Wait-a-second Bob!

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi All

"If Alice is up then Bob is instantly down" or so says Bell's theorem that requires non-local collapse over spacetime.  

Used throughout Quantum Information Theory, non-local collapse is shown here to be untenable when the details of the reduction are followed. 

Hence we reject non-local collapse and Bell's Theorem upon which it rests.

Wait-a-second Bob!

 

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

No. Bell’s theorem doesn’t say this.

The conventional quantum mechanics calculation (which does not assume that wave functions collapse: it just assumes the Born law) says that if Alice measures her spin in the vertical direction and finds it to be “up”, then, if moreover Bob measures his spin in the same direction, he will find it down.

Would you like me to do this calculation for you using the usual formulas?

They tell us:

If Alice and Bob both measure in the vertical direction they will see (up, down) or (down, up) with equal probabilities

Hence Prob Bob sees “down” given Alice sees “up” = 100%

This is not surprising at all. Bell’s theorem does not say anything about on-local collapse over spacetime

Maybe we should stop thinking of wave functions as being real physical objects located in space time.

  <Fig 1.png>

Bryan

--
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/b9612d65-7810-4e6e-b75e-6af069ba751en%40googlegroups.com.
<Fig 1.png>

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I have been trying to tell Bryan this for some time now.

The difficulty occurs only if you think of the wave function as a real physical object.

(I do not)

[Mark Hadley]

Non local collapse of a probability function is not unusual. Quite normal in classical physics. Think about the shoe box example. Or the throw of a dart. 

What us it that bothers you about it? 

--

[Mark Hadley]

"Maybe we should stop thinking of wave functions as being real physical objects located in space time." 

It's a probability function defined on configuration space. For a single particle it is isomorphic to real spacetime, but that's a misleading example. 

Once you add other properties or meaning to a wavefunction, that's an interpretation all of which run into difficulties. 

O

[Richard Gill]

There is a further opportunity for confusion in that a state vector is merely an arbitrary representative of an equivalence class. One can multiply the singlet state vector |Psi> by an arbitrary complex number of absolute value 1, and it doesn’t change any predictions of QM

It is not true that the vector ( | n + >  | n - >  -  | n - > | n + > ) / sqrt 2 is independent of the 3-D unit length real vector n. I believe that as you change “n”, a global phase comes up. It would be nice to see a careful calculation demonstrating this fact.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c4178e58a65dfa9e94ad6bc4936c09492b7b1994.camel%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tis, 2022-05-17 at 15:01 +0200, Richard Gill wrote:

There is a further opportunity for confusion in that a state vector is merely an arbitrary representative of an equivalence class. One can multiply the singlet state vector |Psi> by an arbitrary complex number of absolute value 1, and it doesn’t change any predictions of QM

One freedom in the equivalence class is the phase freedom of the joint state. Another is the basis directions in each subspace. A third is the phase freedom of the corresponding basis vectors. Which can be different between the two spaces.

It is not true that the vector ( | n + >  | n - >  -  | n - > | n + > ) / sqrt 2 is independent of the 3-D unit length real vector n. I believe that as you change “n”, a global phase comes up. It would be nice to see a careful calculation demonstrating this fact.

Note that also the individual kets |n+> and |n-> possess a free phase which can be different in the two component spaces.

Better to write the (pure) state as a (rank-1) projector, then the phase completely drops from view.

This only generates confusion, in my experience.

Best
Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard

All your posts are disingenuous and couched in negative and derogatory language. I have no interest in discussing with you as I mentioned.  Comment what you will, calculate what you will.  If you disagree, then blame Goldberger et al. I just follow them and your  "if moreover Bob measures his spin in the same direction, he will find it down" is incorrect, and that is a collapse is it not?  You missed the points and leaped to these conclusions within 15 minutes of my posting.  You are a quick reader!!!

Conventional qm is what I am doing, and once again you, like Jan Ank, obfuscate to detract from what is actually said.  Jan Ank admonished me to pay attention to his local theory and then immediately discredits himself by using non-local collapse.  You, which generates astonishment me, claim that Bell's Inequalities have nothing to do with quantum mechanics!!  Inane!  Likewise you are now saying that wave function collapse does not happen!!!  Where do you live!!  Read the 1,000 of papers.  Read Greenberger et al.  

You do with me what you do with others, like Joy, like Han, like Karl.  You let no scruples stand in your way of your beloved Theorem.  You will do anything to discredit not only content but also character.  

Richard you are rapidly losing your credibility so I suggest you think before you blunder.

Bryan 

[Chantal Roth]

The issue is that this very *trivial* and completely *obvious* "collapse" of a probability function is used almost literally and interchangeably as if this had any actual physical meaning.

Knowledge about something has no impact on anything physical whatsoever (outside the brain I mean, obviously).

Just because I know a sock is red has no impact on the sock or any other sock - and this again seems obvious when we talk about socks.

Similarly, just because I know the photon is up does not actually impact any other photon anywhere else in the universe.

Yet it seems in QM it is often phrased as if there were.

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo3qFi1%3DBnkajXwRSYe_Ki7rm7vsNeepJBz%2BF9tHWftySA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan-Åke

Why don't you tell us something new?  Your criticisms below should be directed at Zeilinger whose paper I am following,  You do not like my equations, then take him to task and not me. NONE of those equations are mine.  Show me one that is.

They are from others so your criticisms prove my point,  How many battleships do you have?

Once again you do not read and get the wrong ideas.  By criticising that Wait a second paper you have once again fallen into the trap and discredited yourself.  By criticising me, you are criticizing Zeilinger and others who use the notions which is standard undergrad qm.  

I follow exactly the definitions and exactly the protocols that everyone uses and I end up with the wrong answer.  Non-local collapse is what you do throughout your work and it gives nonsense.

You have a dynamic view of qm which changes in response to my use of it.  "No it does not collapse, no it is not non-local, no there are no quantum channels, no everything you do is wrong., no there is no quantum weirness"  In truth, Jan-Åke your work is mostly based upon weirdness. and will go the way of the Dodo.

Really you too have lost credibility with your flip flopping like Alice and Bob's spins.

Bryan

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/7SIcHzLtaYE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f96b1f057222be429d6610c9798dd362c25a4c86.camel%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

The comments on the global phase were directed to Richard, I was just telling him that there is not much use in calculating the "global phase", I suspect he knows this already.

All the other things ... I have repeatedly tried to explain how quantum mechanics works, in some detail. 

You are attacking an outdated "explanation" that we now know how to avoid. No projection, no collapse.

Nonlocality only under the assumption of realism. The wave function isn't "real".

/JÅ

[Richard Gill]

People have been talking about the collapse as if it was something real for 100 years, I know.

And especially popularisers and amateurs talk about it all the time. But one does not need to imagine that some thing somewhere has suddenly changed. As Bell explained, when you saw his friend Reinhold’s left foot coming through the door, wearing a pink sock, you immediately knew that his right foot, a bit behind, would be wearing a blue sock. But of course, physically nothing had changed. Well - some photons from the pink sock did impinge on your retina and the signal was processed by your brain into some kind of representation of 3D objects in 3D space, using your past experience of the world including the past experience of your deep ancestors. Moreover, your own recent experience of your friend's past behaviour led you to suppose that yet again he would be wearing his two favourite socks.

It was the late 60s and both Reinhold and John were young revolutionaries.

On 17 May 2022, at 15:31, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

The issue is that this very *trivial* and completely *obvious* "collapse" of a probability function is used almost literally and interchangeably as if this had any actual physical meaning. 

Knowledge about something has no impact on anything physical whatsoever (outside the brain I mean, obviously).

Just because I know a sock is red has no impact on the sock or any other sock - and this again seems obvious when we talk about socks.

Similarly, just because I know the photon is up does not actually impact any other photon anywhere else in the universe.

Yet it seems in QM it is often phrased as if there were.

Best wishes,

Chantal

On Tue, May 17, 2022, at 2:51 PM, 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations wrote:

Non local collapse of a probability function is not unusual. Quite normal in classical physics. Think about the shoe box example. Or the throw of a dart. 

What us it that bothers you about it? 

On Tue, 17 May 2022, 13:36 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All

"If Alice is up then Bob is instantly down" or so says Bell's theorem that requires non-local collapse over spacetime.  

Used throughout Quantum Information Theory, non-local collapse is shown here to be untenable when the details of the reduction are followed. 

Hence we reject non-local collapse and Bell's Theorem upon which it rests.

Wait-a-second Bob!

  <Fig 1.png>

Bryan

-- 

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/b9612d65-7810-4e6e-b75e-6af069ba751en%40googlegroups.com.

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo3qFi1%3DBnkajXwRSYe_Ki7rm7vsNeepJBz%2BF9tHWftySA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/2ffc0dc2-5c9b-44ec-99a7-76f83b0d6a5c%40www.fastmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Jan-Åke,

Yes I know this generates confusion and it is better to look at the corresponding density matrix. If it has rank one it is a pure state and then it is a projector onto a 1-D subspace of your complex Hilbert space.

I mention the issue because I noticed that Mark Hadley had not realised this, and I’m also wondering if this confusion explains why our friend Alexei believes that GHZ and GHZS make obvious errors?

They do say things which from a pedantic mathematical point of view are incorrect. They do know how to say it correctly and most of us, I believe, know what they actually mean, but maybe some of us don't.

Richard

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Richard,

(your response went to the list too)

I must have missed that comment from Mark, I don't recall any such statements from him.

I think Alexei's confusion is different: from what I can deduce from what he writes, he claims that measurements represented by commuting operators must give uncorrelated outcomes. This is incorrect, but I don't think I could convince him otherwise, so I haven't tried.

Best

Jan-Åke

[Mark Hadley]

Yes, I was confused. ( well wrong actually) I asked Richard directly and he explained. I was thinking of an unpolarised beam not a singlet state. 

--
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/7f4d58d98ca81b5cbf0e0d3f2c962e176a73a9d9.camel%40liu.se.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You wrote: “The conventional quantum mechanics calculation (which does

not assume that wave functions collapse: it just assumes the Born

law)”. What you have written indicates your lack of understanding of
quantum mechanics. You must understand that quantum mechanics is
unthinkable without wave functions collapse or the Dirac jump. Jan-Ake
Larsson wrote: “The difficulty occurs only if you think of the wave
function as a real physical object”. But we can't think otherwise
since the wave function describes a real physical object between
observations.

I get the impression that many modern authors who refute local realism
with the help of Bell’s inequalities do not know that von Neumann
postulated in 1932 [1] that the quantum state changes in two
fundamental different ways: 1) Process 1 - the discontinuous change at
observation, i.e. wave functions collapse or the Dirac jump and 2)
Process 2 – the continuous, deterministic change of the state of an
isolated system in time between of observations, when the state is
considered as real.

Hugh Everett understood that because of the Process 1 ”No way is
evidently be applied the conventional formulation of QM to a system
that is not subject to external observation” and that ”The question
cannot be ruled out as lying in the domain of psychology” [2]. But no
psychology is in Process 2. Authors of most textbooks and especially
of books on quantum informatics do not know about two different
definitions of quantum state: subjective during Process 1 and
objective during Process 2. That's probably why Richard doesn't know
that quantum mechanics is unthinkable without wave functions collapse
and Jan-Ake Larsson doesn't know that the wave function describes a
real physical object between observations.

Quantum mechanics cannot predict the EPR correlation and violation of
Bell’s inequalities without subjective and objective definitions of
the quantum state. Moreover, the wave functions collapse postulated by
von Neumann in 1932 or the Dirac jump postulated by Dirac in 1930
cannot provide the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s
inequalities since it postulates the jump into eigenstate only the
measured particle. Therefore Bryan is quite right. Only non-local
collapse, postulated by Bohm, when Bob’s particle jumps into the
eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured by Alice
on her particle can provide the prediction by quantum mechanics the
EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities. The authors of
the GHZ theorem [3,4] made an obvious mistake since they did not
understand that quantum mechanics can contradict locality only in this
case of non-local collapse.

[1] J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik.
Berlin: Springer, 1932; Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
Princeton University Press, 1955.
[2] H. Everett, ’Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454-462 (1957)
[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
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 17 мая 2022 г. в 18:27, 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and
quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1cUw6a7kVkXH302sH41_Erznog4m%2BuNT3m-ap1-9sx1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

The so called collapse of the wavefunction is no different to the collapse of a classical probability function.

Actually a full treatment of measurement has three components

1) the wavefunction evolves according to schoedinger equation or similar

2) it interacts with the environment, which diagonalises the state operator. Effectively giving a classical probability function. It's called deciherence. In my opinion it solves the measurement problem. 

3) one of the possible choices happens in accordance with those classical probabilities. 

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,
I draw your attention on my unpublished article “Logical proof of the
absurdity of the EPR correlation” in which I popularly explain how the
collapse of the wave function is fundamentally different from the
collapse of the classical probability function: only knowledge of the
observer about the probability changes in the classical case whereas
the quantum state of the observed system is change or even created at
the observation in the quantum case, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation
.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 17 мая 2022 г. в 20:56, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Alexey

I appreciate you pointing these things out to Richard. I hope he listens to you.

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iKK0YGJmv%3D1FuV95qugZprkmHqMK6MLdLsWEEct8XPf0g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

It does not matter if the wavefunction is real or not:

The wavefunction is not used to calculate Bells inequalities. And the quantum predictions that violate the inequality can be evaluated without any assumptions about the reality or otherwise of the wavefunction.

It may be appealing to some people to ascribe it some reality, or other adjectives, but that makes no difference to the predictions so I'd call it an interpretation. And all interpretations have serious issues of one sort or another. 

On a related note:

For any argument, theory etc there are two important non trivial questions worth asking. 

1) is it falsifiable? 

2) Does it make new predictions?

If 1) is false, then I would not call it science. 

If 2) is false then we call it an interpretation rather than a new theory. 

In either case they can be interesting and maybe even valuable. But they are fundamental questions to ask. 

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Bryan and Alexei

Alexei says “but you can’t think otherwise, because the wave function describes a real physical object between interactions”. 

I do think otherwise, and so do many of us.

Bryan, you should listen to what Mark says!

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 May 2022, at 21:35, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

I also think otherwise (but isn't the name Alexey?)

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 May 2022 05:32:43
To: Bryan Sanctuary
Cc: Алексей Никулов; Jan-Åke Larsson; Mark Hadley; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Wait-a-second Bob!

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/A627483A-3A94-46B0-AF04-330A3252D526%40gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Most people think the same way as you and Mark, because there are
always more believers than those who understand. But I draw your
attention once again to the fact that blind faith in quantum
mechanics, instead of understanding, provoked obvious mathematical
mistakes made by the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2]. This blind
faith also provoked the illusion that a quantum computer can be real.

Mark expresses a misconception typical of many if not most modern
scientists who believe that a theory should describe not the reality
that is the cause of the observed phenomena, but only the results of
observations. This misconception was provoked by the success of
quantum mechanics and partly by Popper's falsifiability principle. It
must be admitted that quantum mechanics is in many ways a successful
theory. But blind faith in quantum mechanics because of its success
has led to the degradation of physical thinking.

Mark and most people do not understand, in contrast to Einstein, Bell
and few other critics, that the results of observations cannot be
described completely without a consideration of an action of an
observer or agent. They also do not understand that a real device – a
quantum computer can be created based on the description of a reality
rather than the results of observations since any real device must
function without the participation of the observer's mind. Mark and
most people do not understand also that a quantum register should work
in the real three dimensional space rather than in a multidimensional
Hilbert space. I draw attention once again to my report “Quantum
register cannot be real” in which I prove mathematically that a
quantum register cannot exist in the real three dimensional space, see
slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
.

This is perhaps the funniest and most grandiose mistake in practical
terms, which was made by most scientists, who, like Mark, are sure
that the theory should describe only the results of observations when
they have confused the real three dimensional space and a
multidimensional Hilbert space. Bryan and others should not listen to
what Mark says, so as not to follow his delusion.

[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,
Alexey

ср, 18 мая 2022 г. в 06:32, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexey

I repeat again: I am not a believer in quantum mechanics, or any other mathematical physical picture of the world. I am a mathematician and my specialisms are probability and statistics.

I believe that recent Bell-type experiments make it very difficult to believe in a classical physical picture of the world.

I find it interesting that the results of those experiments do seem to be well describable by conventional present day QM models. I don’t think that QM *explains* the results of those experiments.

Notice that I distinguish “describe” from “explain”.

I’m with Bell in finding QM “unthinkable”. One can merely get accustomed to the mathematics.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 May 2022, at 11:01, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

You mean, you are actually not attacking Bell, but rather that "the reality of the wave-function forces nonlocality through the projection postulate"?

But: von Neumann did not believe that the wave-function was "real". He has his own proof that this is impossible.

In the very same book. The proof hinges on assumptions that aren't true, so the proof does not work the way von Neumann wanted, but still:

John von Neumann did not believe that the wave-function was "real".

What Dirac thought I havent studied so close.

But attacking that "the reality of the wave-function forces nonlocality through the projection postulate" isn't worth the effort (and has nothing to do with Bell's theorem). We know how to avoid those problems nowadays.

/JÅ

[Mark Hadley]

What you say about me is incorrect and insulting.

QM needs an explanation. I've spent my life trying to find one. Simply calculating results of experiments with no underlying explanation is terrible. I've studied existing explanations and sought new ones.

But I know how to use qm, and I know the facts that need explaining. 

However there are no satisfactory explanations yet. Each has it's different problems, though many are still interesting. And there are many cranky theories which are incompatible with known facts. 

[Richard Gill]

I agree, Mark. Please everyone avoid making obviously insulting remarks about others.

People in this group should take the time to study what the others say carefully.

They should also realise that we come from different scientific backgrounds where there are different scientific cultures and different languages.

I know I am no angel myself. But as one of the two group managers I would like to mention:

(1) a lot of messages are being held up automatically in a “moderation queue” by Google’s AI systems, which seem to notice when people’s emotions run high. The AI classifies angry and emotional emails as spam. I get to see a list of them every time the queue has reached size 15. I then manually approve all 15. Just recently this has been happening almost every day 

(2) thoughtfully use the Reply button or the Reply-all button. Probably you just want to mail to the whole group; you don’t have to reply to the individual who last posted on a particular thread. Though in view of issue (1) you might want to add the email address of one or two persons whom you particularly want to address

(3) there is no need to include in your email a complete quoted copy of the previous email, when it contains a complete quoted copy of the previous email, when it contains … You could for instance just quote the sentences which you are particularly reacting to. There is no need to quote the whole discussion. Possibly the moderation queue is being fed by people whose emails contain copies of earlier emails of others in the group...

(4) feel free to start new topics. You all have permission to do so. This group is hardly moderated at all, we rely on your civilised behaviour and reasonable internet skills

Do ask me (or Alexander de Castro) if you have any problems with all this.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Mark.

I have seen your remarks earlier in this discussion, and I think that I agree with everything that you have said.

Could my recent paper in International Journal of Theoretical Physics 61, 69, posted here earlier, be a candidate for at least some of the explanation that you have been looking for?

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

18. mai 2022 kl. 15:00 skrev 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo38Uvi9UZhuN-nuBRP04nW0LHe5L1dirK9rH014KEOL2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Ake,

Indeed, I am not attacking Bell. Bell understood quantum mechanics
much better than most physicists. That is why most physicists ignored
his works for twenty years. Bell “felt that Einstein’s intellectual
superiority over Bohr, in this instance [the EPR paradox], was
enormous as a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was
needed, and the obscurantist”[1]. But Bell had two misconceptions that
provoked a mass delusion: 1) Bell believed Bohm in vain and 2) he said
in vain ”You may quote me on that: The proof of von Neumann is not
merely false but foolish!”, see section III “Von Neumann’s silly
assumption” of the paper of David Mermin [2]. Von Neumann’s no-go
theorem and Bell’s no-go theorem prove the same impossibility to
describe some quantum phenomena without the trick, the use of which by
the creators of quantum mechanics logically leads to absurdity.

You wrote that “von Neumann did not believe that the wave-function was
'real'''. We may or may not believe statements about the properties of
reality or even phenomena, but any theory must be understood
unambiguously, since any theory is created by our (humans) reason. Von
Neumann postulated that quantum state changes discontinuously (by the
Dirac jump) under an influence of the mind of the observer during
Process 1, i.e. during observation, whereas during Process 2, i.e.
between of observations, the continuous, deterministic change of the
quantum state of an isolated system in time according to the
Schrodinger wave equation is assumed. From these von Neumann
postulates, without which quantum mechanics is unthinkable, it should
be obvious regardless of anyone's belief that Process 2 is a real
process in which the observer's mind is not supposed to participate,
and Process 1 is an unreal process that is unthinkable without the
observer's mind.

Von Neumann could prove that the wave function cannot be "real" in
Process 1, although this is obvious without any proof. But no one can
prove that the wave function describes something unreal in Process 2.
It is important to emphasize here that quantum mechanics cannot
predict EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities without
Process 1 in which the quantum state changes instantly and non-locally
under the influence of the observer's mind. E.T. Jaynes wrote about
this absurdity of quantum mechanics more than forty years ago in 1980:

“From this, it is pretty clear why present quantum theory not only
does not use—it does not even dare to mention—the notion of a "real
physical situation." Defenders of the theory say that this notion is
philosophically naive, a throwback to outmoded ways of thinking, and
that recognition of this constitutes deep new wisdom about the nature
of human knowledge. I say that it con­stitutes a violent
irrationality, that somewhere in this theory the distinction between
reality and our knowledge of reality has become lost, and the result
has more the character of medieval necromancy than science”, see p.
231 in the book [3].

You wrote “We know how to avoid those problems nowadays”. How?

[1] J. Bernstein, Quantum Profiles. Princeton, 1991
[2] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).
[3] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edn. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006.

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 18 мая 2022 г. в 16:20, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

QM, as any theory, created by our reason, cannot need an explanation.
Any scientific theory should explain itself. If a theory doesn't make
this, then it's not a scientific theory, but a trick. A scientific
theory should, first of all, not mislead. Quantum mechanics is
misleading, in particular about the reality of a quantum computer. I
consider any attempts to justify the misleading theory to be harmful.

Many authors have tried and are trying to explain quantum mechanics in
different ways in order to justify the belief in this theory. But we
should explain quantum phenomena rather than quantum theory and in
such a way that the explanation does not contradict not only our
empirical, but also our a priori knowledge. We cannot be sure in
advance that this is possible. But we must understand that quantum
mechanics is misleading and is not a scientific theory because it
contradicts, first of all, our a priori knowledge.

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 18 мая 2022 г. в 20:11, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

Every theory needs an explanation yo go with it, and every theory has a range of applicability and areas where it is unsatisfactory. For any theory there will remain a puzzle about how it relates to future attempts at unification. 

It is exciting if you think that some predictions of QM are wrong. That could be the the start of a new bet!!! 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Alexey

First:

Von Neumann's no-go theorem is completely different from Bell's no-go theorem. Different assumptions, different consequences.

I believe the main reason Bohr "won" the EPR debate was because of von Neumann's theorem. And Bohmian mechanics is a counterexample. This must have confused people to no end.

Also, von Neumann's theorem is subtle, and I recently read an interesting text by Dennis Dieks who attempts to mitigate the critique of Bell and others: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12443/1/VNProof.pdf . I'm not sure the theorem is true even in Dieks' version. It seems to me one needs more assumptions than he lists (because I have a counterexample). Need to think more on that.

Second:

On ons, 2022-05-18 at 20:11 +0300, Алексей Никулов wrote:

Von Neumann postulated that quantum state changes discontinuously (by the

Dirac jump) under an influence of the mind of the observer during

Process 1, i.e. during observation, whereas during Process 2, i.e.

between of observations, the continuous, deterministic change of the

quantum state of an isolated system in time according to the

Schrodinger wave equation is assumed. 

Von Neumann could prove that the wave function cannot be "real" in

Process 1, although this is obvious without any proof. But no one can

prove that the wave function describes something unreal in Process 2.

It is important to emphasize here that quantum mechanics cannot

predict EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities without

Process 1 in which the quantum state changes instantly and non-locally

under the influence of the observer's mind.

You wrote “We know how to avoid those problems nowadays”. How?

We (some of us) do not postulate that the quantum state is real. 

We believe the quantum state is a mathematical description that allows us to predict (statistics of) measurement outcomes.

Not more, not less.

When we obtain knowledge about the system we update our mathematical description.

The reduction happens in our mathematical description. 

Not anywhere else.

Best
Jan-Åke

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You contradict yourself. On the one hand you say that you are a
mathematician, and on the other hand you say that it is very difficult
to believe in a classical physical picture of the world. Mathematics
refers to our a priori knowledge and mathematics can have no such
concepts as a classical physical picture of the world. You have heard
the word ‘classical’ from physicists and this word in this case is
misleading, as it replaces the word ‘real’. In order to claim that it
is very difficult to believe in a real physical picture of the world,
it is necessary to understand what the word ‘real’ means and whether
an unreal physical picture of the world is possible. Don't you think
that an unreal physical picture of the world is nonsense? It's as much
nonsense as thinking, as Alain Aspect and many others think, that a
real technology can be created on the basis of refutation of realism.

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 18 мая 2022 г. в 21:14, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

> --
> 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/c9b93e1d6cc5ea8a5b8f88ced302e63f58759c43.camel%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Alexey,

Keep the discussion with Richard separate. 

Nobody can follow your line of reasoning if you keep picking random emails and answer orthogonally to what was written.

/JÅ

On ons, 2022-05-18 at 21:37 +0300, Алексей Никулов wrote:

Dear Richard,

You contradict yourself. On the one hand you say that you are a

mathematician, and on the other hand you say that it is very difficult

to believe in a classical physical picture of the world. Mathematics

refers to our a priori knowledge and mathematics can have no such

concepts as a classical physical picture of the world. You have heard

the word ‘classical’ from physicists and this word in this case is

misleading, as it replaces the word ‘real’. In order to claim that it

is very difficult to believe in a real physical picture of the world,

it is necessary to understand what the word ‘real’ means and whether

an unreal physical picture of the world is possible. Don't you think

that an unreal physical picture of the world is nonsense? It's as much

nonsense as thinking, as Alain Aspect and many others think, that a

real technology can be created on the basis of refutation of realism.

With best wishes,

Alexey

ср, 18 мая 2022 г. в 21:14, Jan-Åke Larsson <

jan-ake...@liu.se

>:

Dear Alexey

First:

Von Neumann's no-go theorem is completely different from Bell's no-go theorem. Different assumptions, different consequences.

I believe the main reason Bohr "won" the EPR debate was because of von Neumann's theorem. And Bohmian mechanics is a counterexample. This must have confused people to no end.

Also, von Neumann's theorem is subtle, and I recently read an interesting text by Dennis Dieks who attempts to mitigate the critique of Bell and others: 

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F12443%2F1%2FVNProof.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cjan-ake.larsson%40liu.se%7C70d97571752d4d001ed508da38fd7419%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C637884959255539755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BK0HNIFfJNRsIOyIJbqWoDmw5lA%2Bp4%2Br0K4aedn3scU%3D&reserved=0

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2FBell_quantum_foundations%2Fc9b93e1d6cc5ea8a5b8f88ced302e63f58759c43.camel%2540liu.se&data=05%7C01%7Cjan-ake.larsson%40liu.se%7C70d97571752d4d001ed508da38fd7419%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C637884959255539755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sMnNZ5kv6AkuAUGJJQpJpH4OxjwelmQ6U%2FIIXBU%2F8zQ%3D&reserved=0

.

[Richard Gill]

Alexei insists on not understanding me. He talks about “a real physical picture of the world” and worries about the word “real”, but he should worry more about the word “physical” and the word “world”. What do those words mean? What is in there and what isn’t? He should read Wittgenstein.

Of course I make it difficult for him by mixing up my professional and expert opinion as a mathematician (which concerns mathematics), and my amateur opinion as an interested layman (on physics, philosophy,  psychology, politics, ...).

I’ve started writing a paper which I hope will explain to Bryan and to Alexei how I think about things.  But I doubt they will understand me. My paper is called "Standard quantum mechanics needs no collapse”. I first thought of entitling it “Sanctuary’s spin” but I thought better of that.

They are welcome to criticise my mathematics. I would certainly like to know if I make mathematical errors.

Nobody has to agree with my opinions concerning matters which are matters of taste. Or religion. 

I think that convivial solipsism is a good way to go, it is related to qBism, it is related to Buddhism as a theory of mind, and I think it provides a *minimal* interpretation of quantum mechanics. Laboratory data is real, and can be shared between different scientists. So far our scientific explorations certainly generated technology both benign and sinister. We made things which worked, and which we all use, and we changed the world with these things. 

[Richard Gill]

PS I think Mark’s summary some days back is spot on:

“It does not matter if the wavefunction is real or not:

The wavefunction is not used to calculate Bells inequalities. And the quantum predictions that violate the inequality can be evaluated without any assumptions about the reality or otherwise of the wavefunction.

It may be appealing to some people to ascribe it some reality, or other adjectives, but that makes no difference to the predictions so I'd call it an interpretation. And all interpretations have serious issues of one sort or another. 

On a related note:

For any argument, theory etc there are two important non trivial questions worth asking. 

1) is it falsifiable? 

2) Does it make new predictions?

If 1) is false, then I would not call it science. 

If 2) is false then we call it an interpretation rather than a new theory. 

In either case they can be interesting and maybe even valuable. But they are fundamental questions to ask.”

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Ake,

Von Neumann's no-go theorem proves the impossibility to describe some
quantum phenomenon without the trick with ‘measurement’, according to
which a quantum system interacts in an unpredictable way with a
measuring device. Bell’s no-go theorem allows to distinguish the trick
with ‘measurement’ from a trick with observation, according to which a
quantum system interacts with the observer's consciousness. If you
state that Von Neumann's no-go theorem is completely different from
Bell's no-go theorem you must explain why the trick with
‘measurement’is better than the trick with ‘observation’. They differ
only in that the first trick hides the difficulties of describing
quantum phenomena in the measurement process, and the second in the
observation process.

One of the consequences of the degradation of physical thinking is the
fact that few of the numerous authors on Bell's inequalities are
interested in the question: "Why can variables be hidden?" Although
Bell answered this question back in his first paper published in 1966:
variables can be hidden because of the trick with measurement.

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 19 мая 2022 г. в 08:52, 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/7e083b26-3aaf-44db-ae69-53aa3d92f2e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 09:38 +0300, Алексей Никулов wrote:

Dear Jan-Ake,

Von Neumann's no-go theorem proves the impossibility to describe some

quantum phenomenon without the trick with ‘measurement’, according to

which a quantum system interacts in an unpredictable way with a

measuring device.

No, von Neumann proves that you need to change the mathematical structure of QM to accommodate hidden variables. He uses just expectations of observables. There is no mention of the projection postulate.

 Bell’s no-go theorem allows to distinguish the trick

with ‘measurement’ from a trick with observation, according to which a

quantum system interacts with the observer's consciousness.

There is nothing of the kind in Bell's theorem. I don't know what to say, this is simply not there.

 If you

state that Von Neumann's no-go theorem is completely different from

Bell's no-go theorem you must explain why the trick with

‘measurement’is better than the trick with ‘observation’. They differ

only in that the first trick hides the difficulties of describing

quantum phenomena in the measurement process, and the second in the

observation process.

No.

/JÅ

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2FBell_quantum_foundations%2F7e083b26-3aaf-44db-ae69-53aa3d92f2e9n%2540googlegroups.com&data=05%7C01%7Cjan-ake.larsson%40liu.se%7Cb2e0cddb1a53499864b008da3962277d%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C637885390975677030%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xjwXjBVo%2BqUGA3GhI2%2Blro6XnAuzFT2yOQS6to%2FFomE%3D&reserved=0

.

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

I have written out standard QM computations for the EPR-B model in order to show explicitly that there are no collapse hypotheses involved, no subjectivity, no interaction between the mind of the observer and the quantum system, no weirdness, if all one wishes is to compute predictions of experimental statistics. As Mark, Jan-Åke, Geraldo, and others point out, the weirdness only comes in with some interpretations. As I see it, the raw experimental predictions are analogous to basic human morality, the interpretations are analogous to organised religions.

I also made a start at writing out the mathematical content of Bryan’s assertions concerning hyper-helicity. (I’m not far yet, I need his feedback to know whether or not I am on the right track). 

The draft of the first few pages of a future paper are now posted on my personal blog. Anyone who likes to join in can help me write more and it will become a joint paper. Of course since I am objecting to Bryan and Alexey’s viewpoints, and trying to reproduce Bryan’s maths, I would love to actually join forces with either of them. The paper could certainly be converted from a “lecture by me” into a “dialogue between several of us”.

I do hope there will be reactions either here or on my blog.

Links to Bryan’s writings need to be added, especially to “wait a second Bob”. I hope he can get some of his papers published soon.

Richard

https://gill1109.com/2022/05/19/sanctuarys-spin/

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Ake,

You should carefully read the first paper of Bell [1], which was not
published for several years because of the majority's belief in
quantum mechanics. Bell clearly writes in this paper that von Neumann
made a mistake since he did not take into account that the creators of
quantum mechanics used the trick with ‘measurement’: “These additional
demands [of von Neumann] appear reasonable when results of measurement
are loosely identified with properties of isolated systems. They are
seen to be quite unreasonable when one remembers with Bohr 'the
impossibility of any sharp distinction between the behaviour of atomic
objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve
to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear' ” [1].
Further Bell explained why variables can be hidden: “A complete theory
would require for example an account of the behaviour of the hidden
variables during the measurement process itself. With or without
hidden variables the analysis of the measurement process presents
peculiar difficulties” [1].

I draw your attention that Bell was understanding that both quantum
mechanics and a theory of hidden variables cannot be considered as a
complete theory since they cannot describe the measurement process
itself. It seems that most modern authors writing and arguing about
Bell's inequalities have not read Bell's works. It also seems that you
have not read the paper [2] in which David Mermin states that von
Neumann’s assumption is silly, since von Neumann did not take into
account that quantum mechanics describes the result of the interaction
of a quantum system with the measuring instruments, and not the
behavior of an isolated system.

The proposal to describe the result of the interaction of a quantum
system with the measuring instruments without describing the
interaction itself is an obvious trick of the creators of quantum
mechanics. But this trick does not contradict realism, since any
interaction with the measuring instruments is real. Only interaction
with the observer's consciousness is unreal. How to distinguish one
interaction from another if neither one nor the other can be
described? Bell, following the EPR, decided that this could be done
using the locality requirement: interaction with the measuring
instrument should be local, while interaction with the observer's
consciousness is non-local. Bell claimed that ”The proof of von
Neumann is not merely false but foolish!” since von Neumann did not
use the locality requirement.

But von Neumann, in contrast to most people, understood without the
locality requirement that Process 1 is ‘observation’ rather than
‘measurement’. Bell knew about this. He said in 1989 about N.G. van
Kampen: “He dismisses out of hand the notion of von Neumann, Pauli,
Wigner - that 'measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the
observer' “. The 'measurement' which might be complete only in the
mind of the observer is ‘observation’ rather than 'measurement'.
Bell's inequalities have become so popular only because most
physicists, unlike von Neumann and a few others, have lost the ability
to think logically due to blind faith in quantum mechanics.

If they had not lost this ability, they would have to understand that
the probability of observation describes the observer's knowledge
about the probability of the result of an upcoming observation. They
would have to understand that the measuring instruments cannot
interact with the probability of observation and that no first
measurement can provide the determinacy of the result of the second
measurement as the Dirac jump postulates.

[1] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum
mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966)

[2] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993)

[3] J. S. Bell, Against ’measurement’. in the proceedings of 62Years
of Uncertainty (PlenumPublishing, New York 1989).

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 19 мая 2022 г. в 10:14, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 14:39 +0300, Алексей Никулов wrote:

Dear Jan-Ake,

You should carefully read the first paper of Bell [1], which was not

published for several years because of the majority's belief in

quantum mechanics. 

I have

Bell clearly writes in this paper that von Neumann

made a mistake since he did not take into account that the creators of

quantum mechanics used the trick with ‘measurement’: “These additional

demands [of von Neumann] appear reasonable when results of measurement

are loosely identified with properties of isolated systems. They are

seen to be quite unreasonable when one remembers with Bohr 'the

impossibility of any sharp distinction between the behaviour of atomic

objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve

to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear' ” [1].

This passage has no connection to the projection postulate. I would advise you to read Bohr, but I doubt that helps (and this is not a critique of you Aleksey, rather it is a critique of Bohr).

Further Bell explained why variables can be hidden: “A complete theory

would require for example an account of the behaviour of the hidden

variables during the measurement process itself. With or without

hidden variables the analysis of the measurement process presents

peculiar difficulties” [1].

This is a reference to the understanding of the time. We now know how to avoid that "explanation"

I draw your attention that Bell was understanding that both quantum

mechanics and a theory of hidden variables cannot be considered as a

complete theory since they cannot describe the measurement process

itself.

That is not what Bell writes, nor what he wrote in his later papers.

 It seems that most modern authors writing and arguing about

Bell's inequalities have not read Bell's works. It also seems that you

have not read the paper [2] in which David Mermin states that von

Neumann’s assumption is silly, since von Neumann did not take into

account that quantum mechanics describes the result of the interaction

of a quantum system with the measuring instruments, and not the

behavior of an isolated system.

Also points to the old "explanation", Mermin had a different viewpoint last I communicated with him.

The proposal to describe the result of the interaction of a quantum

system with the measuring instruments without describing the

interaction itself is an obvious trick of the creators of quantum

mechanics. But this trick does not contradict realism, since any

interaction with the measuring instruments is real. Only interaction

with the observer's consciousness is unreal. How to distinguish one

interaction from another if neither one nor the other can be

described? Bell, following the EPR, decided that this could be done

using the locality requirement: interaction with the measuring

instrument should be local, while interaction with the observer's

consciousness is non-local. Bell claimed that ”The proof of von

Neumann is not merely false but foolish!” since von Neumann did not

use the locality requirement.

Bell decided no such thing.

But von Neumann, in contrast to most people, understood without the

locality requirement that Process 1 is ‘observation’ rather than

‘measurement’. Bell knew about this. He said in 1989 about N.G. van

Kampen: “He dismisses out of hand the notion of von Neumann, Pauli,

Wigner - that 'measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the

observer' “. The 'measurement' which might be complete only in the

mind of the observer is ‘observation’ rather than 'measurement'.

Bell's inequalities have become so popular only because most

physicists, unlike von Neumann and a few others, have lost the ability

to think logically due to blind faith in quantum mechanics.

Are you now arguing that "observation" is a label for the process of updating the observers quantum state?

And arguing against that "measurement" has a physical consequence, for the "real" factual properties of the system?

That surprises me, I thought you were arguing the exact opposite?

If they had not lost this ability, they would have to understand that

the probability of observation describes the observer's knowledge

about the probability of the result of an upcoming observation. They

would have to understand that the measuring instruments cannot

interact with the probability of observation and that no first

measurement can provide the determinacy of the result of the second

measurement as the Dirac jump postulates.

Updating your knowledge will update your predictions. I see no contradiction in that

You can make predictions with certainty (p=1) about the future, without the Dirac jump.

Best
Jan-Åke

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2FBell_quantum_foundations%2F7e083b26-3aaf-44db-ae69-53aa3d92f2e9n%2540googlegroups.com&data=05%7C01%7Cjan-ake.larsson%40liu.se%7Cf9fe25fe29e846062f0808da398c41cd%7C913f18ec7f264c5fa816784fe9a58edd%7C0%7C0%7C637885571811643142%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AgVb7sQnRgZw45z8wdkZOju5ICH35t19jjN0bHRsK5o%3D&reserved=0

.

[Mark Hadley]

I find these references to the voices of past physicists perplexing. It might be interesting, but it's hardly important. The facts and equations speak for themselves. Once a theory or analysis depends upon what someone said years ago, I have lost interest. That's not physics. 

Einstein said that GR did not predict black holes, that exact solutions to his equations would probably never be found and also that the equations needed to be modified for cosmological reasons. All those predictions or statements were wrong. The equations remain valid and correct to this day. 

[Mark Hadley]

Do those of you who think the wavefunction is real, understand that it does not in general have a value at any spacetime point?? 

It takes its value in configuration space. So for a scalar two particle system it can only be plotted using six spatial dimensions.

[Chantal Roth]

In the elastic solid model, the wave function definitively has a value at every point in space and time - just like any other wave would (water wave, sound wave... - except here we are dealing with a solid of course).

(Similar to how one can describe an earthquake wave in a solid or a phonon in a solid, you can describe a quantum wave as well).

The details depends on the exact model of course, but at least in Marek's model, it can be described as a translation and twist at every "location".

Imagine mapping every point in space without waves (a simple "flat" 3D grid, like a pudding) to the space *with* quantum waves.

Then some grid points are slightly translated and/or twisted at a given point in time.

(Resulting in parts of space with higher/lower density, for instance).

Similar to a 3D vector field, except that the "vectors" here have 6 values, and could be represented for instance with dual quaternions (if I had to program this, I would use either a translation plus a quaternion or else a dual quaternion for every point in space and time).

(These translations and twists are of course a function of time...)

(And that is how spin 1/2 can for instance be computed and visualized, by "moving" each "grid point" over time using the appropriate functions...)

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard

I read your start of your critique about the collapse.  It is really not worth my time to be involved with this. In its present form, I cannot take it seriously. You clearly have little idea of my theory. You state incorrectly and misquote. Basically you spread confusion and obfuscate, not just with me but everyone who disagrees with you. I do not physically have the time to debate your fallacious interpretation of my work.

This is what I will respond to:

Look at my papers and point to lines and equations you don't understand, and I will help you.  Please try not to misquote me, speculate,  and dismiss ideas you have not fathomed. Please critique my formulation rather than twist my ideas into a concoction you believe, incorrectly, I am doing, like in your draft on collapse.

Spin with hyper-helicty----phenomenological

Non-hermitian coherent spin---QFT of Dirac equation

Hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm--some consequences

 Also, my work is NOT about Bell and you harp on it that it is. I use BI as a tacit measure, CHSH =2, and I dismiss his bizarre theorem by counterexample in the process. You must prove that helicity is not an element of reality.

Also admit that classical Bell is about qm, which you tell me it's not, after going in circles with inconsistent replies designed to obfuscate.  

Two direct question to you:

• Does Bell's Theorem have any consequences for qm?  This is to confirm your statement to me about it having nothing to do with QM. Just a yes or no is ok, not an obfuscation.
• What does the following process require:   A and B are in a singlet at source.  Jan Ank says that A's state is 1/2 her identity.  I say this is a trace over B's spin which is a non-local, bizarre, absurd and unfeasible effect.  Please explain why this is not spooky action at a distance.  Jan Ank lost his credibility by admonishing me and my lack of understanding of non-locality as outdated and qm and modern thinkers know there are no problems.  

Please refer to what I did, then I will respond. Do not deflect, stick to the point. To help you, you should start to understand the difference between Minkowski space and spin space I introduced.  Are you clear on that?  From there I might be able to walk you through some basic QFT.

In short, be honest, and  I suggest you drop the collapse draft. 

Bryan

--
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/7F0676C8-BF06-405F-B69D-0B00EAE6BC42%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

That's strange,

So you can't reproduce the wavefunction of an entangled state then? That needs six or more actual dimensions for scalars and more for spin. 

And how would the wavefunction look for a beams splitter experiment? Where the probability in each arm is 50:50 but coincidences are zero.?

When presented with new work with a realist explanation of quantum theory I first look to see how non locality is introduced. And for a real wavefunction how two slit or beam splitter experiments give the right results. 

--
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/b82292fe-a7dd-4fb0-960f-66118b9ff9ad%40www.fastmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard  says:  "No. Bell’s theorem doesn’t say this."

Since he keeps changing what Bell's theorem says, please state once and for all to know an exact statement of Bell's Theorem so there is no confusion.  One line will do:

I quote one of Bell's 4 of 5 interpretation of his theorem.  I think this sums up what most people state and agrees with Wikipedia and Scolarpedia, so  in Bell's words:

    ``If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."

Is Bell wrong???

Bryan

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 8:45:16 AM UTC-4 Richard Gill wrote:

No. Bell’s theorem doesn’t say this.

The conventional quantum mechanics calculation (which does not assume that wave functions collapse: it just assumes the Born law) says that if Alice measures her spin in the vertical direction and finds it to be “up”, then, if moreover Bob measures his spin in the same direction, he will find it down.

Would you like me to do this calculation for you using the usual formulas?

They tell us:

If Alice and Bob both measure in the vertical direction they will see (up, down) or (down, up) with equal probabilities

Hence Prob Bob sees “down” given Alice sees “up” = 100%

This is not surprising at all. Bell’s theorem does not say anything about on-local collapse over spacetime

Maybe we should stop thinking of wave functions as being real physical objects located in space time.

On 17 May 2022, at 14:36, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All

"If Alice is up then Bob is instantly down" or so says Bell's theorem that requires non-local collapse over spacetime.  

Used throughout Quantum Information Theory, non-local collapse is shown here to be untenable when the details of the reduction are followed. 

Hence we reject non-local collapse and Bell's Theorem upon which it rests.

Wait-a-second Bob!

  <Fig 1.png>

Bryan

--
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/b9612d65-7810-4e6e-b75e-6af069ba751en%40googlegroups.com.
<Fig 1.png>

[Richard Gill]

Bell is not wrong. You are misreading him, Bryan.

Bell is referring to theories of the kind he has defined* a few pages earlier to be what he understands as local hidden variables theories. 

Context!

You can disagree with his characterisation - that’s a matter of taste (though Bell gives plenty of arguments).

You can’t disagree with his theorem - that’s some fairly simple pure maths. 

You haven’t found a counterexample to the theorem that has been proven by many mathematicians in many different ways (including yours truly).

You simply disagree with Bell’s definition of “local hidden variable theory”. OK. That’s allowed. Freedom of speech. But if you use the same words as other people have been using for 50 years, but with a different meaning to the one they mainly have understood by those words, it’s up to you to make that rather clear. It’s a question of careful reading, scholarship, basic academic skills.

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

You don't need to ask. Read the equations and check the derivation.

It's unambiguous isn't it?

A local hidden variable theory is incompatible with the predictions of quantum theory. 

The argument one way is clear. But the converse requires some care with words. The predictions of QM do not require a nonlocal hidden variable theory, because they don't require a hidden variable theory at all. I expect and hope they will eventually get one, but that is a philosophical guess on my part. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0edff53b-433f-4e54-a848-64e1c14998a0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Mark,

Yes, the entangled wave function can be modeled (maybe a zoom meeting would be good to discuss such things at some point  - I will try to keep it as short as possible :-).

There are many physical models for double slit type experiments, including for water, sound, phonons, polaritons etc, and so those waves can be programmed or modelled quite easily with standard wave functions (actual/standard/normal waves, nothing special).

This page has dozens of very nice such (wave based) simulations: https://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html

It would be nice to also have a physical model of a sound or a phonon beam splitter, not sure if one exists?
(I saw this one for phonons: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15735).

Imagine you would write a computer simulation of the universe (ok, just a lab with beam splitters etc :-)), where the waves are modeled as described below (a function with various parameters). (Just like you would model the physical propagation of say an earthquake wave or phonon wave).

Then, at the beam splitter, you would in essence "copy" the wave function parameters and going forward, the wave functions in the two directions behave the same, even though they are not "connected" in any (remote) way other than that they originated at the same point and had the same configuration when they were launched. (I wish I knew the details of how such a beam splitter works at the quantum level...). 

(Just like when you start two wave simulations in any wave simulator that use the exact same parameters, then of course going forward they would always look exactly the same.)

Re dimensions: Every new parameter can be regarded as a dimension of course (I actually used the word for the 3 spatial dimensions - yet another word that may lead to potential misunderstandings... :-), and  I assume you meant parameters :-).

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Mark Hadley]

How does your beam splitter experiment stop coincidences won't they happen 25% of the time?

I meant spatial dimensions. x, y, z for particle one and another x, y, z for particle two. How do you get from there to a value at a point

x, y, z in the lab. 

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

You asked me two direct questions:

• Does Bell's Theorem have any consequences for qm?  This is to confirm your statement to me about it having nothing to do with QM. Just a yes or no is ok, not an obfuscation. 

My answer: No.

• What does the following process require:   A and B are in a singlet at source.  Jan Ank says that A's state is 1/2 her identity.  I say this is a trace over B's spin which is a non-local, bizarre, absurd and unfeasible effect.  Please explain why this is not spooky action at a distance.  Jan Ank lost his credibility by admonishing me and my lack of understanding of non-locality as outdated and qm and modern thinkers know there are no problems.  

Who is Jan Ank?

Oh, you mean Jan-Åke!

OK, my answer: Jan-Åke says correctly that as far as measurements which A can make on what is located at her place, and without knowing what B saw, she might just as well have a particle in that completely mixed state. She does know that she has one part of an EPR-B pair but she has received no information from the other side as to what has been seen by doing stuff on the other part. So using QM she knows what the joint state of the two particles was, and she knows what that means effectively for her part, as long as there is no further information from the other side (direct or indirect)

Richard

On 19 May 2022, at 15:38, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard

I read your start of your critique about the collapse.  It is really not worth my time to be involved with this. In its present form, I cannot take it seriously. You clearly have little idea of my theory. You state incorrectly and misquote. Basically you spread confusion and obfuscate, not just with me but everyone who disagrees with you. I do not physically have the time to debate your fallacious interpretation of my work.

This is what I will respond to:

Look at my papers and point to lines and equations you don't understand, and I will help you.  Please try not to misquote me, speculate,  and dismiss ideas you have not fathomed. Please critique my formulation rather than twist my ideas into a concoction you believe, incorrectly, I am doing, like in your draft on collapse.

Spin with hyper-helicty----phenomenological

Non-hermitian coherent spin---QFT of Dirac equation

Hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm--some consequences

 Also, my work is NOT about Bell and you harp on it that it is. I use BI as a tacit measure, CHSH =2, and I dismiss his bizarre theorem by counterexample in the process. You must prove that helicity is not an element of reality.

Also admit that classical Bell is about qm, which you tell me it's not, after going in circles with inconsistent replies designed to obfuscate.  

Two direct question to you:

• Does Bell's Theorem have any consequences for qm?  This is to confirm your statement to me about it having nothing to do with QM. Just a yes or no is ok, not an obfuscation.
• What does the following process require:   A and B are in a singlet at source.  Jan Ank says that A's state is 1/2 her identity.  I say this is a trace over B's spin which is a non-local, bizarre, absurd and unfeasible effect.  Please explain why this is not spooky action at a distance.  Jan Ank lost his credibility by admonishing me and my lack of understanding of non-locality as outdated and qm and modern thinkers know there are no problems.  

Please refer to what I did, then I will respond. Do not deflect, stick to the point. To help you, you should start to understand the difference between Minkowski space and spin space I introduced.  Are you clear on that?  From there I might be able to walk you through some basic QFT.

In short, be honest, and  I suggest you drop the collapse draft. 

Bryan

<Graphic abstract.png>

[Mark Hadley]

Ha ha, I think Richard is teasing you with the No answer. I suspect you don't know what he is saying No to.

The calculation of measurement results at A using a trace is just standard application of QM. It gives the right results and there is no known alternative way to calculate the probabilities. 

The trace over unknowns is effectively what you do in classical probability theory. Indeed classical probabilities are a special case of quantum ones when you use state operators . 

You say "non-local, bizarre, absurd and unfeasible effect." but since it's quite normal in classical probabilities you could alternatively conclude that the state operator is simply a probability function.

 As I said before, you are adding superfluous assumptions to QM and that it is these assumptions that then cause you a problem. That's the trouble with all known interpretations, they elucidate one aspect of QM but produce absurdities in other aspects. That's why there is no agreement yet after 100 years. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/78F034E8-D329-4136-8CD6-E52C488E9112%40gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 17:06 +0200, Richard Gill wrote:

Dear Bryan

You asked me two direct questions:

• Does Bell's Theorem have any consequences for qm?  This is to confirm your statement to me about it having nothing to do with QM. Just a yes or no is ok, not an obfuscation. 

My answer: No.

My answer also: No.

• What does the following process require:   A and B are in a singlet at source.  Jan Ank says that A's state is 1/2 her identity.  I say this is a trace over B's spin which is a non-local, bizarre, absurd and unfeasible effect.  Please explain why this is not spooky action at a distance.  Jan Ank lost his credibility by admonishing me and my lack of understanding of non-locality as outdated and qm and modern thinkers know there are no problems.  

Who is Jan Ank?

Oh, you mean Jan-Åke!

OK, my answer: Jan-Åke says correctly that as far as measurements which A can make on what is located at her place, and without knowing what B saw, she might just as well have a particle in that completely mixed state. She does know that she has one part of an EPR-B pair but she has received no information from the other side as to what has been seen by doing stuff on the other part. So using QM she knows what the joint state of the two particles was, and she knows what that means effectively for her part, as long as there is no further information from the other side (direct or indirect)

This particular effect is no more strange than calculating the marginal distribution within classical probability theory.

p_A(x)=sum_y p_AB(x,y)

rho_A= tr_B rho_AB

Best

Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

Dear Mark

No, I wasn’t teasing this time, though I often do so!

Bryan asked: "Does Bell's Theorem have any consequences for QM?”

I answered “No”. 

I meant it very seriously. (And note: Bryan explicitly asked for a yes/no answer, not my usual lecture about the possible answers given possible interpretations of the question)

Feynman already said: “Yes, we already knew this. Mathematically, it’s a cute little proof, but it tells us nothing we didn’t already know”.

Bell himself wrote that Niels Bohr would have said “I told you so”.

So: I think I am in good company and that it was the right answer.

The thing which I find it hard to get my mind around is that Bryan doesn’t get this. He’s a very smart guy, very experienced, definitely not stupid. But somehow he does not see what the whole discussion is about.

Oh well, he is in good company I suppose, because right from the beginning many renowned scientists did’t get it. See Bell’s own “Answer to my critics”. It’s all in there! 

But it won’t help, either …

Richard

[Mark Hadley]

Ok😄

But it has amazing consequences for those seeking explanations of quantum theory. It highlights the most enormous obstacle to an explanation but also provides the biggest clue for us. 

[Richard Gill]

I agree!

(Well, I don’t see the clue it offers, but I have no ambition to resolve the problem myself. I want to get an innocent convicted serial killer nurse out of an English jail, name: Ben Geen. And have nice walks in the forest, and play with my grandchildren)

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 May 2022, at 18:30, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan-Åke 

rho_A= tr_B rho_AB. Is a non local partial trace.

You are assuming the singlet is shared over space time, yet you claim is is local. 

There are only two reasons you contradict yourself, deliberate deception to obfuscate, or you really are disallusioned.

Bryan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Bell_quantum_foundations/7SIcHzLtaYE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c81f6ebb96a5ad5d8b5d5e38258aa81aaa05fc5c.camel%40liu.se.

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

Jan is very clear and consistent he gives good explanations and an enlightening comparison with classical probability. 

Please don't be rude. Take more time to think what he means.

If you still don't understand, be polite, apologise, and ask for clarification of some specific points. 

Please 

Mark

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/CALLw9YxgP15HniiObKaEUPGR_PF4zygxsJXPFpSD1PnxEwzjyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jay R. Yablon]

"If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."

If this is a correct characterization of Bell's Theorem, recognizing that there may be definitional issues, then the corollary is this:

If a local hidden variable theory can be devise which agrees with quantum mechanics (and thus has a negative cosine correlation between A and B spin up or down measurements), then Bell is wrong.

The question at issue regarding what Bryan has done (or what anyone else may try to do to refute Bell), is whether he has presented a "local" "hidden variable" theory which produces the negative cosine correlation predicted by quantum mechanics.  If he has, then it is game over for Bell.  If not, then the beat goes on...

Jay

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0edff53b-433f-4e54-a848-64e1c14998a0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi all

We now have a definitive statement from Richard.  Bell's theorem has no consequences for qm.

I won't say more, except he is dissallusioned.  I would be interested in what others think.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Ha ha, I think you have tricked yourself by asking for a yes no answer to a question that was at best poorly defined.

You could help by saying what does Richard mean by  consequences for qm? Read what he has said and it will  e clear what he has said no to.

[Richard Gill]

Mark, I think that the question was very clear, and moreover Bryan asked for a yes/no answer. As I said: Feynman gave the same answer (“no”) to that same question, long ago. (It’s on YouTube). It is also perfectly clear that Niels Bohr would have given exactly the same answer too.

True, I am challenging Bryan to think more deeply about what he is asking, and I do that by teasing him. It’s part of the Socratic method.

If I answer at length he complains that he is not going to read so many pages.

I don’t know the answers, but I do know that Bryan is asking the wrong questions.

[Chantal Roth]

I totally agree :-).

It is clearly not possible to program the negative cos curve with a (local) hidden variable theory that assumes *everything* in the experiment is absolutely, 100% "perfect".

The "issue" I have with that: is this even realistic?

There are MANY local hidden variable models that DO create the -cos shaped curve if:

- If you have imperfect detection, you can get the -cos curve.

- If your production of photons is not constant over time and the settings probability varies over time, you can get the -cos curve.

- If you have perfect detection, but use some "window" function to put he counts into buckets, you can get "double counts", and you can get the -cos curve.

- If you use polarizers and CHSH, you get the -cos curve 

... (many more!)

So for me, is not if Bell is correct or not.

My question is: are the (implied) assumptions about our experimental possibilities realistic and correct?

Or are there inherent uncertainties or statistical effects that are, in a way, "built in", so that we will never be able to create an experiment that is "good enough" (without any of the above "issues", or at least, that they are so small so that we can rule out such effects).

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Thanks Mark,

That calculation is ... just a calculation. It does not change anything in "the real world".

If Alice does not have access to subsystem B she can obtain predictions from rho_A alone, she does not need to use the full system state rho_AB.

Any measurement locally performed on subsystem A ("at Alice") gives the exact same statistics from rho_A as would be obtained from rho_AB.

The partial trace is just a simplification of the mathematical description. 

(Claiming it is nonlocal has no meaning, I'm doing the calculation on a piece of paper completely separate from the quantum system AB.)

/JÅ

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Thanks Mark, I understand what Richard says and he is confused and contradictory.  His answer yes or no avoids long repetitive statements again.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

I'm not bothered about epr experiments.

Quantum theory predictions violate bells inequalities. It's clear and unambiguous. There is only one quatum theory. 

Quite separately every experiment confirms, or is consistent with, quantum theory. 

Further epr experiments can't tell us anythin new. 

--
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/95aafc38-626d-4b6c-9745-cd6ed82393ae%40www.fastmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

He is neither confused or contradictory.

You are struggling to understand the arguments. But it's been  explained to you clearly in many different ways.

Sorry I can't help more, I thought that I was being really clear. 

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Sorry Jan-Åke,  you do not know what you are doing with that partial trace. 

You have rationalized your theory and you have fooled yourself. I cannot repeat ad  neuseum.

Point to line numbers and equations in my papers if you want to discuss my work rationally and logically.

You are a physicist. Did you study QFT, I suspect not. 

Bryan

Bryan

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Chantal, I humbly suggest you read

"Loopholes in Bell Inequality Tests of Local Realism" by Jan-Åke Larsson

Bell inequalities are intended to show that local realist theories cannot describe the world. A local realist theory is one where physical properties are defined prior to and independent of measurement, and no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light. Quantum-mechanical predictions for certain experiments violate the Bell inequality while a local realist theory cannot, and this shows that a local realist theory cannot give those quantum-mechanical predictions. However, because of unexpected circumstances or "loopholes" in available experiment tests, local realist theories can reproduce the data from these experiments. This paper reviews such loopholes, what effect they have on Bell inequality tests, and how to avoid them in experiment. Avoiding all these simultaneously in one experiment, usually called a "loophole-free" or "definitive" Bell test, remains an open task, but is very important for technological tasks such as device-independent security of quantum cryptography, and ultimately for our understanding of the world.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0363

J. Phys. A 47 424003 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424003

Note that this is written before the 2015 loophole-free tests.

Best

Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

So you believe Richard when he says Bell's theorem has no consequences for qm?

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Well, I have tried to reach you.

Like I said before, it is sad you go on like this.

Do take care.

/Jan-Åke

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

The partial trace is how you calculate probabilities in QM. Nothing more or less. All our graduate students know that. It's used and proved correctly every day. 

[Mark Hadley]

I wouldn't word it like that, but it's true. The predictions and use of QM are unchanged by Bell. Of 100 staff in our physics department 99 will use QM correctly without any knowledge or need to know about Bell's theorem. 

However it has enormous consequences for understanding or explaining QM. 

I said that earlier. Perhaps you are not getting all my messages. 

[Chantal Roth]

Jan-Ake,

Thanks - yes, exactly (and I did read it some time ago): 

"Avoiding all these simultaneously in one experiment, usually called a "loophole-free" or "definitive" Bell test, remains an open task, but is very important for technological tasks such as device-independent security of quantum cryptography, and ultimately for our understanding of the world.

I disagree only with this statement. "..2015 loophole-free tests."

Even these experiments were not loophole free either, unfortunately.

I got the Giuistina raw data, and there was clearly a drift over time (detection efficiency at a/b and settings distribution). Even Richard at one point agreed that it was not bullet proof :-).(You can get the -cos shaped curve with those two drifts).

I agree with you that *if* we do still see a better experiment than those ( *really* loophole free :-), then we have a real mystery...

Either you are correct and it is just a matter of time until we see a better experiment (and then my beliefs were wrong, but that is ok, that would be very interesting :-.).

Or else there is a reason why these experiments are just never quite loophole free.

If this is the case, there could be multiple explanations:

- there could be a very strong selection bias. Imagine, among  the many experiments, how many more failed (during setup etc). These results are never reported, obviously, as it is not interesting to write about those. The experiments are done to show the QM correlations.  (This should not be dismissed so easily. I remember the many Ivermectin studies that looked very promising, then later it turned out it doesn't work after all, and I don't think everyone was simply cheating).

- or else, there is something inherent in QM that we just don't quite see yet that makes the results turn out that way (for instance, the Malus law. Is it just a random coincidence that these experiments also show a -cos shaped curve? What are the odds of that :-)

Best wishes,

Chantal

--

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/e1b7d639542cb1b23c057233151c77352433296a.camel%40liu.se.

Attachments:

• smime.p7s
  

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark please get it straight, I have no difficulty understanding Richard or Jan-Ake when they finally say something clearly, which is like pulling teeth to get to that point.   They do not understand my papers though.

Problem is they have not studied QFT, so cannot appreciate the Dirac field. They seem not to know discrete and continuous group theory, and they certainly seem flummoxed about changing the spin group from SU(2) to Q_8. 

And you are right to say Bell's theorem rules out LHV but it is valid only for classical, not quantum systems. 

My work is not about Bell. 

Bryan

On Thu., May 19, 2022, 14:15 Mark Hadley, <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,

You seem determined to read everything I write as a personal attack. It is not my intention to attack you.

I simply suggested you should explain your notation so that others can read your paper. Your explicit aim is to convince others. Your bet with Richard is about that. It would help you convince others if you explain the notation.

(I have studied QFT, not using that notation, but hey, notation is notation.)

My questions do not concern your actual algebraic calculations. My questions are about your claims concerning those calculations.

You write

And you are right to say Bell's theorem rules out LHV but it is valid only for classical, not quantum systems. 

I repeat: if you use a quantum system, you must state what you mean with "realist" and then "local".

If you do not, then the whole claim is empty. No meaning.

I told you how quantum mechanics is "local" if you use standard QM, where "real" does not come into play.

Even for a Bell experiment, the local statistics at Alice do not depend on the setting at Bob. 

There is no possibility for faster-than-light information transfer.

If you want a quantum description, then QM itself is local. In the only sense you can define "local" for a quantum model.

We don't need your construction.

QM is already an example of a local model.

Only when you force "classical" HV, then Bell tells you the quantum predictions can only be obtained from a NonLocal HV model.

You write:

My work is not about Bell. 

Then what is it about?

/Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan-Åke

I do not take them as personal attacks at all. You have contradicted yourself and make it difficult to understand.  I cannot argue with what seems to be illogical and contradictory.  I get the impression you are trying to mislead or obfuscate.

I am happy to explain any notation you want, but I need an equation or line first.  Everything is defined.  So unless you are specific, I cannot reply.  Please be specific with a paper and line number.

My claims are based upon my calculations.  They are objective.  I find a missed property of spin:  that is my weakness to dispute.  You nor anyone so far has.  A line number or equation please,  but not generalities and preconceived ideas you have unless you understand what I have done. 

Do you really believe the partial trace over the singlet is a local mathematical operation when they are separated?

I have said that realism is a dispersion free state.

I have said that locality is Einstein locality.

What is "standard QM"?

What is non-standard about your QM?

QM is not a local model, it is a theory of measurement.

What is your mechanism for entanglement swapping over spacetime?

Tell me what Bennett et al mean in their first paragraph if it is not non-locality?

Why is teleportation a misnomer?

Do you accept the Wikipedia def under entanglement?

The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particl

What mediates the instantaneous collapse by which Alica and Bob are related?

I am interested in your answers.  I left you spaces

Bryan

--
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/33218b065cde7e567979ad50a8404232a1d1cffe.camel%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Chantal,

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 20:34 +0200, Chantal Roth wrote:

Jan-Ake,

Thanks - yes, exactly (and I did read it some time ago): 

"Avoiding all these simultaneously in one experiment, usually called a "loophole-free" or "definitive" Bell test, remains an open task, but is very important for technological tasks such as device-independent security of quantum cryptography, and ultimately for our understanding of the world.

I disagree only with this statement. "..2015 loophole-free tests."

Even these experiments were not loophole free either, unfortunately.

I got the Giuistina raw data, and there was clearly a drift over time (detection efficiency at a/b and settings distribution). Even Richard at one point agreed that it was not bullet proof :-)

Nothing is ever bullet proof. But there is a point where one should move on to other things.

.(You can get the -cos shaped curve with those two drifts).

Citation for that? 

(This will take some doing considering we used Martingale bounds for the analysis.)

I agree with you that *if* we do still see a better experiment than those ( *really* loophole free :-), then we have a real mystery...

Either you are correct and it is just a matter of time until we see a better experiment (and then my beliefs were wrong, but that is ok, that would be very interesting :-.).

Or else there is a reason why these experiments are just never quite loophole free.

If this is the case, there could be multiple explanations:

- there could be a very strong selection bias. Imagine, among  the many experiments, how many more failed (during setup etc). These results are never reported, obviously, as it is not interesting to write about those. The experiments are done to show the QM correlations.  (This should not be dismissed so easily. I remember the many Ivermectin studies that looked very promising, then later it turned out it doesn't work after all, and I don't think everyone was simply cheating).

This would be a problem if it is difficult to recreate the correlations. 

- or else, there is something inherent in QM that we just don't quite see yet that makes the results turn out that way (for instance, the Malus law. Is it just a random coincidence that these experiments also show a -cos shaped curve? What are the odds of that :-)

Incredibly high

Best

Jan-Åke

[Chantal Roth]

Jan-Åke,

re "Nothing is ever bullet proof. But there is a point where one should move on to other things."

I agree - for me that point has not been quite reached *yet*.

Re "citation":

this is spread all over this forum in several posts, but I can try to collect them :-). Yes, I know you used the Martingale bounds, but even Richard agreed that it did not consider everything, for instance it was assumed that the settings were distributed without any bias/drift over time. So such variation over time was not taken into account apparently.

Here is some of what I found right now - including some of what Richard said below in yellow.

----- Original message -----

From: Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com>

To: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Giustina 2015

Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:56 AM

Richard,

Do you think that an effect similar to the toy example I made could in theory be hidden in the data, and that the analysis that was done so far for the Giustina data may not have been though to catch that?

And that future experiments should do more specific tests that as you said, are more specific?

Below are some (simple) visualization of those trends over time of the Giustina 2015 data:

Do you have an intuition about how relevant the correlation might be that I see?

(This is what I talked about in the toy example: more 11 settings when the detector efficiency is high (or when more photons are generated)).

r is 0.147 between the detection efficiency and the 11-22 settings, so r^2 is about 2%. 

How much would that influence the value of J? If it is 2% of the detected events, then that would be an order of magnitude more than J itself.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, at 5:59 AM, Richard Gill wrote:

The martingale test was invented precisely because the physical systems of emission and detection may be changing over time. 

If those changes are going on, then J, CHSH, and CH are unreliable, meaningless even; they are time dependent.

In order to use a martingale test we must know the *setting probabilities* and they must be absolutely stable.

In the Vienna experiment, the mechanism creating the settings appears to be stable, independent of everything else, and uncorrelated over time. But it is biased. So *a martingale test* is available but not the easy one which they used in Delft. 

It’s clear the parameters of source and detectors do change over time and perhaps even show correlations over time.

Hence the traditional CHSH, J, CH are pretty meaningless. To test local realism, you need to use a martingale test, and you have to develop one specifically for your (setting choice) RNG’s, ie depending on your RNG biases.

R.

____________________________

Re attached excel sheet:

This is just about the Guistina 2015 paper, where I noticed a change over time during the experiment in the data.

I was trying to see if that could have an effect on J or not.

So I did a (extremely) simple Gedankenexperiment (in Excel) to see how changes over time can affect J. It is really not complicated at all. Just a simple change in photon intensity and preference for an angle over time to see how if affects J (while keeping the overall stats "fair"). (It is really not worth any technical writeup, if you think about it for a few seconds it will be obvious - the excel sheet itself is already overkill.).

My point was simply that it should be obvious that such changes over time can influence the result, that's it. (And I was wondering if anyone was actually trying to quantify how much, using the actual data). The context of the experimental setup (all the details you mention) have an impact. Sure, in theory it all works out well, *if* all our assumption were true (assumptions about the random generator, about the photon intensity, about the detection efficiency etc etc), then we can compute an error of so and so. But in reality it is a bit more complicated I think, as these variables can change over time. There are many variables that we are not really considering, and so I think especially since the current J is just *barely* above 0, it is not very convincing to me that this result is supposed to "real" and not just a lucky coincident due to several changes over time (such as photon intensity and detection efficiency etc).

_______________________-

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 23:02 +0200, Chantal Roth wrote:

Jan-Åke,

re "Nothing is ever bullet proof. But there is a point where one should move on to other things."

I agree - for me that point has not been quite reached *yet*.

Re "citation":

this is spread all over this forum in several posts, but I can try to collect them :-). Yes, I know you used the Martingale bounds, but even Richard agreed that it did not consider everything, for instance it was assumed that the settings were distributed without any bias/drift over time. So such variation over time was not taken into account apparently.

We did actually take that into account, read the paper.

Best

Jan-Åke

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 16:14 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Jan-Åke

I do not take them as personal attacks at all. You have contradicted yourself and make it difficult to understand.  I cannot argue with what seems to be illogical and contradictory.  I get the impression you are trying to mislead or obfuscate.

I take that as a personal attack. You are trying to discredit me, in writing. "Trying to mislead", really.

I am happy to explain any notation you want, but I need an equation or line first.  Everything is defined.  So unless you are specific, I cannot reply.  Please be specific with a paper and line number.

Bryan, if you want to convince others, you need to explain the notation to them. Not me. I don't doubt that your algebra is correct.

My claims are based upon my calculations.  They are objective.  I find a missed property of spin:  that is my weakness to dispute.  You nor anyone so far has.  A line number or equation please,  but not generalities and preconceived ideas you have unless you understand what I have done. 

Your claims in words are mathematically imprecise. When you attempt to make them precise, there are problems. See below.

Do you really believe the partial trace over the singlet is a local mathematical operation when they are separated?

The partial trace reduces the wave function to the local site. The only thing that remains is the local behavior. 

(I thought you would have more problems with the projection postulate, not the partial trace. But see below.)

I have said that realism is a dispersion free state.

(You did on Facebook, not here.) Very well, then show that your state is dispersion free: show that you can predict the outcomes with probability 1 given the state.

I have said that locality is Einstein locality.

"Influences propagate at most as fast as light." You do understand that Einstein locality is one of the axioms of relativistic quantum field theory?

Standard QM is also local under that definition. 

Unless you (Bryan) assume the wave function is "real", and must "collapse". But then you (Bryan) will need to explain what mediates the collapse. 

Standard QM does not need collapse, the predictions can be calculated without collapse.

What is "standard QM"?

The kind taught in undergraduate textbooks.

What is non-standard about your QM?

I use standard QM

QM is not a local model, it is a theory of measurement.

It is a local model. Two observables, that are localized within two distinct spacetime regions at spacelike separation. commute. One measurement setting cannot influence the statistics of the remote measurement. Einstein locality.

What is your mechanism for entanglement swapping over spacetime?

It is a protocol for using two entangled states Alice/Bob, Bob/Charlie, to create one entangled state between Alice and Charlie. 

The protocol is essentially the same as for quantum "teleportation".

Tell me what Bennett et al mean in their first paragraph if it is not non-locality?

The entire quote is: "The existence of long range correlations between Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) [1] pairs of particles raises the question of their use for information transfer. Einstein himself used the word "telepathically" in this context [2]. It is known that instantaneous information transfer is definitely impossible [3]. Here, we show that EPR correlations can nevertheless assist in the "teleportation" of an intact quantum state from one place to another, by a sender who knows neither the state to be teleported nor the location of the intended receiver."

(The third sentence clearly agrees with what I said before: EPR pairs of particles cannot be used for instantaneous information transfer.)

They mean that EPR correlations can be used to recreate an unknown state |psi> at Bob at the price of destroying |psi> at Alice.

The EPR state is destroyed in the process.

Why is teleportation a misnomer?

Because you don't "teleport". You destroy |psi> together with one half of the EPR state, communicate classically, and then re-create |psi> from the other half of the EPR state.

Do you accept the Wikipedia def under entanglement?

The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particl

The key word is "apparently"

What mediates the instantaneous collapse by which Alica and Bob are related?

There is no collapse. 

Unless you (Bryan) assume that there is a collapse of some "real state". But then you (Bryan) will need to explain what mediates the collapse. 

Since I (Jan-Åke) don't assume there is a collapse, I (Jan-Åke) do not run in to these problems. 

Standard QM does not need collapse, the predictions can be calculated without collapse.

I am interested in your answers.  I left you spaces

Perfect, thanks

/Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

You find what I say confusing and contradictory. 

You put a question to me and you asked for a yes/no answer!

I’m happy to explain it, but it is probably better if you listen to other people who did understand me. 

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 May 2022, at 20:11, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan, dear all

Bell’s theorem rules out classical LHV. That’s what it is about. Conventional QM is as local as you could want it to be (it respects relativistic causality).

I am not flummoxed by Q_8. In connection with the work of Joy Christian I got deeply into that stuff. I spotted math errors which reviewers had not seen in a big paper of his in a major algebra journal. As a consequence I was invited to a big GA conference, and I corrresponded with Lasenby et al. on the use of GA in QM. The paper got retracted.

I agree that Bryan’s work has little to do with Bell’s theorem. In particular, it does not contradict any of Bell’s work.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

[Chantal Roth]

Jan-Åke,

I look at the data (I attached the Excel sheet):

It is obvious that there is some small amount of drift going on here:

And just when the detection is higher, there is more 11 setting than 22.

This obviously has an effect on J (when you have slightly more detections just when the settings are more often 11 and later less detection when the setting is 22...)

The correlation between the two is the key, not just the settings alone or detection rate alone..

I read the paper and supplementary material more than once (https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401#temp%3Aintralink-c29), and I do not see where this is taken into account. Even Richard said so... 

From the supplement:

 from before: "The parameter for excess predictability εA = εB  is about  2.4×10−4.

This is nice and make sense, but, I can see a bias in the data that is larger (between the detection efficiency and a1, b1 vs a2, b2 setting counts. With r=0.147, so that this is about 2%.). "

In summary, to me this experiment has some open questions and is not loophole free.

If these drifts can be eliminated - or at least the correlation (!), then that would be more convincing.

Or, if you (or anyone else) could compute how much this correlation affects J and then compute he "actual" J without this, and if that is still clearly positive, then that would also be great.

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Richard Gill]

Dear Chantal

Read also the cited paper

https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4787

Requirements for a loophole-free photonic Bell test using imperfect setting generators

Johannes Kofler, Marissa Giustina, Jan-Åke Larsson, Morgan W. Mitchell
Experimental violations of Bell inequalities are in general vulnerable to so-called "loopholes." In this work, we analyse the characteristics of a loophole-free Bell test with photons, closing simultaneously the locality, freedom-of-choice, fair-sampling (i.e. detection), coincidence-time, and memory loopholes. We pay special attention to the effect of excess predictability in the setting choices due to non-ideal random number generators. We discuss necessary adaptations of the CH/Eberhard inequality when using such imperfect devices and -- using Hoeffding's inequality and Doob's optional stopping theorem -- the statistical analysis in such Bell tests.

The paper has a large section on how to take account of parameters drifting with time using Hoeffding's inequality and Doob's optional stopping theorem. Ie martingale methods introduced by Yours Truly

It is possible to let the setting probabilities vary with time. I think Jan-Åke et al. (also with Bierhorst and the NIST people) have worked this out carefully and correctly.

What you obviously must not do is simply use the original Eberhard inequality and the classical i.i.d. based estimates of variances. So yes: drifting parameters can spoil the Eberhard test (as also the CHSH test) but one should not use those criteria in their original form. 

Richard

PS Chantal, did you ever actually read my ancient papers? Time to learn some basic probability theory? Sorry to be impertinent

[39] R. Gill, “Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling”, Mathematical Statistics and Applications: Festschrift for Constance van Eeden, eds. M. Moore, S. Froda, and C. Leger, vol. 42, p. 233 (Institute of Mathematical Statis- ´ tics, Beachwood, Ohio, 2003); arxiv: quant-ph/0110137. 

[40] R. Gill, “Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell’s Fifth Position”, Proceedings of Foundations of Probability and Physics - 2, vol. 5, Math. Modelling in Phys., Engin., and Cogn. Sc., p. 179 (Vaxj ¨ o¨ University Press, 2003); arxiv: quant-ph/0301059.

On 20 May 2022, at 07:52, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Jan-Åke,

I look at the data (I attached the Excel sheet):

It is obvious that there is some small amount of drift going on here:

And just when the detection is higher, there is more 11 setting than 22.

This obviously has an effect on J (when you have slightly more detections just when the settings are more often 11 and later less detection when the setting is 22...)

The correlation between the two is the key, not just the settings alone or detection rate alone..

I read the paper and supplementary material more than once (https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401#temp%3Aintralink-c29), and I do not see where this is taken into account. Even Richard said so... 

<image.png>

From the supplement:

<image.png>

 from before: "The parameter for excess predictability εA = εB  is about  2.4×10−4.

This is nice and make sense, but, I can see a bias in the data that is larger (between the detection efficiency and a1, b1 vs a2, b2 setting counts. With r=0.147, so that this is about 2%.). "

In summary, to me this experiment has some open questions and is not loophole free.

If these drifts can be eliminated - or at least the correlation (!), then that would be more convincing.

Or, if you (or anyone else) could compute how much this correlation affects J and then compute he "actual" J without this, and if that is still clearly positive, then that would also be great.

Best wishes,

Chantal

On Thu, May 19, 2022, at 11:21 PM, Jan-Åke Larsson wrote:

On tor, 2022-05-19 at 23:02 +0200, Chantal Roth wrote:

Jan-Åke,

re "Nothing is ever bullet proof. But there is a point where one should move on to other things."

I agree - for me that point has not been quite reached *yet*.

Re "citation":

this is spread all over this forum in several posts, but I can try to collect them :-). Yes, I know you used the Martingale bounds, but even Richard agreed that it did not consider everything, for instance it was assumed that the settings were distributed without any bias/drift over time. So such variation over time was not taken into account apparently.

We did actually take that into account, read the paper.

Best

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/946ad167-f5cd-480a-9729-4fb165a74116%40www.fastmail.com.
<guistina2015.xlsx>

[Chantal Roth]

Richard,

I found some material here and will try to read it, https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse525/13sp/scribe/lec18.pdf, but I do have a job though "unfortunately" :-), so my time is extremely limited...

So, "how much" can this affect J, at most? Can this be estimated? Can you make an educated guess?

And does this really also consider the *correlations* between multiple parameters? (Not just at each individual parameter!)

I doubt that most here even on this forum know the statistical details about Hoeffding's inequality and Doob's optional stopping theorem. It is difficult to judge if these correlations were indeed taken into account or not and how large this effect is.

It would be much easier to convince doubters like me to just repeat the experiment, and pick a result that does *not* happen to have such correlations which look like the are the reason for the positive result ! :-)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Richard Gill]

Dear Chantal

That’s a good link!

You ask “how much can it affect J”. I think that’s the wrong question.  Eberhard’s “J” isn’t some physical parameter which needs to be estimated. It’s a tool used in testing a statistical hypothesis. It’s not the only tool. Not the only test statistic.

I have no job fortunately but my time is more limited now I’m retired than before!

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 May 2022, at 08:24, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:



[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Many thanks, I needed cheering up

Chantal, the size of the effect in the Vienna experiment is available in our 2015 paper. 

(I also have a job, must run now.)

/JÅ

[Richard Gill]

Jan-Åke, you said "We did actually take that into account, read the paper".  Agreed. You did. My earlier criticism, which Chantal recently quoted, was not valid!

My complaints about the "four loophole-free” tests of 2015 are that 

(1) the size of the violation in the NIST and Vienna experiments is tiny. Something like [to say it in the traditional CHSH way] S = 2. 000 001 but such a huge sample that the standard deviation is 0. 000 000 1 (or something like that);

(2) the size of the violation at Delft and Munich is wonderful, S = 2.4 or 2.6 but the sample size is so small that the standard deviation is 0.2 or something like that.

All four experiments are path-breaking in my opinion, because they do cross significant thresholds thanks to impressive technical *and* theoretical developments.

[Delft and Munich are actually three-party experiments, not traditional two-party experiments]

I see no reason why it won’t be possible to redo a Delft or Munich style experiment with a ten times larger sample and hence, all other things being equal, three times smaller standard deviation.

I have the impression this is simply not quite scientifically exciting enough for research groups like this to dedicate a whole PhD to. But I hope it will happen, one of these days…

Richard

-- 
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/4bc89e4a83ce4ce6f76ade19214a8ee9f7f98b3e.camel%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On fre, 2022-05-20 at 09:04 +0200, Richard Gill wrote:

Jan-Åke, you said "We did actually take that into account, read the paper".  Agreed. You did. My earlier criticism, which Chantal recently quoted, was not valid!

My complaints about the "four loophole-free” tests of 2015 are that 

(1) the size of the violation in the NIST and Vienna experiments is tiny. Something like [to say it in the traditional CHSH way] S = 2. 000 001 but such a huge sample that the standard deviation is 0. 000 000 1 (or something like that);

Just for clarity: The setup is such that this is a consequence of the theoretical properties of the state. The low violation is not from a low visibility correlation pattern. The violation is 11.5 standard deviations, under the IID assumption.

(2) the size of the violation at Delft and Munich is wonderful, S = 2.4 or 2.6 but the sample size is so small that the standard deviation is 0.2 or something like that.

If you look carefully at the Delft data, if you would do the statistical tests that we did, the first thing that fails is the independence of the settings. Not the Bell inequality. You can't because of the sample size, so this is a serious weakness of the experiment.

Also, they are not as careful with spatial separation.

Actually, the experiment I like the best just now is the Munich test.

/JÅ

[Richard Gill]

Yes, the low violation is part of the Eberhard story, namely that by using a *less* entangled state one can have *better* resistance against detector inefficiency and hence can better demonstrate violation of LHV than if one used the usual maximally entangled state!

In words which Bryan does not like at all: 

more quantum non-locality with less quantumness! What a beautiful paradox. 

But there is true mathematics behind this, and experiment shows that the real world is like that. I think it is wonderful, not weird.

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 May 2022, at 09:23, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:



[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Ake,

Yesterday you commented on Bell's explanation why variables can be hidden as follows: “This is a reference to the understanding of that time. Now we know how to avoid this "explanation"”. But you didn't write what you know. Bell wrote in his first paper “A complete theory would require for example an account of the behaviour of the hidden variables during the measurement process itself. With or without hidden variables the analysis of the measurement process presents peculiar difficulties” [1]. Do you knowhow to avoid the peculiar difficulties of the analysis of the measurement process both in quantum mechanics and a hidden variables theory? Or do you know how to overcome these peculiar difficulties?

If you only avoid the peculiar difficulties in the analysis of the measurement process, then everyone, starting with the creators of quantum mechanics, has always done this. Quantum mechanics is a trick for that very reason. But if you know how to overcome the peculiar difficulties then variables cannot be hidden. And quantum mechanics cannot be considered as an adequate theory in this case, as Bell wrote in the beginning of [1]: “These hypothetical 'dispersion free' states would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical state vector but also by additional 'hidden variables'-'hidden' because if states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate”.

You commented also the claim of David Mermin made in [2] that von Neumann’s assumption is silly: “Also points to the old "explanation", Mermin had a different viewpoint last I communicated with him”. Does a different viewpoint mean that Mermin admits that his claim made in 1993 [2] was false? If he admits this, then he must admit that Bell's inequalities and all the debate about Bell's inequalities do not make sense.

I must say that Mermin, like most people, did not understand that the orthodox quantum mechanics cannot predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities. That's the only reason he could not notice the obvious mistakes made by the authors of the GHZ theorem [3,4]. The mistakes is so obvious that it's hard to believe that they could have been made by famous scientists. If we use the method used by the authors [4] to calculate the expectation value in the GHSZ state to calculate the expectation value in the EPR state

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

then we will not get any correlation between the results of measurements of two particles A and B. The authors [4] follow in the Appendix F to the orthodox quantum mechanics according to which operators acting on different particles commute and therefore measurement of one particle cannot change states of other particles. Only a measured particle in this case jumps into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured in accordance with the postulate about the Dirac jump. The particles A and B of the EPR pair (1) jump in the Dirac state

Dirac = |A+z1>[ (1/2)^{1/2}|B-> - (1/2)^{1/2}|B+>]          (2)

when Alice will see that her particle deflects up along the direction z1 in which she measures spin projection. The expression (2) predicts no correlation between results of observations of the A and B particles. Quantum mechanics can predict the EPR correlation only if not only a measured particle but also another particle which is not measured will jump ”into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured”.

This should be obvious to anyone who knows quantum mechanics. But the publication of my article “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem" faces difficulties, as it is difficult for editors to admit that well-known authors have made obvious mistakes and that no one has noticed them for more than thirty years. During this time, many publications have appeared not only about Bell's theorem, but also about the GHZ theorem. It is difficult for many authors of these publications to admit that their publications are based on obvious mistakes and a false understanding of quantum mechanics by the majority.

[1] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966)

[2] N.D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993)

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. 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 theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 20 мая 2022 г. в 10:23, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/86ea7e3ae173d0f79c932bfd509dd6bf6a40aafd.camel%40liu.se.

[Mark Hadley]

Sorry, but you are wrong about QM it's predictions are correct. 

In my opinion decoherence theory explains how the quantum state interacts with measurement apparatus to create a classical mixture of outcomes. It might not be a very appealing explanation, but it is mathematically sound and unavoidable for a quantum state interacting with the environment.

So two types of collapse happen. Interaction with the environment changes the quantum mechanical wavefunction to a classical mixture of measurement outcomes. Then when you look at the result the classical state operator changes to one of the possible outcomes, like opening the shoe box or turning over a playing card. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iKDqq-izySmp1cABKT_yJmY3a-FCPsPJyyGsqM5EOzB0g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Jan-Åke

We are far apart.  I read your comments carefully to try to get your picture--not easy for me to visualize your approach. 

 About my work, first your comments are generalization without specifics:

• I disagree my notation is not clear--no examples given
• I disagree my math is imprecise.--no examples given
• You want me to prove that my states are dispersion free?  Jan-Åke please look at my state ops and by inspection they are idempotent.  It is unnecessary to point out the obvious. 
• Of course I know that QM is local, and I challenge the non-local states that stretch across spacetime

You talk about the reality of the wave functions.  I treat a state as a state operator, its density matrix, like von Neumann.  We measure a set of as many attributes we can measure, and to each we assign a Hermitian operator.  The operators are organized into an algebra of operators and sometimes they separate into compatible and incompatible sets.  The state operator is constructed to reflect the outcomes from the definition of the inner product as I define in my paper.  See also Fano Rev mod phys 1957. 

That is my state.  Since the state op is hermitian, you can say the state is real.  The approach is standard. 

So I thought that you and I might agree on something.  The paper:

 Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Zeilinger, A. (1990). Bell’s theorem without inequalities. American Journal of Physics, 58(12), 1131-1143.

https://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/PHYS518_08/AJP_58_1131.pdf

Do you agree with their method of calculating the EPR correlation?  Please confirm that you agree with Eq. 2 and with the calculation in Appendix B.  

I agree with the calculation and I suggest that this is the way everyone calculates the correlation and is standard QM.

If you agree, then we can use that framework to discuss. All definitions and equations we discuss will be from that paper, so no arguments,

Perhaps then we can compare parts when non-local collapse is used, or your non-collapse method, and perhaps you can show in some steps how all you do is local.

Bruyan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

I too agree with the calculations for the singlet state in appendices A and B of GHSZ. (Up to possible global phase factors which are irrelevant anyway as far as we are concerned). GHSZ write the normalized singlet state vector as a complex superposition of four orthogonal normalized product state vectors, in one-to-one correspondence with four joint measurement outcomes. They square the absolute values to get the usual four probabilities. They use only the Born law. There is no talk of non-local collapse, or of any collapse at all, of wave functions.

In my note which you refuse to read I use a completely equivalent approach (via expectation values) to get exactly the same answer.

These are the calculations which Alexey keeps saying are wrong but never says what exactly is wrong with them.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 May 2022, at 14:25, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
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/CALLw9YwcSV3xT9BCurpVOfT5VgUcJyAvRO9VUgHN9Ka2YFYh%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[pier...@free.fr]

Dear Richard,

I wanted to react to your sentence "I have the impression this is simply not quite scientifically exciting enough for research groups like this to dedicate a whole PhD to."

If knowing if the physics is realistic local and there is an error in the qm predictions, or if Bell is wrong isn't exciting enough for physicists, it's discouraging.

In my opinion a lot more energy should be devoted to this.
The basic logic (realistic) says that if the qm predictions are not possible to obtain with a realistic local model, there is a problem in the predictions.

In addition, it has been realized since around 2015 that experiments using particle pairs and not paired time slots cannot be reliable, which in the end leaves few experiments that can be assumed to be reliable.

We should also do something other than try to violate inequalities by using a few angles.

It would be good to generate a database containing a complete record between [0..2PI] of raw detection data obtained with the simplest and most reliable 4-detector epr experiment possible, in order to obtain the maximum information, and do it with the best performing detectors available.

All the technical characteristics of the devices and optics used for the experiment as well as the calibration data should also be available.

This database should be free to access.

This would make possible to compare with different models of realistic simulations and possibly to recognize certain signatures produced by these models.

It should also be possible to verify with these data that the amplitude of the violations predicted by QM is actually reached.

If this were available, and done by several independent laboratories, and if it is indeed not possible to produce these data with a local realistic method, that would be enough to convince me of the non local realism, and probably many other people as well who doubt.

Best Regards,
Pierre



----- Mail d'origine -----
De: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
À: Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com>
Cc: Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Envoyé: Fri, 20 May 2022 09:04:25 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Wait-a-second Bob!

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com <mailto:Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4bc89e4a83ce4ce6f76ade19214a8ee9f7f98b3e.camel%40liu.se <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4bc89e4a83ce4ce6f76ade19214a8ee9f7f98b3e.camel%40liu.se?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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/413620D7-FDBA-47AD-B468-DFBAE94013D5%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Pierre

You wrote "it has been realized since around 2015 that experiments using particle pairs and not paired time slots cannot be reliable”.

Where did you get that idea? Who realised this and what were their arguments?

About your idea to do an experiment in which all pairs of directions are scanned, there exist ideas in the literature concerning “functional Bell inequalities”, and they are related to my work on Gull’s theorem, https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719, https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/5/679, this is a current research direction of my own.

I think most physicists believe that Bell was right (and rightly so). I don’t know why you think it is a matter of basic logic that local realism must be true. I believe that our primate brains have evolved to contain a picture of how the real world works, and though this picture works well in daily life, it does not work for all of physics.

Richard

[Chantal Roth]

I totally agree with Pierre.

In particular it should be done with more than 2 angles - ideally all as Pierre suggested, as this would result in a much more detailed picture, also it would be much easier to compare it with theoretical simulations.

(Pierre, you should post that very interesting simulation you did a few days ago!)

Best wishes,
Chantal

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1812785197.1892770296.1653052310091.JavaMail.root%40zimbra55-e10.priv.proxad.net.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi

Good we agree. So when there is an issue we defer to GHSZ.

So when the Born rule is used, is it a local or nonlocal process?

Bryan