[Bell_quantum_foundations] Bell's inequalities, instrumentalist view and Karl Popper

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear All,

Recently, my manuscript “Quantum register cannot be real” was rejected
in the third journal. But this time the editors made the decision not
just on the basis of their belief in what the majority believes, but
on the basis of the Reviewer's comments, see below. Comments written
by a professional allow us to understand the reason for the mass
delusion about quantum mechanics, and in particular Bell's
inequalities. The Reviewer understand that a quantum computer can be
possible only according to a purely instrumentalist view, but he, in
contrast David Deutsch, “The Father of Quantum Computing” (see
https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/?currentPage=all
), does not understand that a real device, for example an interstellar
spaceship, can be made on a theory explaining experimental results
rather than a theory which only predicts the outcomes of experiments,
see below my reply to Reviewers' comments.

Most scientists, as naive realists, never understood that Heisenberg,
Bohr and other creators of quantum mechanics followed an
instrumentalist point of view. Karl Popper wrote more than sixty years
ago: “Very few physicists who now recognize the instrumentalist point
of view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley realize that they
accept some philosophical theory. They also do not realize that they
are breaking with the Galilean tradition”.

The Reviewer realizes that he follows the instrumentalist view. But he
does not understand that the instrumentalist view is misleading. This
point of view has misled in particular Richard Feynman, Yuri Manin and
all authors of publications about quantum computing who have not
understood that the exponential increasing of the complexity of
computing with the number of elements of quantum systems takes place
not because the system is quantum, but because the probability of
observation is calculated, see Conclusion of my manuscript. It is
impossible to distinguish the mathematical description of the results
of observing spin projections from the results of observing
Schrodinger's cats, according to a purely instrumentalist view. I
should also note that debate about Bell's inequalities do not make
sense according to this point of view.

With best wishes,
Alexey

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The author of this paper claims that a quantum register,
or a qubit, cannot be real and so cannot exist. If I understand
correctly the author's final arguments, this also means that quantum
computing will never work. WIth the words of the author, it will
actually be one of the biggest mass delusions of modern science. In
practical terms I assume therefore that the author believes that
so-called quantum supremacy will never be reached.

I personally agree on several points discussed in this paper, in
particular on the historical discussion on the various points of view
about the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. I agree with the author
that the point of view of Bell has often been misled. I can even agree
on some sociological considerations in Section 8, although I believe
these should not be part of an article to be published on a physics
journal. In general, I agree with the authors that quantum mechanics
is not a fully satisfactory theory (in particular I think that the
problem of measurement is not fully solved, as the majority believes)

However, I'm failing to see any new insight or solution proposed by
the author in this paper. The main "claim" of the paper is actually
that a qubit cannot be "real", based on the assumption that to be real
it must exist in real space. I cannot get this point, to me it looks
quite a captious argument. Everyone using quantum mechanics does
calculations in the Hilbert space, and apparently it works. I don't
see why this is a problem. It seems also that in quantum mechanics you
really need complex numbers: are complex numbers real? Should we care
about the reality of complex numbers? So, is Hilbert space real or
not? This is not relevant as long as calculations work. This is the
essence of instrumentalism, you don't ask questions like "what is
real" but you simply stick to the predictions you can do. The majority
of physicists working in quantum mechanics are instrumentalists, which
doesn't mean being unable to see that, at a deeper level, there are
still fundamental issues in quantum mechanics that we may hope to
solve in future.

In a purely instrumentalist view (limited to mere experimental facts),
existing experiments are apparently supporting the view that quantum
computers not only can be built, but actually work as they are
supposed to work. One has to accept this as a fact, or demonstrate
that these works are flawed. But one cannot refute these claims on the
basis of purely philosophical arguments such as "a qubit cannot exist
because its existence is based on the refutation of realism".

In other words, I ask the author to discuss the several claims of
experimental demontrations of quantum advantage/supremacy, i.e. the
simple experimental fact that some tasks can be performed on a quantum
computer with an efficiency not reachable by classical computers. For
instance the google claim:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5 and the most recent
claims by Chinese groups. How do these claims fit with the author's
view?

FInally, but this is a minor point, the sociological (and somewhat
conspirationist) arguments in section 8 can be safely left aside. This
is a journal of physics, not of sociology.

In conclusions, I cannot recommend publication in EPJplus. As a
minimal requirement, the author should at least discuss the points
above.

My reply to Reviewers' comments:

This work “Quantum register cannot be real” was rejected by the Editor
of The European Physical Journal Plus on the basis of the comments of
one Reviewer. The comments were written by a professional who knows
the problems not only of quantum computing, but also of the basics of
quantum mechanics. The Reviewer understands that a quantum computer
can be possible only according to a purely instrumentalist view. He
did not recommend publication of my manuscript in EPJplus because of
two main reasons:

1) The Reviewer follows an instrumentalist view while I do not follow
this point of view.

2) The Reviewer is sure that in a purely instrumentalist view (limited
to mere experimental facts), existing experiments are apparently
supporting the view that quantum computers not only can be built, but
actually work as they are supposed to work. Moreover the Reviewer
assumes that quantum advantage/supremacy was already demonstrated
experimentally. This confidence and this assumption are incompatible
with my point of view, which I prove in the manuscript that a quantum
register is impossible.

I not only do not follow the instrumentalist view I think that this
point of view is misleading. I agree with the criticism of the
instrumentalist view in Chapter 1 “The Theory of Everything” of the
book “The Fabric of Reality” written by David Deutsch, The Father of
Quantum Computing, see
https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/?currentPage=all
. David Deutsch argued in the Chapter "Quantum computers" of the book
[1] that a quantum computer is possible only in the reality of Many
Universes. I quote the Deutsch arguments in my manuscript. But the
Reviewer ignored these arguments, as they contradict his
instrumentalist view.

The Reviewer wrote that “The majority of physicists working in quantum
mechanics are instrumentalists”. It is partly correct, although I am
not sure that all these physicists understand they are
instrumentalists. Almost all authors of publications on quantum
computing certainly follow instrumentalist view, since they ignore the
Deutsch arguments about the possibility of a quantum computer only in
the reality of Many Universes and the Deutsch criticism of the
instrumentalist view in the book [1]. Even if almost all modern
scientists were supporters of the instrumentalist view, this would not
mean that Deutsch's criticism was unfounded. The history of science
shows that the majority are often mistaken. Truth in science is not
determined by voting. Therefore, a point of view that contradicts the
point of view of the majority should not be ignored, much less
prohibited.

Deutsch stated that “For even in purely practical applications, the
explanatory power of a theory is paramount and its predictive power
only supplementary” [1]. He argued that a real device, for example an
interstellar spaceship, can be made on a theory explaining
experimental results rather than a theory which only predicts the
outcomes of experiments. I agree with Deutsch and I have proved in my
manuscript that Deutsch rather than the majority of physicists, who
are instrumentalists, is right. Of course, philosophical arguments
such as "a qubit cannot exist because its existence is based on the
refutation of realism" are not arguments for instrumentalists such as
the Reviewer. But the Reviewer also ignored logical and mathematical
arguments against his belief which are also in my manuscript.

My logical argument reveals that the instrumentalist view is
misleading. The idea of a quantum computer is connected with the
remark made by Richard Feynman and Yuri Manin forty years ago that the
complexity of computing quantum systems increases exponentially with
the number of elements. Feynman and Manin have not understood that the
exponential increase of the complexity takes place not because the
system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is
calculated.

The mathematical expression for a quantum register (the expression (8)
in my manuscript) cannot depend on what is observed: the projections
of spin 1/2, balls of two colors, or Schrodinger’s cats. The results
of the observation of both the projections of spin 1/2 and
Schrodinger’s cats have two possibilities: spin up or spin down; a
live cat or a dead cat. A purely instrumentalist view cannot say what
the quantum register describes: the probabilities of one of the two
possible results of observing the projections of spin 1/2 or
Schrodinger’s cats. Therefore, if a quantum register can be made from
particles with spin 1/2, then it can also be made from Schrodinger’s
cats, according to the instrumentalist view.

My mathematical argument is based on the mathematical fact that the
operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system can be applied
only to non-entangled spin states. Therefore one can say which
coordinate system refers to the given probability amplitudes of the
quantum register only if quantum bits (qubits) of this quantum
register are not entangled. But quantum computing has no advantage if
only non-entangled qubits are used. The advantage of a quantum
computer is in irreconcilable contradiction with its reality according
to logic and mathematics.

I wrote in the manuscript that if someone believes that the quantum
register can be made from particles with spin 1/2 he will have to
answer the question to which coordinate system can belong the
probability amplitudes of this quantum register. The Reviewer ignored
this question since it cannot be answered when spin states are
entangled. I considered the logical argument and the mathematical
argument in two reports “Funny mistake of Richard Feynman” and
“Quantum register cannot be real” presented last year at the
conference "Quantum Informatics — 2021”. The slides of the reports are
available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey-Nikulov :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
. No one has refuted for the present these arguments calling into
question the possibility of a quantum computer. Quantum computing
experts, like the Reviewer, prefer to ignore these arguments.

David Deutsch was following in his criticism of the instrumentalist
view to the opinion of the famous philosopher of the twentieth century
Karl Raimund Popper. Karl Popper wrote in Chapter 3. “Three Views
Concerning Human Knowledge” of the book [2]: “Very few physicists who
now recognize the instrumentalist point of view of Cardinal Bellarmino
and Bishop Berkeley realize that they accept some philosophical
theory. They also do not realize that they are breaking with the
Galilean tradition”. Most physicists, unlike the Reviewer, do not
understand even that they recognize the instrumentalist view when they
believe in quantum mechanics.

Speaking about breaking with the Galilean tradition, Popper meant that
according to the instrumentalist point of view no difference was
between the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system in the time of
Galileo, since both systems successfully described the results of
observations known in that time. The reason for the conflict with the
Catholic Church was Galileo's assertion that the Copernican system is
not just a more convenient instrument for describing the results of
observations, but is a description of reality. The Galilean tradition
led to space flights, which would hardly have been possible if the
instrumentalist point of view had won. Deutsch was right when he
stated in [1] that an interstellar spaceship cannot be made on the
basis of a theory which only predicts the outcomes of experiments. I
agree with Deutsch and Popper rather than with the Reviewer and the
majority of modern physicists working in quantum mechanics.

In connection with the Reviewer's confidence that quantum computers
not only can be built, but that they actually work, one should recall
another famous philosopher of the twentieth century, Jose Ortega y
Gasset, the great Spanish philosopher according to Schrodinger’s
opinion. Ortega y Gasset was concerned about the fate of science
because of its increasing mass. He wrote in his famous book "The
Revolt of the Masses", published in 1930: “Has any thought been given
to the number of things that must remain active in men’s souls in
order that there may still continue to be “men of science” in real
truth? Is it seriously thought that as long as there are dollars there
will be science? This notion in which so many find rest is only a
further proof of primitivism” [3]. I agree that only dollars cannot
provide the possibility of the true science. Moreover, I think that a
lot of dollars can provoke degradation of science.

I know from experience how difficult it is for most scientists to
admit that the theory they were developing or following for many years
may be false. This display of honesty becomes especially difficult
when scientists have spent a lot of dollars to implement an idea they
believed in. In this case, scientists can willingly or unwittingly
give wishful thinking. Such self-deception is especially possible in
the case of creating a quantum computer, since the definitions of
quantum supremacy, and the quantum computer itself, are extremely
vague. I should clarify that I am proving the impossibility of a
quantum computer based on the EPR (Einstein - Podolsky – Rosen)
correlation. I am proving that such a quantum computer can be possible
only in defiance of logic and mathematics.

[1] D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality. The Penguin Press, 1997.
[2] Karl Raimund Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of
Scientific Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
[3] J. Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses. W. W. Norton and
Company, 1994.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexey

I think that the reviewer makes extremely sensible remarks.

Suppose someone invented aeroplanes by using some absolutely stupid theory. Suppose that the aeroplanes flew and that people travelled in them. We would not say that that is impossible because the theory is wrong. We would look for a new theory which helped us to understand how they flew.

You say that debate about Bell inequalities does not make sense because people are using a stupid theory. It’s about time you came up with a good physical theory which explained the results of the latest experiments. Instead you come up with excuses for why you are not going to learn about the latest experiments.

I wrote out some notes for you showing how how to obtain the EPR-B correlations without any assumption whatsoever of a collapse. I asked you to read them and criticise them. But you just don’t do it.

It does not surprise me that you have difficulty getting your work published!

All the same, I wish you good luck in the future.

Richard

> <QuantumRegisterEPJD.pdf>

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You contradict yourself. I said that debate about Bell's inequalities
do not make sense according to a purely instrumentalist view. You
understood it so that I “say that debate about Bell inequalities does
not make sense because people are using a stupid theory”. The reviewer
belongs to the people using the stupid theory, i.e. following a purely
instrumentalist view. On the other hand you “think that the reviewer
makes extremely sensible remarks”. Thus, according to your opinion the
reviewer makes extremely sensible remarks using the stupid theory.

I wrote you already the rejection of realism by the creators of
quantum mechanics and and all the more so the desire of you and other
modern authors to refute realism testifies testifies to the
unjustified arrogance of modern scientists that has led to the
degradation of physical thinking. You and other refuters of realism do
not want to understand that the inability of our reason to describe
realistically some observed phenomena, for example the Stern-Gerlach
effect or the violation of Bell’s inequalities, indicates only the
inability of our reason, and not the absence of reality. Nevertheless
you keep repeating that I must invent “a good physical theory which
explains the results of the latest experiments”.

The violation of Bell’s inequalities cannot be explained without
explaining the Stern-Gerlach effect. I, like Bell and unlike you and
most authors of publications about Bell’s inequalities, understand
that no theory can explain the Stern-Gerlach effect and I am not sure
that this effect can be explained in principle. I draw your attention
that the reviewer, who makes extremely sensible remarks according to
your opinion, follows a purely instrumentalist view since he, like
David Deutsch and Karl Popper and unlike you and most people,
understands that quantum mechanics does not explain experimental
results but only predicts the outcomes of experiments. The
instrumentalist view is misleading first of all because not only you
and most people but even the instrumentalists themselves do not follow
this point of view.

Your claim that the EPR correlations can be without a non-local
collapse indicates that you do not understand what the EPR correlation
is and your notes “Standard quantum mechanics needs no collapse” has
nothing to do with quantum mechanics and indicates a misunderstanding
of quantum mechanics. You obviously don't know, although I have tried
to explain this to you several times, why Dirac in 1930 and von
Neumann in 1932 postulated collapse. You also obviously don't know how
such an absurd concept as the EPR correlation appeared. Dirac and von
Neumann had to postulate collapse because quantum mechanics would
predict an obvious absurdity, the possibility of seeing one particle
in several places at once, without this postulate about an
instantaneous and nonlocal change in the quantum state during
observation. Your illusion that quantum mechanics needs no collapse
could have appeared only because you know quantum mechanics only from
textbooks whose authors did not like to write about collapse, since
the postulate about an instantaneous and non-local change in the
quantum state undermines faith in quantum mechanics.

To understand the sense of the EPR correlation, you need to know the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Bohr complementarity
principle are based on the postulate about collapse. Einstein was the
first to draw attention to the logical necessity of collapse back in
1927. But Einstein was sure that the collapse only of the measured
particle can be thinkable and that the quantum state of any other
particle cannot change at this measurement. Einstein with Podolsky and
Rosen have refuted the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Bohr
complementarity principle on the basis of this confidence. The only
way to refute the arguments of the EPR was to claim a non-local
collapse, i.e. the change in the quantum state of particle B because
of measurement of particle A. Bohr used just this absurd claim in his
response [2] to the EPR [1]. Bell wrote about this absurd claim of
Bohr in Appendix 1 - The position of Bohr of his “Bertlmann’s socks”
[3].

The faith in quantum mechanics was so blind already at that time that
most physicists, in contrast to Bell, have believed Bohr's absurd
claim, and not the logical arguments of the EPR. Over time, the blind
faith and the regression in the understanding of most physicists only
increased. The delusion has become catastrophic because of the
popularity of Bell's inequalities and quantum information. Many
authors of publications about Bell's inequalities and quantum
information do not know quantum mechanics. It is rather funny that the
non-local collapse postulated by Bohr was called EPR correlation. Even
more funny is your claim that EPR correlation is possible without EPR
correlation.

[1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).
[2] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
[3] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,
Alexey

сб, 11 июн. 2022 г. в 13:51, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexey

I wrote “a stupid theory” to stand, in a joking way, for “a purely instrumentalist view”. Obviously, I never contradict myself. (You often do!) :-)

I don’t think that a purely instrumentalist view is stupid.

You do, it seems.

I think that the reviewer’s criticism was sound and sensible.

Richard

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey, 

That is a great review. You are very lucky that a respected scientist has read your paper and commented on it in detail. He even offers a route to getting it accepted.

I would not jump to the conclusion that the reviewer is an instrumentalist, only that they understand that approach.

Classical probability functions have non local colapse so I don't think that can be a criticism of qm.

Not surprising that adding to QM an extra assumption that the wavefunction is not just a probability function causes problems. Otherwise everyone would take that view.

Good luck 

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

Indeed, the Reviewer of my manuscript “Quantum register cannot be
real” understands the problems of quantum computation and foundation
of quantum mechanics much better than most people, for example then
most authors of books about quantum computation, [1] and others. He
understands not only what the instrumentalist view is, but also that
the idea quantum computing is valid only according to this point of
view, for everyone who does not believe in the reality of Many
Universes, as David Deutsch trusts. I assume that the Reviewer
understands that quantum mechanics is valid only according to the
instrumentalist view.

But the Reviewer is not the only one who understands that the creators

of quantum mechanics followed an instrumentalist point of view. Karl

Popper wrote about this misconception of Heisenberg, Bohr and other
creators more than sixty years ago: “Nowadays, the understanding of
physical science put forward by Osiander, Cardinal Bellarmino and
Bishop Berkeley has won an unexpected victory without any resistance
from the other side. Without any further philosophical arguments,
without putting forward any new arguments, the instrumentalist point
of view suddenly became a universally recognized dogma. Today it can
well be called the "official point of view" of physical theory, since
it is recognized by most of today's leading theoretical physicists
(with the exception of Einstein and Schrodinger). This point of view
has even become part of modern physics education” [2].

Mass misconception about quantum mechanics, long-term heated debates
about Bell's inequalities and the popularity of the idea of quantum
computing became possible because of the peculiarity of modern physics
education: I do not know of any textbook on quantum mechanics in which
it would be clearly stated that the creators of this theory followed

the instrumentalist point of view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop

Berkeley. Therefore as Karl Popper wrote: “Very few physicists who now

recognize the instrumentalist point of view of Cardinal Bellarmino and
Bishop Berkeley realize that they accept some philosophical theory.
They also do not realize that they are breaking with the Galilean

tradition” [2].

The Reviewer and David Deutsch belong to few modern scientists who
understand the essence of instrumentalism. The understanding of the
Reviewer “This is the essence of instrumentalism, you don't ask

questions like "what is real" but you simply stick to the predictions

you can do” corresponds to the understanding of David Deutsch, see
Chapter 1 “The Theory of Everything” in the book [3]. But the attitude
of the Reviewer and David Deutsch to instrumentalism is the opposite.
Your admiration for the review can be explained by the fact that you
also follow the instrumentalist view. I do not share your admiration,
although the Reviewer's recognition of his misunderstanding is
respected. He does not seem to understand clearly enough that the
instrumentalist view differs from the realist view in what the theory
should describe, and not in how it describes it.

So he asks pointless questions: “It seems also that in quantum

mechanics you really need complex numbers: are complex numbers real?
Should we care about the reality of complex numbers? So, is Hilbert

space real or not?” It is strange that the Reviewer apparently does
not know that complex numbers in quantum mechanics appeared because
Schrodinger used them in his wave mechanics. Schrodinger followed the
realist view and his wave mechanics is an attempt, unfortunately
unsuccessful, to explain quantum phenomena, and not only to predict
the results of experiments. Quantum mechanics contradicts realism and
follows the instrumentalist view not because complex numbers are used
in this theory, but because of Born's proposal to consider the
Schrodinger wave function as a description of the amplitude of the
observation probability.

There can be no doubt that the Reviewer is an instrumentalist.
Firstly, he writes about this himself. Moreover he writes that “The

majority of physicists working in quantum mechanics are

instrumentalists”. Secondly, he ignored the arguments of David
Deutsch, I quote in my manuscript, that a quantum computer is possible
only in the reality of Many Universes since these arguments contradict
his instrumentalist view. Philosophical arguments such as "a qubit

cannot exist because its existence is based on the refutation of

realism" cannot be valid arguments only for instrumentalists. But the
Reviewer ignored not only the philosophical argument, but also my
logical argument and mathematical argument against a possibility of
quantum register which must not be ignored even by instrumentalists.

My logical argument reveals that the instrumentalist view is
misleading. The idea of a quantum computer is connected with the
remark made by Richard Feynman and Yuri Manin forty years ago that the
complexity of computing quantum systems increases exponentially with
the number of elements. Feynman and Manin have not understood that the
exponential increase of the complexity takes place not because the
system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is

calculated. My mathematical argument is based on the mathematical fact

that the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system can be

applied only to non-entangled spin states. These arguments cannot be
refuted. Therefore, the Reviewer ignored them. Or do you disagree with
this and can refute the logical argument and the mathematical
argument?

You have written several times: “Classical probability functions have
non local collapse so I don't think that can be a criticism of qm”.
What do you mean by the classical probability function? If you are
referring to the description of the observer's knowledge about the
probability of the results of the upcoming observation, then there is
nothing strange about the collapse of the observer's knowledge during
observation. Heisenberg was justifying the postulate of the jump in
quantum mechanics by a discontinuous change in our knowledge: ”Since
through 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” [4].

But if quantum mechanics described only the knowledge of the observer,
then this theory should be attributed to psychology rather than
physics. Quantum mechanics is an absurd theory precisely because its
creators have entangled physics with psychology. Dirac had to
postulate the jump and von Neumann had to postulate the collapse of a
quantum state of the observed system rather than of our knowledge
during the observation since the wave function describes a real
quantum state between observations.

[1] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information. Cambridge University Press, (2000)

[2] Karl Raimund Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of
Scientific Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.

[3] D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality. The Penguin Press, 1997.
[4] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin Edition, 1959.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 14 июн. 2022 г. в 19:18, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey,

I'm not sure that you can recognise an instrumentalist. I'm not one. I believe in a deeper theory that describes an underlying reality. I'm trying to develop it. What I know as a fact is that QM does predict the probabilistic outcomes of experiments. 

The different views of QM don't affect the predictions about anything, not quantum computers nor atomic spectroscopy. MWI does not make any different predictions. That's why they are called interpretations. 

If you think there is an experiment that distinguishes different interpretations, that's exciting. Write it up in an unemotional technical way and submit for publication. It's not necessarily impossible ( non equilibrium states in Bohms theory was an example) 

I've read some of  David Deutches work. I don't take him very seriously. More poetic than science in my opinion. If something he claims is important for your work, then make sure that you can substantiate it. Quoting him does not count for much. 

Cheers

Mark

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey,

You say "knowledge of the observer,

then this theory should be attributed to psychology rather than
physics"

I don't agree with that. Probabilistic theories are useful, consider a dice throw for example. And for QM at the moment it is all we have to predict results... Which it does very well. 

The probabilities, "knowledge as you say" changes with interaction with the environment not necessarily a human observer. 

Cheers

Mark

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey, 

Schoedinger equation is useless without the Born rule or equivalently the eigenvalue assumption. And it also requires normalisation of the wavefunction as a separate assumption. I'd say that's because it is a probability function. 

Atomic states are solutions of SE, but so is any linear combination. So without those extra assumptions it can't explain atomic spectra. Or indeed anything else. 

Arguably, the Born rule is the essence of QM and the distinguishing feature of the quantum world. It implies a whole new, and contrary, definition of probability. Something which ought to be challenged more often. I certainly believe that eventually the Born rule will be derived from classical probabilities when a mechanism for context dependence is added. For now it's just an odd rule that works! 

Cheers

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

I can easily recognise that you are an instrumentalist at least by
your claim “The different views of QM don't affect the predictions

about anything, not quantum computers nor atomic spectroscopy. MWI
does not make any different predictions. That's why they are called

interpretations”. This claim reveals that only predictions are
important according to your instrumentalist view. You don't take David
Deutsch very seriously since you, as any instrumentalist, cannot
understand him. David Deutsch, in contrast to most modern scientists,
can think logically. He not only proposed the idea of quantum
computing but also has proved logically that a quantum computer is
possible only in the reality of Many Universes. Only the
instrumentalists can disagree with Deutsch’s logic. Most believers in
quantum mechanics, like you, do not realize that they recognize the
instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley.

Your claim “Schoedinger equation is useless without the Born rule or
equivalently the eigenvalue assumption” cannot be correct. You don't
seem to know that eigenstates and eigenvalues are derived from the
Schrodinger wave mechanics without the Born rule. You obviously don't
know also that most quantum phenomena are described without the Born
rule, in the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by
Schrodinger see my unpublished chapter “The quantum mechanics is a
non-universal theory. The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic
Born's interpretation of the wave function”, available at arXiv:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4760 .

Your opinion “Arguably, the Born rule is the essence of QM and the
distinguishing feature of the quantum world” indicates that you do not
understand what QM describes. QM, according to the Born rule,
describes results of observation rather than the quantum world. Bohr
stated that no quantum world exists. QM is a trick rather than a
physical theory, precisely because of the Born rule. The degradation
of physical thinking began with the fact that only a few, Schrodinger,
Einstein, Eddington and a few others were able to understand that
Born's proposal was a trick. Eddington said that it is a very good
trick. I think that it is funny rather than a very good trick.

The trick is obvious: We cannot think that a real density can change
due to the observation whereas we know from our everyday experience
that the probability of observation changes at first observation.
Therefore most people rejected the realistic interpretation of the
wave function proposed by Schrodinger and agreed with the positivistic
interpretation proposed by Born. Most people did not take into account
that the probability to observe results of upcoming observations
belong to our knowledge and changes in the mind of the observer
because of observation. Let's consider a dice throw for example. You
know before you observation, that six can fall out with a probability
of 1/6. And the probability will become 1 or 0 after your observation.

It is funny that not only you but also most people cannot understand
that quantum mechanics describes our knowledge according to Born’s
proposal. Schrodinger understood this obvious logical fact. Therefore
he defined the EPR correlation as entanglement of our knowledge:
”Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include
total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully
separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each
other at all”.

I considered a simple example of entanglement of our knowledge in the
preprint “Logical proof of the absurdity of the EPR correlation” see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation
. The difference between our knowledge about the observations of the
‘classical’ and quantum systems is as follows: in the first case, we
can think that a color of a ball (or Bertlmann’s sock) existed before
observation, while in the second case we must think that the
observer's consciousness creates color during observation.

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 15 июн. 2022 г. в 14:22, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey,

Please treat me with more respect. I'll answer comments below 

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022, 17:00 Алексей Никулов, <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mark,

I can easily recognise that you are an instrumentalist at least by
your claim “The different views of QM don't affect the predictions
about anything, not quantum computers nor atomic spectroscopy. MWI
does not make any different predictions. That's why they are called
interpretations”. This claim reveals that only predictions are
important according to your instrumentalist view.

******

Simply not true about what I think. The instrumentalist view is so deficient that I have devoted my entire academic career to replacing it. And the instrumentalist view promoted me to give poplar talks " Quantum theory is the worst scuentific theory of all time" 

***'' '

You don't take David
Deutsch very seriously since you, as any instrumentalist, cannot
understand him. David Deutsch, in contrast to most modern scientists,
can think logically. He not only proposed the idea of quantum
computing but also has proved logically that a quantum computer is
possible only in the reality of Many Universes.

****'' 

I've read those arguments. I was not impressed. Quantum computing is predicted by the QM without needing any interpretation beyond the simple instrumentalist view. If you find MWI gives you extra insight, that's fine with me ( I flip between different interpretations myself) but do be aware of the limitations. All interpretations have serious adverse implications... Including the instrumentalist view of course. 

*******

Only the
instrumentalists can disagree with Deutsch’s logic. Most believers in
quantum mechanics, like you, do not realize that they recognize the
instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley.

Your claim “Schoedinger equation is useless without the Born rule or
equivalently the eigenvalue assumption” cannot be correct. You don't
seem to know that eigenstates and eigenvalues are derived from the
Schrodinger wave mechanics without the Born rule. You obviously don't
know also that most quantum phenomena are described without the Born
rule

****'*

Please don't be rude. Schoedinger equation cannot predict the energy levels in an atom ( one if its greatest achievements) without the extra assumptions of normalisation and that solutions  ( as seen in spectroscopy) must  be eigenstates of the Energy operator with observables given by eigen values. That is mathematically equivalent to the Born rules for extracting probabilities from wavefunctions. Each one can be derived from the other. 

*******

se

in the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by
Schrodinger see my unpublished chapter “The quantum mechanics is a
non-universal theory. The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic
Born's interpretation of the wave function”, available at arXiv:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4760 .

Your opinion “Arguably, the Born rule is the essence of QM and the
distinguishing feature of the quantum world” indicates that you do not
understand what QM describes. QM, according to the Born rule,
describes results of observation rather than the quantum world.

*****

It describes the probabilistic observations of the quantum world. 

******

Ut

Bohr
stated that no quantum world exists.

****

I don't agree with him. 

******

QM is a trick rather than a
physical theory, precisely because of the Born rule.

****

Not really a trick. A very useful tool, that hides the real physics and discourages further I investigation and insight

******

*****

We don't need consciousness just interaction with a complicated environment. 

******

*****

I think we both hate the instrumentalist view. Where we may differ is that I have not seen anything much better ( although I quite like the Bohm pilot wave theory). I also consider QM to be correct in its predictions. And I'm conscious that anything better than the instrumentalist view needs to be consistent with QM. 

Cheers

Mark

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Alexey writes long emails that I do not have enough time to explore all things said in detail. Many of his statements indicate conceptual differences with respect to other researchers. He derives conclusions based on his concepts that may, at least, be disputable.

For example, “… a quantum register is impossible”, or “…The advantage of a quantum
computer is in irreconcilable contradiction with its reality according to logic and mathematics …”

His concept of reality seems to be involved in his arguments and may collide with other views. 

Is it possible to extract some of these central disputable ideas?

It may help some readers (myself included) if he could state in a c-o-n-c-i-s-e way, without citing other sources, his general views on:

[1]   What is ‘his concept of reality’

[2]   What is a classical record of an experiment?

[3]   What is a “quantum experiment”?

[4]   What is a record of a “quantum experiment”?

[5]   Why, in his view, a quantum register is impossible?

[6]   What is a measurement device?

[7]   What represents a “quantum wave function”?

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: Geraldo...@gmail.com

Skype: geraldo.a.barbosa

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

--
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/CAKiL4iKP3uU3yXcJMS_tHZa0vGOkkL3evVSk_uXdAGNm-y47bQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Geraldo,

There are at least three arguments that challenge the almost universal
belief in the possibility of a quantum computer: philosophical,
logical and mathematical. To understand the sense of the philosophical
argument, one should know, as Karl Popper knew, that Heisenberg, Bohr
and other creators of quantum mechanics broke with the Galilean
tradition and followed the instrumentalist point of view of Cardinal
Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley. Speaking about breaking with the

Galilean tradition, Popper meant that according to the instrumentalist
point of view no difference was between the Ptolemaic system and the
Copernican system in the time of Galileo, since both systems
successfully described the results of observations known in that time.
The reason for the conflict with the Catholic Church was Galileo's
assertion that the Copernican system is not just a more convenient
instrument for describing the results of observations, but is a
description of reality.

The philosophical argument is that a device, for example a quantum
computer, can be built on the basis of a theory explaining the results
of the experiment as a manifestation of reality, and not on the basis
of a theory only predicting the results of the experiment. This
argument is being defended in Chapter 1 “The Theory of Everything” of
the book “The Fabric of Reality” [1] written by David Deutsch, “The
Father of Quantum Computing”, see

https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/?currentPage=all
. David Deutsch argued in the Chapter "Quantum computers" of the book
[1] that a quantum computer is possible only in the reality of Many

Universes. I agree with Deutsch that a quantum computer is possible
only in the reality of Many Universes, but I, in contrast to Deutsch,
cannot believe in the reality of Many Universes. Therefore the
philosophical argument for me is the argument against the possibility
of a quantum computer.

The philosophical argument is not an argument for the supporters of
the instrumentalist view of Cardinal Bellarmino and Bishop Berkeley.
The Reviewer of my manuscript “Quantum register cannot be real” wrote
in his comments that “The majority of physicists working in quantum
mechanics are instrumentalists”. He is also an instrumentalist.
Therefore he did not recommend publishing my manuscript. According to
his instrumentalist view, the possibility of quantum register cannot
be refuted on the basis of purely philosophical arguments such as "a

qubit cannot exist because its existence is based on the refutation of

realism". But this Reviewer ignored my logical argument and
mathematical argument, which do not depend on a philosophical point of
view.

Although my logical argument reveals that the instrumentalist view is
misleading. The idea of a quantum computer is connect with the remark

made by Richard Feynman and Yuri Manin forty years ago that the
complexity of computing quantum systems increases exponentially with
the number of elements. Feynman and Manin have not understood that the
exponential increase of the complexity takes place not because the
system is quantum, but because the probability of observation is

calculated. The mathematical expression for a quantum register cannot

depend on what is observed: the projections of spin 1/2, balls of two
colors, or Schrodinger’s cats. The results of the observation of both
the projections of spin 1/2 and Schrodinger’s cats have two
possibilities: spin up or spin down; a live cat or a dead cat. A
purely instrumentalist view cannot say what the quantum register
describes: the probabilities of one of the two possible results of
observing the projections of spin 1/2 or Schrodinger’s cats.
Therefore, if a quantum register can be made from particles with spin
1/2, then it can also be made from Schrodinger’s cats, according to
the instrumentalist view.

My mathematical argument is based on the mathematical fact that the
operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system can be applied

only to non-entangled spin states. Imagine that a quantum register
consists of particles with spin 1/2 as quantum bits (qubits). A
quantum computer must calculate the probabilities of one of two
possible results of observations of each qubit, spin up or spin down.
These probabilities depend on a direction in which spin projections
are measured. This dependence can be determined uniquely with the help
of the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system. We can
measure spin projections in different directions of both non-entangled
and entangled qubits. But the results of measuring probabilities can
make sense only in the first case, since the operators of finite
rotations of the coordinate system are not applicable to entangled
spin states. A quantum computer can have the advantage only if qubits
are entangled in a quantum register. Therefore I conclude that the

advantage of a quantum computer is in irreconcilable contradiction
with its reality according to logic and mathematics.

My concept of reality coincides with Einstein's concept of reality and
European philosophy: reality exists outside and independently of our
consciousness, as the cause of the phenomena we observe. Realism
states that the moon exists when we don't see it.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about classical and quantum
experiment. This is an invention of the creators of quantum mechanics,
which is only misleading. Any experiment or any observation is
something without which our empirical knowledge is impossible.

A measuring device in quantum mechanics is also an invention of its
creators, who falsely substituted ‘observation’ for ‘measurement’,
which misled several generations of physicists. Bell's inequalities
are one of the consequences of this false substitution.

A quantum register is impossible for at least three reasons,
philosophical, logical and mathematical.

A “quantum wave function” describes the change in the observer's
knowledge and the influence of this knowledge on the state of the
quantum system during observation, during Process 1 according to von
Neumann, and the real change in time of the quantum state between
observations, during Process 2.

[1] D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality. The Penguin Press, 1997.

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 16 июн. 2022 г. в 17:10, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Alexey,

TKS for your answer.

Geraldo

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: Geraldo...@gmail.com

Skype: geraldo.a.barbosa

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

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexey

I liked your long answer to Geraldo.

It makes clear to me how we disagree on various points.

You say “a quantum computer must calculate the probabilities…”. I disagree. A quantum computer must *realise* random samples with those probabilities. That is something different. Statistical computations come in here. Just saying “must calculate the probabilities” is an over-simplification. You need to study the theory in depth before raising this as an issue.

Next you say, without justification “the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system are not applicable to entangled spin states”. I disagree, and I’ve explained why I think you are wrong.

Now, there do exist serious arguments why quantum computing is a Fata Morgana. Gil Kalai has developed these arguments very far. Essentially he says that as we scale up in terms of numbers of qubits, noise will scale up faster. I don’t know if he is right or wrong but he is more persuasive than you because he does know the theory very well, he knows the maths, he does not hide behind fancy philosophical principles (which in my opinion are just word games).

I have no respect for Deutsch’s ideas, as far as I have studied them. I don’t think issues of what we think is real are important. If a theory makes predictions, and the predictions work, then you can start building machines using those predictions. The story of Popper and Galileo is incomplete. The difference between the heliocentric theory and the Ptolemaic theory was in the number of parameters needed to make their predictions, and the complexity of the theories. Mathematical simplicity won the day. Newton’s theory went a step further. Ellipses are more complicated than circles but the parameters of the ellipses had their own laws, so that finally much fewer parameters were needed *and* the whole model was much more accurate.

I don’t think that the question of whether probabilities are subjective or objective is important.

I think we should agree that outcomes of experiments are real. What else is real, is not terribly relevant to whether or not a quantum computer will exist, and will work. I’m waiting to see if a product of two very large primes can be factored.

The loophole-free Bell experiments are also a fact (the data they generated are facts, and the descriptions of the experimental protocols are facts). What is your opinion about those experiments? Do you think they were a waste of time and resources?

Richard



Sent from my iPad

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Yes, we disagree on various points. To your question about the
loophole-free Bell's experiments, I can answer absolutely
unequivocally: I think these experiments were a waste of time and
resources. I believe that Bell’s no-go theorem is no better than von
Neumann's no-go theorem.

As far as I understand, you are supporter of the instrumentalist view.
But we have a disagreement that cannot be determined by the difference
in our philosophical points of view. You wrote: “Next you say, without

justification “the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate
system are not applicable to entangled spin states”. I disagree, and

I’ve explained why I think you are wrong”. When and how have you
explained that I am wrong?

I prove that the inapplicability of the rotation operators to
entangled spin states follows from the mathematical definition of
entangled states, see section 5. THE OPERATORS OF FINITE ROTATIONS OF
COORDINATE SYSTEM CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ENTANGLED SPIN STATES of my
manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”.

If you are sure that the rotation operators are applicable to
entangled spin states, then tell me how the expression for the EPR
pair

EPR+ = (1/2)^{1/2}|A+B-> + (1/2)^{1/2}|A-B+> (1)

will change when the coordinate system rotates around the y-axis by an
angle and what sense the new expression may have. D.M. Greenberger,
M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger demonstrated in Appendix A of
[1] that the EPR state

EPR- = (1/2)^{1/2}|A+B-> - (1/2)^{1/2}|A-B+> (2)

is not changed with rotating the coordinate system. But this entangled
spin state is probably the only one that does not change when the
coordinate system is rotated.

[1] 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

пт, 17 июн. 2022 г. в 14:54, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>: