Re: Local hidden variables.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

As far as I can see, Mark Hadley did *not* agree with you. He seemed to me to come to the same conclusion as I do.

Yours

Richard

PS The Google group https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations is probably the suitable one for you to post to. Everyone is welcome.

The Bell inequalities and quantum foundations group is exclusively for quantum theory and related topics. It was founded (and is *owned*) by Alexandre de Castro. It has two *managers* - Alexandre de Castro and Richard Gill. We (the managers) try to "manage" as little as possible. We rely on the self-discipline of group members to keep discussion threads "on topic" etc. etc. Please keep civilized and friendly even if you totally disagree with other members of the group, and especially when someone tells you that they think that your ideas are wrong. The idea is that here, ideas do clash! We are not a mutual admiration society. If you have technical problems using the Google Groups "platform" please contact Richard by email, gill...@gmail.com 

On 24 Feb 2023, at 08:36, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

If anyone copied here does not want to get these, please let me know and i will remove you and apologize for including you.

Hi Mark

I agree it is a linear relationship.  As I say, your expression is the way I look at how various contributions from pol and coherence are related.  In my program I calculated the two complementary parts separately, giving values that are independent of how many clicks are actually produced.

In real experiments, sometimes there is more of one than the other, and the experimental clicks are all accounted for with a probability for each.  To me this is clear and accounts for the experimental results, click by click.

It also shows that Richard's last objection, dividing my result by two, is not validated. He has exhausted all his objections, but I invite him to have a go at trying to show my work is flawed.

The next part to understand is the difference between polarization clicks and coherence clicks.  I suggest a filter to separate them, but the important point is to show that depending on the difference between the filter settings of Alice and Bob, one is favoured over the other.

The fundamental physical idea is what I explained before and for which there is ample evidence from other experiments.  That is, spins decoupling and coupling occurs as a function of field (filter settings). The coherence state forms from the coupling of the two  spin 1/2 to give a coherent spin 1, and this is maintained at filter settings that differ by pi/4.  As the difference moves to pi/2 or to zero, that coherence decouples and the coherence is lost leaving only polarized states.

That is the mechanism.  I requires a lot of changes to our understanding of the usual spin of 1/2 that is measured, but it is all well based in QFT.  

I am working on wording in my papers all the time, and I hope that my pedagogical videos will spell things out. 

In the meantime, I hope you agree that your distribution of pol and coh is one step to accepting my approach.  I very much appreciate your input and tenacity which helps me in clarifications and suggest better ways to put these ideas across.

Thank you

Bryan

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:45 AM Mark Hadley <drmark...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan,

That was a good summary apart from one sentence. 

It's a linear relationship. It can't be anything else. The correlation moves from pol to col as the fraction shifts from one to the other. 

It's not just about combining correlations. It's true for the average values of any complementary populations that are mixed. 

Cheers

Mark

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, 13:44 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark

I now have your figure and I think it agrees with me.  If we have only pol, then i get the pol correlation. If we have only col and no pol, then i get only coh correlation. The last equation says some pol and some coh and you add them. The prefactors simply gives the intensity of each.

The ratios say over Ntot coincidences, sometimes you have one and sometimes you have the other in those ratios. But you never have the two together. If you filtered and collected them in separate bins then the number of coincidences are divided in those ratios between those bins. Then the two correlation are obtained separately and accumulate as the sum.

If you have 3/4 pol and 1/4 coh that does not mean you multiply pol by 3/4  and coh by 1/4, it just means you have more coincidence from pol and fewer from coh.

I think that is consistent with what I am saying.

Bryan

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, 10:30 Mark Hadley <drmark...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Richard and Bryan,

Yes a trivial error on equation 3. I've corrected that.

And I have changed the result to deal with cases where the p and e populations are unequal. 

It's straightforward algebra. And gives a sensible result. Bryan was right to start with a definition of correlation. That is what I have done. 

Bryan, 

Can you follow and agree with this derivation? 

Thanks 

Mark

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, 04:56 Richard Gill, <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan,  Mark

Sorry, I first sent this to Udi and Bryan, by mistake. Another try.

Bryan: When we calculate correlations we divide by the number of pairs of particles, not the number of particles.

Mark: your handwritten note contains an obvious misprint on line 3 I think, but I agree with your conclusion

To Bryan again, all of Mark’s “N”s are numbers of particle pairs. In his line 1, N_tot is the total number of particle pairs.

A particle pair can be of type pol, or of type coh

The two particles of a pair either lead to the same outcome or they lead to opposite outcomes.

Mark: do you agree that your line 3 is wrong? Perhaps you should correct it for Bryan.

Richard

PS I’m not sending this email to Jarek’s group because Jarek and other members of his group are getting annoyed by all the messages about Bell’s theorem. Jarek’s group is not about Bell’s theorem, it is about the nature of time.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Richard

You are categorically and unequivocally wrong.  The two correlations are observed in coincidence experiments and over a large number of runs and different filter angle settings, are observed as a mixing of the two according to the probabilities.  Here it is

  Now I must clearly explain the mechanism of the coupling and uncoupling so the distributions.  This, I am sure, will convince the majority of our peers.

Get out your checkbook!!

Thank you Mark for showing how the experimental clicks can be distributed.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Mark

Indeed it is I who am grateful to you for engaging in this.  Many thanks

Bryan

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 3:49 AM Mark Hadley <drmark...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan and Richard,

So I have produced relevant equations that all three of us agree on. 

They are simple and can't sensibly be anything else. 

Bryan, thank you for engaging with this so positively. 

Cheers

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

So this is the formula now:

You now accept that those two correlations of yours should be averaged, not added. Well, that is a big step forwards. You now have S less than 2 instead of S = 3.

My checkbook only comes out after you have convinced the majority of our peers to accept your theory (and reject entanglement at a distance) by the end of the year. I hope you have your checkbook ready too.

Richard

On 24 Feb 2023, at 11:16, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Richard

You are categorically and unequivocally wrong.  The two correlations are observed in coincidence experiments and over a large number of runs and different filter angle settings, are observed as a mixing of the two according to the probabilities.  Here it is

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

So now that we understand and agree on the equations, the final step is for you to put some specific numbers into the equations.

Do this step by step with my equations and I'm sure Richard will then accept the out come.

Cheers

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/CALLw9Yx5dGUTGU3qAo2TquiDAGu8nvEMW4DKEkjJGZV-pmbSQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Richard

 I hope I am not including uninterested people.

With Mark's expression, I can now unequivocally answer your insistence that I must average my two complementary contributions by dividing them by two.  Here are the experimental clicks

which show the apparent violation of BI.  Here are the same clicks rearranged to distinguish polarization from coherence

The two equations give exactly the same result, showing my approach is consistent with experiment, and your objection is answered.

This shows, BTW, that Bell's theorem has no relevance to qm.  Non-locality plays no role in the violation.  The apparent violation means that Nature obeys local realism.

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Bryan,
Please now recalculate the correlation from your model using your new-found formula
(that I tried to explain to you six months ago).

Best regards
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/CALLw9Yy%3DMXOA82kXG%3DO3Ag_grt734WL7DkCTB%2BW9XLUciAcm5g%40mail.gmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

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

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Jan-Åke

Thanks for your question:

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Can you repost the link to your paper, I can't seem to find it anymore.

And the other correlations?

/JÅ

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Jan-Åke

I have the papers up but they do not reflect this new point that has puzzled me for the last couple of months.  Here is a draft of the new part, and the links are at the end

Bryan

Extrinsic quaternion spin.   

Spin with hyper-helicity.     

Simulated local EPR correlations: CHSH = 3. 

 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Hi,
In the previous manuscripts you claim you can (must) add the two correlations. In fact, your claimed violation of the inequality depended on that.

Now you have accepted that a correlation obtained from two subensembles is the weighted average of the two correlations of the subensembles. The data you had in your previous manuscripts does not violate the inequality when combined through the weighted average.

I don't know how you generate the numbers you just quoted to me.

Please rewrite all of this into a single, well-explained, derivation.
If you want to convince us, this is what you need to do.

Best regards
Jan-Åke

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

Let's try to do this in small steps. 

Do you have an equation just for 

N_+ /N _tot at A for a polariser angle a

So that is the fraction of up readings measured at Alice for any particular angle a

QM gives all these fractions but without any explanation. I think you are claiming to explain it with your parameter theta. By the way, I suggest that you give it another letter, say lambda, to distinguish it from polariser angles.

As a matter of fact, your parameter theta, that has explanatory power in an EPR type experiment, is called a hidden variable. That's what all other scientists mean by hidden variables. Your challenge is hard enough without trying to use a different language. So I suggest that as an edit.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bbf709fd-ca1c-5451-5859-6ca22992887e%40liu.se.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi

I have always said that I add the two, but before I was using (p^p, p^c) = (1,0) and (0,1).  I had a simple error that Mark Hadley kindly pointed out.  I said that the two contributions each do not violate BI giving respectively 2 and 1.  I believe that at each value of the filter difference (a-b) the clicks come as single coincidences and build up the correlation, say like the double slit does particle-by-particle.  In free flight, the spin is always in the coupled coherence state of magnitude 1 but when encountering the filters, that spin 1 can decouple leading to the two polarized states, and spin up or down.  The coherence state remains coupled and the Clebshe-Gordan coupling maintains the two axes as spin 1.  Eventually that spin 1 will decompose into the two spins of 1/2 and is detected as usual spin,

I got the number in the cos(22.5) by inspection.  There are many combinations that will satisfy that equation and I just guessed at the partitioning between the two, by respecting the conservation of clicks.  In order to know what Nature does, it is necessary to build a filter to find out how many are polarized and how many are coherent.

I do not think that filter can be easily built because the spin 1 is so fragile.  This decoupling of spin is well known like Russel Saunders coupling.  I mentioned earlier that I used the same ideas in the Sentfleben Beenakker effects showing that HD has three spins  J=1, D=1 and H =1/2.  At zero field, they couple to give states of 5/2, two of 3/2 and 2 of 1/2.  As the field increases, these decouple one by one until the usual Zeeman effect is found at high field  This process of decoupling leads to agreement with experiments in the SB effects.

It is the same concept used here.

Indeed I am trying to be as clear as I can.  Only the third paper needs clarification and changing.  The first paper gives the QFT basis for quaternion spin.  I need a bivector. and the Dirac equation has none.  Including it changes spin symmetry from SU(2) to the quaternion group.  That gives the anisotropic helicity.  In a nutshell I use

Polarization is the first term and hyper-helicity is the second term.  Notice that the two are complementary:  i=j is only symmetric polarization and i not equal j gives the second term with the bivector.  Including both gives the -cos(a-b) = -cos(a)cos(b) -sin(a)sin(b).  The hyper-helicity gives the second term which has been my point all along.

I will work on my pedagogical videos for YouTube on my return and those will go step by step through the mechanism of entanglement (but with one local variable rather than nonlocal ( hidden or not ) variables that Bell insists are needed.)

I hope my picture is emerging.  

Thanks

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Mark

I answer below:

Let's try to do this in small steps. 

Do you have an equation just for 

N_+ /N _tot at A for a polariser angle a

In my simulation, I generated clicks as coincidences, so I only got the coincidence probabilities N_(+-)/N_tot etc. .The program could be modified to extract the individual ratios and then combine them.  I will eventually do that but it was unnecessary for the simulation of the correlations.  If you look at the code you will see how I did it in terms of coincidences.

So that is the fraction of up readings measured at Alice for any particular angle a

QM gives all these fractions but without any explanation. I think you are claiming to explain it with your parameter theta. By the way, I suggest that you give it another letter, say lambda, to distinguish it from polariser angles.

The only variable is the local value of theta which is used by everyone to define the states (Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Zeilinger, A. (1990). Bell’s theorem without inequalities. American Journal of Physics, 58(12), 1131-1143.)  See equations A2,

My work is very much not about Bell's theorem and it would be confusing to change that theta to lambda. Hidden variables mysteriously complete the wave function, and mine needs no completion.  They are simply different orientations on the Bloch sphere.  Alice and Bob are correlated by a common theta at the source.  

As a matter of fact, your parameter theta, that has explanatory power in an EPR type experiment, is called a hidden variable. That's what all other scientists mean by hidden variables. Your challenge is hard enough without trying to use a different language. So I suggest that as an edit.

 

Exactly, and I have done just that, but without any hidden variables.  I am using the language of standard QM and not the language that Bell used simply because that leads to the wrong conclusion and misleading confusion in his theorem.  Bell says that the only way to account for the violation is with non-locality.  This statement by Bell is now incorrect:

 "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."

I hope this is getting clearer to you all.  It is not easy to change 60 years of Bell's misconceptions.

I very much appreciate your comments and interest.  It is a daunting task, I agree.  One gobsmacking consequence of this is the idea of Dirac that predicts a matter-antimatter pair is replaced with a single particle with two axes of quantization. Think of the consequences that hole theory and sea of electrons is replaced by one particle in the Dirac field, not two particles with two states each.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Bryan’s three papers are on preprints.org

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202301.0570/v2
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0055/v1

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202301.0571/v1

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Feb 2023, at 15:11, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:

 Hi,

In the previous manuscripts you claim you can (must) add the two correlations. In fact, your claimed violation of the inequality depended on that.

Now you have accepted that a correlation obtained from two subensembles is the weighted average of the two correlations of the subensembles. The data you had in your previous manuscripts does not violate the inequality when combined through the weighted average.

I don't know how you generate the numbers you just quoted to me.

Please rewrite all of this into a single, well-explained, derivation.
If you want to convince us, this is what you need to do.

Best regards
Jan-Åke

On 2023-02-26 14:55, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Hi Jan-Åke

I have the papers up but they do not reflect this new point that has puzzled me for the last couple of months.  Here is a draft of the new part, and the links are at the end

Bryan

<image.png>

<image.png>

<image.png>

Extrinsic quaternion spin.   

Spin with hyper-helicity.     

Simulated local EPR correlations: CHSH = 3. 

 

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 8:13 AM Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:

Can you repost the link to your paper, I can't seem to find it anymore.

And the other correlations?

/JÅ

On 2023-02-26 13:12, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Dear Jan-Åke

Thanks for your question:

<image.png>

Bryan

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 4:53 AM Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:

Dear Bryan,
Please now recalculate the correlation from your model using your new-found formula
(that I tried to explain to you six months ago).

Best regards
Jan-Åke

On 2023-02-26 10:34, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Hi Richard

 I hope I am not including uninterested people.

With Mark's expression, I can now unequivocally answer your insistence that I must average my two complementary contributions by dividing them by two.  Here are the experimental clicks

<image.png>

which show the apparent violation of BI.  Here are the same clicks rearranged to distinguish polarization from coherence

<image.png>

The two equations give exactly the same result, showing my approach is consistent with experiment, and your objection is answered.

This shows, BTW, that Bell's theorem has no relevance to qm.  Non-locality plays no role in the violation.  The apparent violation means that Nature obeys local realism.

Bryan

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 5:55 AM Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan

So this is the formula now:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Bryan,
You say "the two contributions each do not violate BI giving respectively 2 and 1." In one of your manuscripts, you claim a violation with the value 3 by adding them together. This does not happen if you do a weighted average.

If the first contribution is for the fraction p_c of all events and the second contribution the fraction p_s of all events, then p_c+p_s=1 (if there are no other contributions). Then the weighted average

  2*p_c+1*p_s <= 2

So no violation for any size of the fraction from the first contribution.

Best
Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yx5-6rZ4NwwmC1J-FQ6yiQ2zXX7Var_GBR6s_QRoDLyVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Mark

Bryan believes that entanglement does not survive separation. He bet me 5000 Euro that he will have persuaded the majority of our peers of this fact by the end of this year. He expects that Zeilinger, Gisin and the like will have to retract their papers and return the Nobel prize etc.

The bet does specify how he will achieve this.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Feb 2023, at 18:19, Mark Hadley <drmark...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear Bryan,

Your answer was incomprehensible. I have less idea than ever about what you are claiming. Much less whether you are correct. 

I thought you were going to explain the predictions of QM and violation of bells inequalities with a local realist theory. That was the bet as I understood it. To do that you need a theory that predicts measurement results and then we can check the correlations. 

QM already correctly predicts correlation distributions. It does so without anything spooky like non local signals. It is self consistent. An underlying explanation in terms of individual results is elusive and problematic. 

Cheers

Mark

On Sun, 26 Feb 2023, 17:43 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark

I answer below:

Let's try to do this in small steps. 

Do you have an equation just for 

N_+ /N _tot at A for a polariser angle a

In my simulation, I generated clicks as coincidences, so I only got the coincidence probabilities N_(+-)/N_tot etc. .The program could be modified to extract the individual ratios and then combine them.  I will eventually do that but it was unnecessary for the simulation of the correlations.  If you look at the code you will see how I did it in terms of coincidences.

So that is the fraction of up readings measured at Alice for any particular angle a

QM gives all these fractions but without any explanation. I think you are claiming to explain it with your parameter theta. By the way, I suggest that you give it another letter, say lambda, to distinguish it from polariser angles.

The only variable is the local value of theta which is used by everyone to define the states (Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Zeilinger, A. (1990). Bell’s theorem without inequalities. American Journal of Physics, 58(12), 1131-1143.)  See equations A2,

<image.png>

My work is very much not about Bell's theorem and it would be confusing to change that theta to lambda. Hidden variables mysteriously complete the wave function, and mine needs no completion.  They are simply different orientations on the Bloch sphere.  Alice and Bob are correlated by a common theta at the source.  

As a matter of fact, your parameter theta, that has explanatory power in an EPR type experiment, is called a hidden variable. That's what all other scientists mean by hidden variables. Your challenge is hard enough without trying to use a different language. So I suggest that as an edit.

 

Exactly, and I have done just that, but without any hidden variables.  I am using the language of standard QM and not the language that Bell used simply because that leads to the wrong conclusion and misleading confusion in his theorem.  Bell says that the only way to account for the violation is with non-locality.  This statement by Bell is now incorrect:

 "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."

I hope this is getting clearer to you all.  It is not easy to change 60 years of Bell's misconceptions.

I very much appreciate your comments and interest.  It is a daunting task, I agree.  One gobsmacking consequence of this is the idea of Dirac that predicts a matter-antimatter pair is replaced with a single particle with two axes of quantization. Think of the consequences that hole theory and sea of electrons is replaced by one particle in the Dirac field, not two particles with two states each.

Bryan

 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bbf709fd-ca1c-5451-5859-6ca22992887e%40liu.se.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Bryan,

I have printed out your 3 articles, and have had a brief look at them. Please tell me if I have misunderstood you, but my current understanding is as follows: You have constructed a formalism, generalizing Dirac's formalism, in which you can befine a property called hyperhelicity. Using this variable and this formalism, you claim that the usual spin components are not necessarily +1 and -1, and thus the argument behind the CHSH inequality breaks down.

As I see it, the statement that the spin components are +1 or -1 is not connected to any formalism, but to an experiment, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which can be performed by either Alice or Bob, and has two possible outcomes. Just by conventon these can be called +1 and -1.

The question for me is: Can the hyperhelicity be measured in any way, by any experiment, by any observer? If not, it is just an inaccessible, hidden variable, in the same way as the unit spin vector n (I drop the hat in this e-mail). Note that the spin component in direction a can be defined in terms of this n, just take sign(cos(a,n)).

These spin components are accessible. To me, the distinction between accessible and inaccessible variables is the important one.

Is your hyperhelicity accessible?

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 26 February 2023 18:26:29
To: Mark Hadley
Cc: Bryan Sanctuary; Mark Hadley; Jan-Åke Larsson; Chantal Roth; Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Local hidden variables.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/78A3DF9A-7304-425A-9623-E6CF63C01BB5%40gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard, 
Zeilinger, Gisin and the like really should retract their papers, which are based on the mass delusion that quantum mechanics predicts 
the EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities.

With best wishes,

Alexey

пн, 27 февр. 2023 г. в 17:06, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/011fb5de28df411da1fb5b959c270cb1%40math.uio.no.

[Richard Gill]

Alexei, I think you are suffering under a very weird delusion. The EPR correlations are observed in the laboratory! Bell inequalities are violated in the laboratory! Whether or not some theory called QM predicts them 

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Feb 2023, at 17:05, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Mark Hadley]

Alexey has not yet learnt how to use QM. 

Those who have studied it. They know how to make predictions with it. The predictions are unanimous, clear and unambiguous. They are all confirmed by experiment. 

The reason for his misunderstanding has been explained to him. And is easy to verify if he makes the effort. 

Cheers 

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]