiction of quantum mechanics that most physicists do not

want to notice. Other obvious contradiction is the contradiction

between the Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has

been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [4]

and the statement of Bohr and Heisenberg that the first measurement

increases the indeterminacy in the result of the second.

We can agree with Heisenberg and Bohr that the first measurement can

increase the uncertainty of the result of the second measurement. But

it is impossible to understand how an interaction with the measuring

instruments during the first measurement can ensure the determinacy of

the result of the second measurement. Dirac obviously wrote in [4]

measurement instead of observation. We know from our everyday

experience that after the first observation has been made, there is no

indeterminacy in the result of the second observation since our

knowledge changes at the first observation.

Heisenberg understood that our knowledge should change discontinuously

because of the observation: ”Since through the observation our

knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical

representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we

speak of a quantum jump” [5]. But Dirac postulated the jump of the

quantum system into an eigenstate rather than the jump of our

knowledge. This postulate was needed in order to avoid the obvious

absurd: quantum mechanics could predict a possibility to see one

particle in different places at each observation of the same dynamical

variable without the Dirac jump. But the change in the quantum system

under the influence of the change in the observer's knowledge

postulated by Dirac results logically to another absurdity, which I

draw attention to in section 6. THE REJECTION OF REALISM RESULTS TO

THE ABSURD of my manuscript: the mind of two observers can create

different spin states of the same particles.

The EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities appeared only because most

physicists did not want to admit that quantum mechanics postulates the

absurdity and thought that one could limit oneself to measurement

instead of observation. Most physicists, in contrast to Schrodinger

and few other critics, did not want to understand also that quantum

mechanics is a trick rather than physical theory. The trick is to hide

all the complexities of describing quantum phenomena in the process of

observation or even measurement, which cannot be described. The term

local realism appeared only because the measurement process does not

contradict realism, and the observation process contradicts. The EPR

and Bell decided that the requirement of locality is the only way to

distinguish the first from the second if both processes are

inaccessible to our understanding. Bell’s inequalities allow only to

distinguish the trick with ’observation’ in quantum mechanics from the

trick with ’measurement’ in a theory of hidden variables.

I quote at the end of the manuscript Einstein's prophetic words

written in a letter to Schrodinger in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy -

or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that for

the present it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which

they are not easily chased away. Let us therefore let them rest. · · ·

This religion does damned little for me”. The decision of Editors of

Physical Review A to reject my manuscript “Physical thinking and the

GHZ theorem” without any consideration indicates that quantum

mechanics remains for them the religion they believe in rather than a

scientific theory they understand.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Press, 1958).

[5] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. (George Allen and Unwin

Edition, 1959).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 11:47, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

People who use the phrase “local realism”, they do not use the word

“realism” not only in the sense of the philosophers of the 19th

century, but also in the sense of Heisenberg, Einstein and other

creators of quantum theory, who understood “realism” in the sense

’cultured men’ about 1750, Hume, Kant and others. This ignorance is

one of the causes and consequences of the degradation of physical

thinking among modern physicists. The term “local realism”, as well as

the internally contradictory GHZ theorem [1,2], is a consequence of a

false understanding by most physicists of the essence of the EPR

paradox [3].

The GHZ theorem appeared and became popular because most physicists

did not understand (or did not want to understand!) that the EPR

paradox reveals the internal contradiction of quantum mechanics, the

contradiction of the principle that operators acting on different

particles commute with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the

Bohr complementarity principle. This contradiction is not the only

obvious contradiction of quantum mechanics that most physicists do not

want to notice. Other obvious contradiction is the contradiction

between the Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has

been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [4]

and the statement of Bohr and Heisenberg that the first measurement

increases the indeterminacy in the result of the second.

We can agree with Heisenberg and Bohr that the first measurement can

increase the uncertainty of the result of the second measurement. But

it is impossible to understand how an interaction with the measuring

instruments during the first measurement can ensure the determinacy of

the result of the second measurement. Dirac obviously wrote in [4]

measurement instead of observation. We know from our everyday

experience that after the first observation has been made, there is no

indeterminacy in the result of the second observation since our

knowledge changes at the first observation.

Heisenberg understood that our knowledge should change discontinuously

because of the observation: ”Since through the observation our

knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical

representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we

speak of a quantum jump” [5]. But Dirac postulated the jump of the

quantum system into an eigenstate rather than the jump of our

knowledge. This postulate was needed in order to avoid the obvious

absurd: quantum mechanics could predict a possibility to see one

particle in different places at each observation of the same dynamical

variable without the Dirac jump. But the change in the quantum system

under the influence of the change in the observer's knowledge

postulated by Dirac results logically to another absurdity, which I

draw attention to in section 6. THE REJECTION OF REALISM RESULTS TO

THE ABSURD of my manuscript: the mind of two observers can create

different spin states of the same particles.

The EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities appeared only because most

physicists did not want to admit that quantum mechanics postulates the

absurdity and thought that one could limit oneself to measurement

instead of observation. Most physicists, in contrast to Schrodinger

and few other critics, did not want to understand also that quantum

mechanics is a trick rather than physical theory. The trick is to hide

all the complexities of describing quantum phenomena in the process of

observation or even measurement, which cannot be described. The term

local realism appeared only because the measurement process does not

contradict realism, and the observation process contradicts. The EPR

and Bell decided that the requirement of locality is the only way to

distinguish the first from the second if both processes are

inaccessible to our understanding. Bell’s inequalities allow only to

distinguish the trick with ’observation’ in quantum mechanics from the

trick with ’measurement’ in a theory of hidden variables.

I quote at the end of the manuscript Einstein's prophetic words

written in a letter to Schrodinger in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy -

or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that for

the present it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which

they are not easily chased away. Let us therefore let them rest. · · ·

This religion does damned little for me”. The decision of Editors of

Physical Review A to reject my manuscript “Physical thinking and the

GHZ theorem” without any consideration indicates that quantum

mechanics remains for them the religion they believe in rather than a

scientific theory they understand.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

[3] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,

777 (1935).

[4] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University
777 (1935).

Press, 1958).

[5] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. (George Allen and Unwin

Edition, 1959).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

Apr 22, 2022, 5:40:07 AM4/22/22

to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Richard,

You, like most people including Feynman, keep forgetting that quantum

mechanics describes only the results of observation, or rather the

probability of the results of upcoming observations, and not the joint

state or other states of the particles. The rejection of realism as

”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” has led to the

degradation of physical thinking precisely because no one can abandon

realism, even those who disprove realism.

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 12:25, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

You, like most people including Feynman, keep forgetting that quantum

mechanics describes only the results of observation, or rather the

probability of the results of upcoming observations, and not the joint

state or other states of the particles. The rejection of realism as

”the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” has led to the

degradation of physical thinking precisely because no one can abandon

realism, even those who disprove realism.

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

Apr 22, 2022, 8:50:21 AM4/22/22

to Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Alexei, you keep imagining what I think, and you keep getting it completely wrong.

I know that quantum mechanics describes the probabilities of results of observations.

What people nowadays call the quantum state is merely a compact mathematical description

of all the probability distributions of all the measurements which could be made.

I know that quantum mechanics describes the probabilities of results of observations.

What people nowadays call the quantum state is merely a compact mathematical description

of all the probability distributions of all the measurements which could be made.

Apr 22, 2022, 9:39:59 AM4/22/22

to Richard Gill, Алексей Никулов, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

"It depends on the joint state of the particles" 👍

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

7309 Gardenview Drive, Elkridge MD 21075 US

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US)

+55-31-989909882 (Brazil)

--

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/170027D7-8BFC-4F6B-A533-D69F359EC6F8%40gmail.com.

Apr 22, 2022, 10:10:09 AM4/22/22

to Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Richard,

I do not doubt that you know that quantum mechanics describes the

probabilities of results of observations with the help of the quantum

state. But you, like most physicists, do not understand that precisely

the description of the probabilities of results of observations with

the help of the quantum states is misleading. The probabilities of

results of observations describe the knowledge of the observer whereas

the quantum states are described as real states existing in the real

three-dimensional space. The creators of quantum mechanics, on the one

hand, rejected realism by accepting Born's proposal to describe the

knowledge of the observer, and on the other hand, they did not abandon

realism by describing the knowledge of the observer with the help of

real states.

It logically follows from this inconsistency of the creators, that a

change in the observer's knowledge because of observation should

change real states. The Dirac jump postulates precisely this absurd

influence of the subject on the object, in Schrodinger's words. I draw

your attention that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and

violation of Bell’s inequalities only because Bohm extended the Dirac

jump, i.e. the influence of the subject on the object, to the particle

that is not measured.

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 16:39, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa

<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

I do not doubt that you know that quantum mechanics describes the

probabilities of results of observations with the help of the quantum

state. But you, like most physicists, do not understand that precisely

the description of the probabilities of results of observations with

the help of the quantum states is misleading. The probabilities of

results of observations describe the knowledge of the observer whereas

the quantum states are described as real states existing in the real

three-dimensional space. The creators of quantum mechanics, on the one

hand, rejected realism by accepting Born's proposal to describe the

knowledge of the observer, and on the other hand, they did not abandon

realism by describing the knowledge of the observer with the help of

real states.

It logically follows from this inconsistency of the creators, that a

change in the observer's knowledge because of observation should

change real states. The Dirac jump postulates precisely this absurd

influence of the subject on the object, in Schrodinger's words. I draw

your attention that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation and

violation of Bell’s inequalities only because Bohm extended the Dirac

jump, i.e. the influence of the subject on the object, to the particle

that is not measured.

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

Apr 22, 2022, 11:18:43 AM4/22/22

to Алексей Никулов, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Andrei, I disagree

Whether the “quantum state” is something out there in reality

[I don’t know what that means - I am a mathematician, not a philosopher or a physicist]

or whether it only a function of the knowledge of some hypothetical agent makes no

difference to me. It makes no difference to the mathematics. It makes no difference

to the statistical predictions. There exist different interpretations. Right now I verge towards qBism

where I personally interpret the “B” to stand for Buddhist rather than Bayesian.

Possibly “convivial solipsism” would also be a good name for this point of view.

Richard

Whether the “quantum state” is something out there in reality

[I don’t know what that means - I am a mathematician, not a philosopher or a physicist]

or whether it only a function of the knowledge of some hypothetical agent makes no

difference to me. It makes no difference to the mathematics. It makes no difference

to the statistical predictions. There exist different interpretations. Right now I verge towards qBism

where I personally interpret the “B” to stand for Buddhist rather than Bayesian.

Possibly “convivial solipsism” would also be a good name for this point of view.

Richard

Apr 23, 2022, 8:34:53 AM4/23/22

to Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Richard,

It is extremely strange that by participating in the debate about Bell

inequalities and publishing articles about this problem, you do not

know whether or not the quantum state is real. Bell's inequalities

appeared only because of the misconception of most physicists who

believed that the quantum state is real, despite the fact that it

describes the knowledge of the observer. Quantum state cannot be real

if Bell's inequalities are violated. But even authors who, like the

authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2], disprove realism are sure that even

entangled spin states are real. This illusion is the main reason for

obvious mathematical mistakes made in [1,2].

I draw your attention that the prediction of perfect correlation in

[1,2] is based precisely on mathematical mistakes. Therefore, you

cannot fail to understand the sense of these mistakes even without

being a physicist or a philosopher. I hope you know how non-entangled

spin states differ from entangled states mathematically. The spin

states of non-entangled particles along a z-axis can be described as

the product of the spin state of each of the particles, see the

expression (11) in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ

theorem”. The spin state of each of the particles in this case can be

expressed through the angles between this z-axis and the direction in

which this spin state is eigenstate. I hope you know that measurement

in this direction will give spin up with the probability 1.

But the spin states of entangled particles, for example in the EPR

state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state, cannot be described as the

product of the spin state of each of the particles. Therefore the

particles in the EPR state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state cannot

have a direction in the real three-dimensional space in which their

spin state is eigenstate. Nevertheless the prediction of of perfect

correlation in [2] is based on the assumption that all four particles

in the GHSZ state have eigenstates in the same direction and the

angles in the expression (8) of [2] for the expectation value is the

angles between this direction and the directions in which spin

projections of each particles will be measured.

The directions of measurements are quite real directions in the real

three-dimensional space. But the direction in which all four particles

in the GHSZ state are eigenstates cannot be real since the authors [2]

chose it arbitrarily. If they choose a different direction, then the

angles and the expectation value in (8) of [2] will change. The

expression (F2a) in [2] predicts that measurement of spin projection

of each particle in the GHSZ state in the direction which the authors

chose arbitrarily will give spin up with the probability of 1. This

prediction, determined by the arbitrariness of the authors,

contradicts the prediction of the GHSZ state, (7) in [2], according

to which the measurement of any particle in any direction will give a

spin up with a probability of 0.5.

This obvious mathematical contradiction became possible because the

authors [2], like most physicists, falsely consider even entangled

spin states to really exist in the real three-dimensional space. Such

an illusion of naive realists contradicts mathematics, according to

which the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system

cannot be applied to the entangled spin states. The confidence of

most people in the reality of a quantum computer is based on this

illusion of naive realists, which contradicts mathematics. I drew

attention to the contradiction of the idea of a quantum register with

the mathematics in the report “Quantum register cannot be real”, see

slides on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real

.

The qBism and especially “convivial solipsism” are nonsense, which is

the limit consequence of the degradation of physical thinking, as a

consequence of the refusal by the creators of quantum mechanics from

realism and blind faith in quantum mechanics.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

It is extremely strange that by participating in the debate about Bell

inequalities and publishing articles about this problem, you do not

know whether or not the quantum state is real. Bell's inequalities

appeared only because of the misconception of most physicists who

believed that the quantum state is real, despite the fact that it

describes the knowledge of the observer. Quantum state cannot be real

if Bell's inequalities are violated. But even authors who, like the

authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2], disprove realism are sure that even

entangled spin states are real. This illusion is the main reason for

obvious mathematical mistakes made in [1,2].

I draw your attention that the prediction of perfect correlation in

[1,2] is based precisely on mathematical mistakes. Therefore, you

cannot fail to understand the sense of these mistakes even without

being a physicist or a philosopher. I hope you know how non-entangled

spin states differ from entangled states mathematically. The spin

states of non-entangled particles along a z-axis can be described as

the product of the spin state of each of the particles, see the

expression (11) in my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ

theorem”. The spin state of each of the particles in this case can be

expressed through the angles between this z-axis and the direction in

which this spin state is eigenstate. I hope you know that measurement

in this direction will give spin up with the probability 1.

But the spin states of entangled particles, for example in the EPR

state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state, cannot be described as the

product of the spin state of each of the particles. Therefore the

particles in the EPR state, the GHZ state or the GHSZ state cannot

have a direction in the real three-dimensional space in which their

spin state is eigenstate. Nevertheless the prediction of of perfect

correlation in [2] is based on the assumption that all four particles

in the GHSZ state have eigenstates in the same direction and the

angles in the expression (8) of [2] for the expectation value is the

angles between this direction and the directions in which spin

projections of each particles will be measured.

The directions of measurements are quite real directions in the real

three-dimensional space. But the direction in which all four particles

in the GHSZ state are eigenstates cannot be real since the authors [2]

chose it arbitrarily. If they choose a different direction, then the

angles and the expectation value in (8) of [2] will change. The

expression (F2a) in [2] predicts that measurement of spin projection

of each particle in the GHSZ state in the direction which the authors

chose arbitrarily will give spin up with the probability of 1. This

prediction, determined by the arbitrariness of the authors,

contradicts the prediction of the GHSZ state, (7) in [2], according

to which the measurement of any particle in any direction will give a

spin up with a probability of 0.5.

This obvious mathematical contradiction became possible because the

authors [2], like most physicists, falsely consider even entangled

spin states to really exist in the real three-dimensional space. Such

an illusion of naive realists contradicts mathematics, according to

which the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system

cannot be applied to the entangled spin states. The confidence of

most people in the reality of a quantum computer is based on this

illusion of naive realists, which contradicts mathematics. I drew

attention to the contradiction of the idea of a quantum register with

the mathematics in the report “Quantum register cannot be real”, see

slides on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real

.

The qBism and especially “convivial solipsism” are nonsense, which is

the limit consequence of the degradation of physical thinking, as a

consequence of the refusal by the creators of quantum mechanics from

realism and blind faith in quantum mechanics.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пт, 22 апр. 2022 г. в 18:18, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
With best wishes,

Alexey

Apr 23, 2022, 8:56:22 AM4/23/22

to Алексей Никулов, Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

I note that there are endless perennial debates and disagreements about Bell and the foundations. I see this as evidence for our muddled view of Nature due to the lack of clarity about what violations of BI mean. There are many conflicting views and there is little consensus. The debates get tied up in semantics, and even personal attacks.

I see this as evidence that something is wrong, and that something is Bell's theorem. Only when it is accepted that Bell's theorem is incorrect can we move on.

My two bits.

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJLxdegAm5-Dr6C-NMSDsC1uG6TgCHvXLQ0csWVt_5b5w%40mail.gmail.com.

Apr 23, 2022, 4:20:28 PM4/23/22

to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Dear Bryan,

The endless perennial debates and disagreements about Bell and the

foundations are the result of the unwillingness of the disputants to

admit that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory.You don't want

to admit it either, preferring to think that Bell's theorem is

incorrect. Bell's theorem cannot be incorrect because it is trivial.

I quote at the end of the manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ

theorem” Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to Schrodinger

like most people, do not want to admit that quantum mechanics is a

religion they believe in, and not a scientific theory they understand.

People believe in quantum mechanics because of its success, as they

believe in miracles. Quantum mechanics is indeed very successful. But

it is a trick rather than physical theory, as Schrodinger and few

other critics understood. The trick is to hide all the complexities of

illusion of describing paradoxical quantum phenomena. But quantum

mechanics contradicts realism because of this trick. Einstein was

understanding correctly that realism is ”the presupposition of every

kind of physical thinking”. Therefore the rejection of realism by the

creators of quantum mechanics has resulted in the degradation of

physical thinking.

Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics are one of the

manifestations of this degradation. A theory, if it is really a

scientific theory, and not a trick, should not have interpretations,

since a scientific theory should clearly and definitely state what and

how it describes. Another manifestation of the degradation of thinking

is the well-known statement of Richard Feynman that nobody understands

quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, as well as any theory, is

created by our (humans) reason. Therefore our reason must understand

quantum mechanics unambiguously. But Feynman, like most people, did

not want to understand quantum mechanics, since to understand quantum

mechanics means to understand its absurdity, which religious faith did

not allow to do. This religious faith has resulted finally in the GHZ

theorem, the obviousness of the contradictions of which is surprising.

The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the

misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe

realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our

reason, and not the absence of reality. Modern scientists do not want

mechanics is not a scientific theory and we will not pretend that we

were able to describe quantum phenomena despite the fact that they

cannot be described can we move on. To do this, scientists must stop

blindly believing and start thinking critically.

With best wishes,

Alexey

сб, 23 апр. 2022 г. в 15:56, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>:

The endless perennial debates and disagreements about Bell and the

foundations are the result of the unwillingness of the disputants to

admit that quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory.You don't want

to admit it either, preferring to think that Bell's theorem is

incorrect. Bell's theorem cannot be incorrect because it is trivial.

I quote at the end of the manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ

theorem” Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to Schrodinger

in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr

is so cleverly concocted that for the present it offers the believers

a soft resting pillow from which they are not easily chased away. Let

us therefore let them rest. · · ·This religion does damned little for

me”. Editors of Physical Review A rejected my manuscript since they,
is so cleverly concocted that for the present it offers the believers

a soft resting pillow from which they are not easily chased away. Let

us therefore let them rest. · · ·This religion does damned little for

like most people, do not want to admit that quantum mechanics is a

religion they believe in, and not a scientific theory they understand.

People believe in quantum mechanics because of its success, as they

believe in miracles. Quantum mechanics is indeed very successful. But

it is a trick rather than physical theory, as Schrodinger and few

other critics understood. The trick is to hide all the complexities of

describing quantum phenomena in the process of observation or even

measurement, which cannot be described. This trick created the
illusion of describing paradoxical quantum phenomena. But quantum

mechanics contradicts realism because of this trick. Einstein was

understanding correctly that realism is ”the presupposition of every

kind of physical thinking”. Therefore the rejection of realism by the

creators of quantum mechanics has resulted in the degradation of

physical thinking.

Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics are one of the

manifestations of this degradation. A theory, if it is really a

scientific theory, and not a trick, should not have interpretations,

since a scientific theory should clearly and definitely state what and

how it describes. Another manifestation of the degradation of thinking

is the well-known statement of Richard Feynman that nobody understands

quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, as well as any theory, is

created by our (humans) reason. Therefore our reason must understand

quantum mechanics unambiguously. But Feynman, like most people, did

not want to understand quantum mechanics, since to understand quantum

mechanics means to understand its absurdity, which religious faith did

not allow to do. This religious faith has resulted finally in the GHZ

theorem, the obviousness of the contradictions of which is surprising.

The degradation of physical thinking became possible because of the

misunderstanding that the inability of our reason to describe

realistically some quantum phenomena reveals only the inability of our

to admit that the possibilities of our reason may be limited even in

the realm of our experience. Only when it is accepted that quantum
mechanics is not a scientific theory and we will not pretend that we

were able to describe quantum phenomena despite the fact that they

cannot be described can we move on. To do this, scientists must stop

blindly believing and start thinking critically.

With best wishes,

Alexey

сб, 23 апр. 2022 г. в 15:56, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>:

Apr 23, 2022, 5:37:07 PM4/23/22

to Алексей Никулов, Richard Gill, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Ilja Schmelzer, Scott Glancy

Hi Alexey

I agree that Bell's sock proof is not difficult but his assumption, like von Neumann's, is wrong. Spin is not polarized all the time, only when measured. With that, a lot unfolds.

I have long said that non-locality is revelation, the cult of quantum weirdness. Amazing that the field of quantum info is based upon that.

I do think that qm is a scientific theory but only without Bell's theorem. However it is a theory of measurement, but not of Nature. I do agree that most of the problems are, as you say, about measurement. Qm explains all our observation, except for the violation and double slit, as far as I know, (leaving out gravity and cosmology problems however). QM is correct, but incomplete. Of course by disproving Bell, nothing stands in the way of the veracity of EPR's question in their title.

I agree QM hides stuff, but that is not a trick, but rather the power of qm to keep what is relevant. I also reject Copenhagen with objective reasons.

Soon, I hope, my papers will be out, and I'll be interested in your reaction. I want them peer reviewed, but I am on my 4th journal, (along with arXiv refusing the ). Not peer reviewed yet. The reasons were, 1. Not interesting to our readers (hey I disprove Bell and want the Standard model changed! ) 2. Topic is not covered by our journal. And arXiv said, "get it published first.

I think Richard got it right, the Journals are too conservative he said. However I am hopeful for the present journal, we'll see.

Good we are almost on the same wavelength

Bryan

.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJLxdegAm5-Dr6C-NMSDsC1uG6TgCHvXLQ0csWVt_5b5w%40mail.gmail.com.9

Apr 24, 2022, 3:50:40 AM4/24/22

to Bryan Sanctuary, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Bryan

I think you experience difficulties getting your work published because you have completely misunderstood Bell’s work. You suppose that Bell assumes that spin is polarised all the time. Bell makes no such assumption at all.

If you disagree with me on this point, please tell us where, exactly, Bell makes this assumption.

Andrei

You wrote "It is extremely strange that by participating in the debate about Bell inequalities and publishing articles about this problem, you do not know whether or not the quantum state is real.” It seems you have no understanding of the work of a mathematician. In a mathematical theorem, the names we give to the mathematical objects we talk about are irrelevant. What counts are the mathematical relationships between those objects.

Richard

Apr 24, 2022, 4:11:34 PM4/24/22

to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Bell's theorem proves that to account for the violation, he must force classical polarization, aka socks, to account for the data. The only way he can do that is by non-local connection between socks. But he doesn't know how to pull Bertlmann's socks up or down.The one line disproof,"...and therefore Bell's theorem is disproven by counter example"Bryan

Apr 24, 2022, 5:16:25 PM4/24/22

to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

"... The only way he can do that is by non-local connection between socks. But he doesn't know how to pull Bertlmann's socks up or down. ..."

I got lost in this argument.

Polarization may get defined only in the act of measurement. Bell's conception is only about statistics, not about explaining mechanisms: up and down are only expressed as probabilities.

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

--

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/CALLw9YycBPMSf%2B89B2tt6GOkmee-VBvB52vs8cw1mW9w8cCF_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Apr 24, 2022, 5:52:02 PM4/24/22

to GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Hi Geraldo,

I just posted Bell's Blunder, hope that answers your question.

Bryan

Apr 24, 2022, 7:19:17 PM4/24/22

to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Hi Bryan,

Would you please send me a PDF to my email, to avoid using DropBox?

Geraldo

Apr 25, 2022, 6:11:08 AM4/25/22

to Richard Gill, Bryan Sanctuary, Scott Glancy, Ilja Schmelzer, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa

Dear Richard,

I understand that the names we give to the mathematical objects we

talk about are irrelevant. I draw attention in the report «Funny

mistake of Richard Feynman» (see slides on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman

) that Richard Feynman made funny mistake precisely because he forgot

that a specific subject of description is irrelevant for mathematics.

Feynman in 1982 and Russian mathematician Yuri Manin in 1980 drew

attention to the mathematical fact that the complexity of computing a

quantum system increases exponentially with the number of its

elements. This mathematical fact became the basis of the idea of

quantum computing. But Feynman and Manin did not take into account

spin up or spin down.

It is irrelevant for mathematics the probability of which one of the

two possible results of observation to calculate: spin up or spin

down, coin with face up or coin with face down, the cat is alive or

the cat is dead. If we replace in the expression for the quantum

register (see slide 7 of my report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman»)

the spin up with the cat is alive and the spin down with the cat is

dead, then mathematically nothing will change in this expression.

Therefore, if numerous creators of a quantum computer are sure that a

quantum computer can be made on the base of particles with spin 1/2,

then they should be sure that a quantum computer can be made on the

base of cats (Schrodinger's cats of course).

The illusion that a quantum register can be made on the basis of

particles with spin 1/2 and cannot be made on the basis of cats became

possible because quantum mechanics describes the observer's knowledge

about the probability to observe ‘spin up’ with the help of a spin

state that really exists in the real three-dimensional space. A

direction exists for each spin state in which this state is an

eigenstate and measurement will give ‘spin up’ with the probability of

1. The probability to observe ‘spin up’ in any other direction is

calculated with the help of the operators of finite rotation of the

coordinate axes.

But these operators can be applied only to non-entangled spin states.

Therefore we cannot even think that entangled spin states can exist in

the real three-dimensional space. Mathematics proves that the

definition of the EPR correlation as the entanglement of our knowledge

given by Schrodinger in 1935 is the only correct and possible one. I

prove in the report “Quantum register cannot be real” (see slides on

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real

) that the quantum register cannot be real because it is impossible to

answer the question "To which coordinate system of the real

three-dimensional space do its amplitudes belong?" The lack of

understanding of this logic and mathematics indicates the degradation

of not only physical thinking among modern scientists.

Ignorance or ignoring of the mathematical fact that the operators of

finite rotation of the coordinate axes are not applicable to entangled

spin states has misled not only the creators of the quantum computer,

but also the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2]. You didn't say whether

you have understood the obviousness of the mathematical mistakes made

by the authors [2]. Or you don't want to hear about these obvious

mistakes like Editors of Physical Review A?

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,

rather Alexey than Andrei

пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 02:19, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa

<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAMhtMsb4oQPU%2B0B%2BqRP5s2CiUeFnugA2Nhqvd5-sF4md4zaA7A%40mail.gmail.com.

I understand that the names we give to the mathematical objects we

talk about are irrelevant. I draw attention in the report «Funny

mistake of Richard Feynman» (see slides on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman

) that Richard Feynman made funny mistake precisely because he forgot

that a specific subject of description is irrelevant for mathematics.

Feynman in 1982 and Russian mathematician Yuri Manin in 1980 drew

attention to the mathematical fact that the complexity of computing a

quantum system increases exponentially with the number of its

elements. This mathematical fact became the basis of the idea of

quantum computing. But Feynman and Manin did not take into account

that the complexity of computing increases exponentially with the

number of elements, not because the system is quantum, but because

quantum mechanics describes the probability to observe, for example
number of elements, not because the system is quantum, but because

spin up or spin down.

It is irrelevant for mathematics the probability of which one of the

two possible results of observation to calculate: spin up or spin

down, coin with face up or coin with face down, the cat is alive or

the cat is dead. If we replace in the expression for the quantum

register (see slide 7 of my report «Funny mistake of Richard Feynman»)

the spin up with the cat is alive and the spin down with the cat is

dead, then mathematically nothing will change in this expression.

Therefore, if numerous creators of a quantum computer are sure that a

quantum computer can be made on the base of particles with spin 1/2,

then they should be sure that a quantum computer can be made on the

base of cats (Schrodinger's cats of course).

The illusion that a quantum register can be made on the basis of

particles with spin 1/2 and cannot be made on the basis of cats became

possible because quantum mechanics describes the observer's knowledge

about the probability to observe ‘spin up’ with the help of a spin

state that really exists in the real three-dimensional space. A

direction exists for each spin state in which this state is an

eigenstate and measurement will give ‘spin up’ with the probability of

1. The probability to observe ‘spin up’ in any other direction is

calculated with the help of the operators of finite rotation of the

coordinate axes.

But these operators can be applied only to non-entangled spin states.

Therefore we cannot even think that entangled spin states can exist in

the real three-dimensional space. Mathematics proves that the

definition of the EPR correlation as the entanglement of our knowledge

given by Schrodinger in 1935 is the only correct and possible one. I

prove in the report “Quantum register cannot be real” (see slides on

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real

) that the quantum register cannot be real because it is impossible to

answer the question "To which coordinate system of the real

three-dimensional space do its amplitudes belong?" The lack of

understanding of this logic and mathematics indicates the degradation

of not only physical thinking among modern scientists.

Ignorance or ignoring of the mathematical fact that the operators of

finite rotation of the coordinate axes are not applicable to entangled

spin states has misled not only the creators of the quantum computer,

but also the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2]. You didn't say whether

you have understood the obviousness of the mathematical mistakes made

by the authors [2]. Or you don't want to hear about these obvious

mistakes like Editors of Physical Review A?

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[2] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,

пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 02:19, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa

<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

Apr 25, 2022, 1:57:59 PM4/25/22

to Bryan Sanctuary, Richard Gill, Scott Glancy, Ilja Schmelzer, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa

Dear Bryan,

You wrote: “I do think that qm is a scientific theory but only without

But isn't measurement a real process occurring in Nature? Why would

the creators of quantum mechanics distinguish this process from other

processes occurring in Nature if quantum mechanics is not a trick? And

how can one draw a line between the measurement process and other

processes occurring in Nature? Bell, who was guessing that quantum

mechanics is a trick, was asking this question, which cannot be

answered unequivocally.

But Bell wasn't consistent. David Mermin quoted Bell in section III

“Von Neumann’s silly assumption” of the paper [1]: ”You may quote me

on that: The proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish!”

Von Neumann has proved that some quantum phenomena, for example the

Stern – Gerlach effect, cannot be described without the trick with

measurement. The claim of Bell and Mermin that the proof of von

Neumann is foolish means that they believed, like you, that the trick

with 'measurement' is much better than the trick with 'observation'. I

don't think Bell wanted to advertise his no-go theorem, which allows

us to distinguish the trick with 'measurement' from the trick with

'observation'. But Bell clearly did not understand that the trick with

'measurement' is much worse than the trick with 'observation', since

this trick has created the illusion among several generations of

physicists that quantum mechanics describes reality rather than the

knowledge of the observer.

If the creators of quantum mechanics had honestly said that quantum

mechanics postulates the influence of the mind of the observer on the

state of a quantum system, then it is unlikely that many physicists

would have believed in quantum mechanics even despite its success. But

they were constantly obscuring, substituting ‘observation’ for

‘measurement’, while contradicting themselves and logic. For example,

Dirac clearly substituted ‘observation’ for ‘measurement’ in his

which he postulated the Dirac jump. Anyone who knows how to think at

least a little should understand that no first measurement can provide

determinacy in the result of the second measurement if there is no

observer whose knowledge about the probability of observation changes

at the first observation.

But most physicists seem to have stopped thinking, because of blind

faith in quantum mechanics, even such physicists as David Mermin.

Mermin was agreeing with Bell that “von Neumann's no-hidden-variables

proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly”

[2]. But von Neumann's theorem is not as silly as the GHZ theorem

[3,4]. At least there are no obvious mathematical mistakes in von

Neumann's theorem. Mermin knew the GHZ theorem well, see [4], but did

not notice its obvious mathematical mistakes.

I quoted earlier Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to

Schrodinger in 1928 about ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of

Heisenberg-Bohr”. Critics and advocates of Bell's inequalities belong

to the same quantum religion, but to different religious

denominations. Catholics and Protestants fought in Europe for thirty

years. The battles about Bell's inequalities continue no less. The

contradiction between Catholics and Protestants is legitimate from the

point of view of reason, since faith in God belongs to the realm of

the incognizable for our reason. But theories and theorems cannot

belong to the realm of the incognizable since they were created by our

reason. Therefore battles about Bell's inequalities indicate a

degradation of thinking.

[1] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).

[2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University

Press, 1958).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

[4] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 13:11, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

You wrote: “I do think that qm is a scientific theory but only without

Bell's theorem. However it is a theory of measurement, but not of

Nature”.
But isn't measurement a real process occurring in Nature? Why would

the creators of quantum mechanics distinguish this process from other

processes occurring in Nature if quantum mechanics is not a trick? And

how can one draw a line between the measurement process and other

processes occurring in Nature? Bell, who was guessing that quantum

mechanics is a trick, was asking this question, which cannot be

answered unequivocally.

But Bell wasn't consistent. David Mermin quoted Bell in section III

“Von Neumann’s silly assumption” of the paper [1]: ”You may quote me

on that: The proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish!”

Von Neumann has proved that some quantum phenomena, for example the

Stern – Gerlach effect, cannot be described without the trick with

measurement. The claim of Bell and Mermin that the proof of von

Neumann is foolish means that they believed, like you, that the trick

with 'measurement' is much better than the trick with 'observation'. I

don't think Bell wanted to advertise his no-go theorem, which allows

us to distinguish the trick with 'measurement' from the trick with

'observation'. But Bell clearly did not understand that the trick with

'measurement' is much worse than the trick with 'observation', since

this trick has created the illusion among several generations of

physicists that quantum mechanics describes reality rather than the

knowledge of the observer.

If the creators of quantum mechanics had honestly said that quantum

mechanics postulates the influence of the mind of the observer on the

state of a quantum system, then it is unlikely that many physicists

would have believed in quantum mechanics even despite its success. But

they were constantly obscuring, substituting ‘observation’ for

‘measurement’, while contradicting themselves and logic. For example,

Dirac clearly substituted ‘observation’ for ‘measurement’ in his

assumption that ”after the first measurement has been made, there is

no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [2], on the basis of
which he postulated the Dirac jump. Anyone who knows how to think at

least a little should understand that no first measurement can provide

determinacy in the result of the second measurement if there is no

observer whose knowledge about the probability of observation changes

at the first observation.

But most physicists seem to have stopped thinking, because of blind

faith in quantum mechanics, even such physicists as David Mermin.

Mermin was agreeing with Bell that “von Neumann's no-hidden-variables

proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly”

[2]. But von Neumann's theorem is not as silly as the GHZ theorem

[3,4]. At least there are no obvious mathematical mistakes in von

Neumann's theorem. Mermin knew the GHZ theorem well, see [4], but did

not notice its obvious mathematical mistakes.

I quoted earlier Einstein's prophetic words written in a letter to

Schrodinger in 1928 about ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of

Heisenberg-Bohr”. Critics and advocates of Bell's inequalities belong

to the same quantum religion, but to different religious

denominations. Catholics and Protestants fought in Europe for thirty

years. The battles about Bell's inequalities continue no less. The

contradiction between Catholics and Protestants is legitimate from the

point of view of reason, since faith in God belongs to the realm of

the incognizable for our reason. But theories and theorems cannot

belong to the realm of the incognizable since they were created by our

reason. Therefore battles about Bell's inequalities indicate a

degradation of thinking.

[1] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).

[2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University

Press, 1958).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s Theorem,

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), pp. 73-76 (1989).

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey
With best wishes,

пн, 25 апр. 2022 г. в 13:11, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

Apr 25, 2022, 3:05:58 PM4/25/22