18 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 28, 2023, 11:09:20 AM1/28/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Question 3 from the mini-conference.

This is the key to why computer simulations can detect quantum vs classic models.

3. What is the difference between classical and quantum allowing to violate Bell?

Why are computer simulations easily able to detect the difference between classic and quantum models? Correlations between __quantum__ particle pairs are alway strongly correlated with each other (*example: if one is up, the other is down*). But __classic__ particle pairs only appear strongly correlated with each other when the classic particles are "strongly" aligned or anti-aligned with their BPS or GS deflector (*example: BPS and classic photon initialized to nearly the same polarity or nearly 90° different polarity*).

Key difference: Classic particle pairs that are "weakly" aligned with their BPS or GS deflector (*example: BPS and classic photon polarization differ by nearly 45°*) have a near random chance of being detected any particular way, and appear weakly correlated with each other. (*example if one particle is detected up, the other still has a near random chance of being detected up or down*)

Simplified example in 2D: if the polarization of the BSP (Beam Splitting Polarizer) is 45°, then EPR (classical) photons emitted from the source with polarizations close to 0°, 90°, etc.) have a near equal probability of being detected as either 45° or 135°.

These classic particles (weakly aligned with their polarizer or deflector) will appear weakly correlated (unlike all quantum particle pairs or classical* particles pairs wth initial polarizations closely matching or anti-bathing their BPS or GS deflector (strongly aligned with their polarizer or deflector) will appear *strongly correlated).

Jan 28, 2023, 1:46:11 PM1/28/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Re-Write (*typos fixed - more to the point*)

3. What is the difference between classical and quantum allowing to violate Bell?

Computer simulations detect the difference like this:

Entangled quantum pair particle 2 collapses to a polarity or spin correlated to PBS 1 or SG deflector 1 (same or orthogonal)

While classical pair particle 2 has a polarity or spin correlated to a random value (orthogonal value of what particle 1 was emitted with) and has no relationship with PBS 1 or SG deflector 1.

Correlations between quantum particle pairs are always measured as strongly correlated with each other. Quantum particle 1 always gains the same or orthogonal polarity of its PBS (Polarizing Beam Splitter) or spin direction of its SG (Stern Gerlach) magnetic deflector. Entangled quantum particle 2 always gains the orthogonal polarity (or spin) as particle 1. Both entangled quantum particles are always measured as strongly correlated with respect to each other and PBS 1 or SG deflector 1.

However correlations between classical particle pairs are not always measured as strongly correlated with each other. Classical particle 1 is emitted from the source with a random polarity (or spin), and its pair particle 2 always has the orthogonal polarity or (spin) of particle 1. Pair particle 2 is orthogonal to the random value of particle 1.

The key difference is that classical pair particle 2 to is orthogonal to a random value, and has no correlation to PBS 1 or SG deflector 1. While quantum pair particle 2 always has the same or orthogonal as PBS 1 or SG deflector 1.

Jan 28, 2023, 2:20:30 PM1/28/23

to James Jr Tankersley, Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

See below

Then your "classical pair" cannot reproduce the quantum prediction:
opposite outcomes if PBS 1 (SG defl 1) is equally oriented as PBS 2
(SG defl 2).

Your "classical pairs" do not reproduce the quantum predictions. We see the quantum predictions in experiment. Your "classical pairs" then do not describe the experiment well.

Nor can you violate the Bell (CHSH) inequality. If you believe you do, you are doing the calculation wrong.

/Jan-Åke

Your "classical pairs" do not reproduce the quantum predictions. We see the quantum predictions in experiment. Your "classical pairs" then do not describe the experiment well.

Nor can you violate the Bell (CHSH) inequality. If you believe you do, you are doing the calculation wrong.

/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/840a574e-6d9f-4bc6-9ee0-10c96c77f0e3n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Jan-Åke Larsson

Professor, Head of Department

Jan-Åke Larsson

Professor, Head of Department

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

Jan 28, 2023, 2:35:43 PM1/28/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Hello Jan-Åke,

The simulation does not violate bell with classical particles and perfect detection.

The simulation acts as a confirmation that Bell got the math correct.

Inequalities between classical and quantum particles are clearly detected by simulations with perfect detection.

(*The only exception is when we very selectively filter out classic particles that are "least" correlated with their polarizer or deflector. A form of detection loop hole, then we can simulate the false appearance of violating Bell with classical particles*)

Jan 28, 2023, 2:40:23 PM1/28/23

to James Tankersley Jr, Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

You will still not violate the inequality if you do the calculation
correctly.

See for example: Jan-Åke Larsson, Bell’s inequality and detector inefficiency, Physical Review A 57:3304-3308 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.3304

/JÅ

See for example: Jan-Åke Larsson, Bell’s inequality and detector inefficiency, Physical Review A 57:3304-3308 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.3304

/JÅ

--

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/CAD%3DV2RtE6SVXHK58G%3DEpJc8pMh7QNp7m-ByXHa%3DfO9BJ4ZdYwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Jan 28, 2023, 2:58:15 PM1/28/23

to James Tankersley Jr, Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

If you postselect ("very selectively filter out classic particles")
you need to adjust the inequality.

The paper can be downloaded from http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A586507&dswid=8796

/JÅ

The paper can be downloaded from http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A586507&dswid=8796

/JÅ

On 2023-01-28 20:55, James Tankersley
Jr wrote:

Hi Jan-Åke,I do not appear to have access to your paper, but I am interested in studying it.

It is possible that the simulation math is lacking in some way, though Richard Gill did review and have me make several changes to the software in 2020, but he is not fluent in Java Script to verify claims I was making about the software, I shifted focus, and the review process did not come to a conclusion.

Jan 28, 2023, 2:59:33 PM1/28/23

to Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

Probably better link:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-87169

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/66f64498-115a-0f8f-85a3-16df0f6e8f34%40liu.se.

Jan 29, 2023, 9:09:27 PM1/29/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Does anyone disagree that the following experiment should be expected to do the following?

__QM__ modelled test:

__Classical__ modelled test:

Conduct actual CHSH experiments with photons __pre-polarized__ to model either __QM__ or __Classical.__

This should__ __replicate the same results we are seeing in computer simulations.

A. QM photon __photon 1__ would be pre-polarized to either same as, or orthogonal to __PBS 1__ (*50% chance of one of 2 possible values*).

B. QM entangled __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (*180 degrees different*).

C. QM test should have 100% detection of photon 1. When PBS 2 is same or orthogonal to PBS 1, then photon 2 should also have 100% detection and Bell will be __strongly violated__. Otherwise photon 2 will have some Malus Filter and Bell will be Does anyone disagree that the following experiment would do the following?

__QM__ modelled test:

__Classical__ modelled test:

C. Classic test should expect Malus Filter on both photons (*except when photons and PBS are same or orthogonal*) and should __weakly violate Bell__. If detection could be increased to 100%, then Classic should __not violate Bell__ at all (*is this possible with electron spin SG tests?*).

Conduct actual CHSH experiments with photons __pre-polarized__ to model either __QM__ or __Classical.__

This should__ __replicate the same results we are seeing in computer simulations.

A. QM photon __photon 1__ would be pre-polarized to either same as, or orthogonal to __PBS 1__ (*50% chance of one of 2 possible values*).

B. QM entangled __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (*180 degrees different*).

C. QM test should __strongly violate__ Bell when __PBS 1__ and __PBS 2__ are the same or orthogonal and no expected loss. When __PBS 2__ is neither the same nor orthogonal to __PBS 1__, then __photon 2__ should have some Malus Filter loss, but still __weakly violate__ Bell.

A. Classic __photon 1__ would be pre-polarized to a __random__ direction (*equal chance of any value between 0 and 360 degrees*).

B. Classic pair __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (*180 degrees different*).

A. Classic __photon 1__ would be pre-polarized to a __random__ direction (*equal chance of any value between 0 and 360 degrees*).

B. Classic pair __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (*180 degrees different*).

C. Classic test will have Malus Filter on both photons (*intrinsic to PBS*) and should __weakly violate Bell__. If detection could be increased to 100%, then Classic should __not violate Bell__ at all (*possible with electron spin SG tests?*).

--

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/53d2c798-c088-45f3-ab41-a8d0758f745dn%40googlegroups.com.

Jan 29, 2023, 9:13:46 PM1/29/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Sorry, resent:

Does anyone disagree that the following experiment should be expected to do the following?

Conduct actual CHSH experiments with photons __pre-polarized__ to model either __QM__ or __Classical.__

This should__ __replicate the same results we are seeing in computer simulations.

A. QM photon __photon 1__ would be pre-polarized to either same as, or orthogonal to __PBS 1__ (*50% chance of one of 2 possible values*).

B. QM entangled __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (*180 degrees different*).

C. QM test should have 100% detection of photon 1. When PBS 2 is same or orthogonal to PBS 1, then photon 2 should also have 100% detection and Bell will be __strongly violated__. Otherwise photon 2 will have some Malus Filter, but still __weakly violate__ Bell.

Jan 29, 2023, 9:58:28 PM1/29/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Draft 3

Does anyone disagree that the following experiment should be expected to do the following?

Conduct actual CHSH experiments with photons __pre-polarized__ to model either __QM__ or __Classical.__

This should__ __replicate the same results we are seeing in computer simulations.

B. QM entangled __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (**180** [**+/- 90**] degrees different).

C. QM test should have 100% detection of photon 1. When PBS 2 is same or orthogonal to PBS 1, then photon 2 should also have 100% detection and Bell will be __strongly violated__. Otherwise photon 2 will have some Malus Filter, but still __weakly violate__ Bell.

A. Classic __photon 1__ would be pre-polarized to a __random__ direction (*equal chance of any value between 0 and 360 degrees*).

B. Classic pair __photon 2__ would be pre-polarized to the opposite of __photon 1__ (**180** [**+/- 90**] degrees different).

Jan 30, 2023, 1:25:05 AM1/30/23

to James Tankersley Jr, Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

No. The QM test does not work like that. QM tells us that entangled
photons are not pre-polarized.

Also, in our experiments, there is no way to "pre-polarize" photon 1 to the "same as, or orthogonal to PBS 1". The PBS orientation is selected so late that no (sub-luminal) signal can ever tell the source what the PBS 1 orientation is going to be.

It is true that the classical model in your example cannot violate the CHSH inequality, the maximal correlation is too low.

Nobody does electron-spin-MZ-experiments, electrons are too sensitive, what people do is atom or ion electronic orbit spin states that are read off through stimulated emission.

/JÅ

Also, in our experiments, there is no way to "pre-polarize" photon 1 to the "same as, or orthogonal to PBS 1". The PBS orientation is selected so late that no (sub-luminal) signal can ever tell the source what the PBS 1 orientation is going to be.

It is true that the classical model in your example cannot violate the CHSH inequality, the maximal correlation is too low.

Nobody does electron-spin-MZ-experiments, electrons are too sensitive, what people do is atom or ion electronic orbit spin states that are read off through stimulated emission.

/JÅ

--

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/CAD%3DV2RvN72SXTiin8HJnLqdHPTLsCLgNPD4FXbvXL4dEoLv2cw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu