Re: Local Hidden Variables

[Richard Gill]

Der Bryan

Your problem is that a whole lot of very patient and highly qualified people have kindly taken a lot of time to go through your work but are forced to conclude that it makes no sense.

Certainly, there are some very simple but fundamental mistakes. I suppose that you want to explain experimental violation of Bell inequalities in present day "loophole-free" Bell experiments by assuming quantum mechanics but without entanglement of distant physical systems. Sorry: quantum mechanics says that this certainly cannot be done. Tsirelson’s theorem says that (within QM) the *only* way to get that negative cosine is with quantum entanglement , the singlet state, and the classical sets of two pairs of measurements of Alice and Bob (more precisely: the only way, modulo equivalence under local unitary transformation). 

Please let us know what Tsirelson got wrong.  What assumption of his do you disagree with? One of his key background assumptions is that the measurement outcomes are binary; and a key feature of good Bell experiments is that the experimenters compute empirical correlations between binary measurement outcomes.

I think that it is very clear that your work has little relation to actual experiments, and that it contradicts existing quantum mechanics. I honestly don’t see it catching on, because I think that what I say is pretty obvious to everyone working in the field.

Richard

On 23 May 2023, at 13:53, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

 The problem is my result is a bit complicated and requires new ideas.  I suggest that if anyone takes the time to go through it, then they will realize what I have done makes physical and conceptual sense.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard,

Tsirelson assumed the state is a singlet state which he and everyone it seems thinks that is the way Nature is, and that gives his limit of 2 root 2.  I show that the singlet state is an approximation and misses correlation.  If you use my product state, you get CHSH = 3.  Entanglement is a very good property of QM because it simplifies calculations.  The price you pay is missing correlation.  

49:56 Separation of the singlet with Q-spins. 51:44 Lost correlation from the singlet state. 52:55 The eight ways an EPR pair can separate. 53:08 Forming Hermitian EPR pairs with opposite helicity. 53:46 THE MISSING CORRELATION IN THE SINGLET STATE.

What you all are saying is that there is no way to agree with experiment other than maintaining the singlet over spacetime. I say how?, the answer by you all is non-locality persists. That makes no sense and no one has explained it other than by revelation and weirdness. If you get a nonsense result, then it is probably wrong.

See separation of Bell states attached.

In my second recent paper, I express the Conservation of Geometric correlation. What you start with is what you get when EPR pairs separate. So if you start with a singlet, as Tsirelson  does, then you cannot get more than the 2root2 you started with. 

I only have binary product outcomes.  You and everyone have binary entangled outcomes.  The former makes sense, the latter is quantum weirdness.

You may have gone through my papers, but you have not grasped the meaning, whereas I am clear what Bell did, but not clear on the ad nauseum contracting semantics Bellists engage in.  The confusion belies the basic problems with Bell.  Do not reply and say everything is clear and the confusion is mine, because I will reply with a long list of contradictory statements you and others have made.  Like Jan-Ank saying there is no non-locality in Bennett et al and then turns around and shows that is exactly what he uses in his work; or like you saying Bell has nothing to do with QM and then saying later to me, and many others, it does.  You have a naive idea of the meaning of locality (Filters that are independent of each other is a consequence of Einstein locality unless the filters are nanometers apart), you do not understand complementarity, and you cannot extend Bell to two complementary attributes.  I'll stioi there.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

No he didn’t

Try again

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 May 2023, at 17:21, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



<03-0705.3657 .pdf>

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, a hint from a mathematician. Necessary conditions versus sufficient conditions. Take a better look at Tsirelson’s actual paper or papers. They are tough but rewarding. He was a very, very great mathematician and a wonderful man.


About the bet. There is a difference between saying to the world “I bet such and such”, and what maybe should be called a wager. In a wager, two parties agree that if such and such happens, then  A will pay B an amount y, otherwise B will pay A an amount z. In our case, y = z = 5000 Euro (your idea, but mine) and the event we are betting on is that a majority of our peers embrace your ideas before coming New Year (your idea, not mine). I have witnesses! I said at the time this was like take candy from a baby but you laughed at me.

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 May 2023, at 17:21, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

Apologies if I misread your papers. Please tell me which of the three papers and which equation was a BI calculation.

And please, tell me where you think BI used any assumption about complementarity. 

--
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/CALLw9YyaTZtwzxuXQZCK%3Dkvsn184AyevsvG-qN-H7W6-qHyWqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, Are you dyslectic??? I see you wrote “Jan-Ank“ yet again. I know it is difficult to write “Åke”, but surely not so difficult. 

In deriving BI, Bell is assuming classicality in a sense which Einstein would have agreed on. After all, Bell’s famous paper is about the EPR argument. Bell does not “use” complementarity. Nor does he “take account of it”, because it is irrelevant to his argument. You cannot “extend” Bell to take account of complementarity.

If you are happy with QM (including entanglement-at-a-distance) you can forget Bell.

Tsirelson does not “start” with the singlet. He ends with it!

You have problems everywhere with the directions of implications. A => B is not the same as B => A.

Exercise: what is the negation of:

   “If A, then B => C”

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 May 2023, at 17:21, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I agree. Tsirelson assumed no such thing.
/Jan-Åke

--

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/B5125F47-5BD9-42A9-9606-771AE0286E60%40gmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

Tsirelson proved the state had to be the singlet state in order to attain 2 sqrt 2. He assumed QM.

He also proved that that was the best possible under QM.

Marcin Pawłowski assumed less, he assumed an intuitive principle from information theory called information causality, and showed that 2 sqrt 2 could not be exceeded. He’s a brilliant young man (I call everyone below 50 a young man).

So you are contradicting Tsirelson and you are contradicting Pawłowski. You are either a genius, or just badly mistaken.

Richard

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Mark

See the regerences in my last email. The third paper. Decoupling of a spin of 1 is responsible for the violation.

Bell made no assumption about complementarity .

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Mark, there is no need to spend any more time on this.
Bryan is double counting. He claims 1+1=1

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzynvSUyMZyahR37bykn86KJpThVqFtPVcuSD%3DFaRpxOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

So you now agree thst you have Not given a BIequation in your papers.

And that complementarity dies not get round BI assumptions.

Cheers

Mark