Non-Hermitian coherent hyperspin
Bryan Sanctuary
Richard Gill
On 4 May 2022, at 20:29, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
--
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/2c093d47-ca5b-483c-b269-b3916ef42871n%40googlegroups.com.
Bryan Sanctuary
Richard Gill
Jan-Åke Larsson
Jan-Åke Larsson
Inge Svein Helland
I agree with Jan-Åke and Richard: Bell's theorem stands firmly.
But what are the consequences of Bell's theorem? What are the consequences of the fact that Bell's inequalities may be violated, not only by quantum mechanics, but by real experiments?
In my view, the consequences may be far-reaching. It is argued in the first article here that any person will be limited when making decisions about the experiment. He is simply not able to keep enough variables in his mind during his arguments.
We all go through life making decision after decision, simple decisions and more complicated decisions. Some of these are made by habits, rutines that we have developed since childhood. Some are made due to influence by others, our social environment. But some are made consciously and under full use of our free will. These depend on the knowledge that we have in the given context, the variables that we have in our mind.
In the second article here, published in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, it is argued that essential elements of quantum mechanics follow under weak conditions if, in the relevant context, the observer has two related maximally accessible variables
in his mind. These terms are precisely defined.
What is lacking in these articles, is a discussion of the quantum probabilities, of Born's theorem. Such a discussion is given in Chapter 5 of my book 'Epistemic Processes'. There, Born's formula is argued formaking a few assumptions, an important assumpion
being that the relevant observer has ideals that can be modeled in terms of a perfectly rational abstract being.
So, in conclusion, our minds seem to be essential. The resulting interpretation of quantum mechanics is a general epistemic one, also argued for in my book. This, as I see it, contains QBism as a special case; it is also related to Zwirn's convivial solipsism and to Rovelli's relational interpretation. I have tried to discuss ontological consequences in an arXiv paper, but this discussion is by no means complete.
Well, these are my views. They may be discussed, and I am willing to take that discussion. But I hope that it can be an informed discussion. I simply do not accept any longer that my viewpoints shall be ignored.
Inge
Sent: 05 May 2022 07:38:09
To: Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Non-Hermitian coherent hyperspin
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
Алексей Никулов
You wrote: “I simply do not accept any longer that my viewpoints shall
be ignored”. But you ignore not just someone's point of view, but the
mathematical fact that orthodox quantum mechanics does not predict the
EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities. All this comedy
with discussions about Bell's inequalities and the refutation of
realism, which has degraded down to QBism and Zwirn's convivial
solipsism, is a consequence of the inability of most modern scientists
to think logically.
With best wishes,
Alexey
чт, 5 мая 2022 г. в 10:11, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
Richard Gill
Sent from my iPhone
> On 5 May 2022, at 10:19, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Inge,
Inge Svein Helland
Dear Alexey,
If you look at my book, you will see that I have discussed very many points of view. In my Bell paper, please read it, I have even included you as the first reference. But that does not mean that I agree with your considerations. I in no way do.
Inge
Sent: 05 May 2022 10:42
To: Алексей Никулов
Cc: Inge Svein Helland; Jan-Åke Larsson; Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com
Алексей Никулов
When I wrote that most modern scientists cannot think logically I
meant that no one noticed for many years that orthodox quantum
mechanics does not predict the EPR correlations and violation of Bell
inequalities due to its principle that operators acting on different
particles commute. I think it doesn't make sense to argue about who
can think logically and who can't. But the question of whether quantum
mechanics can predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s
inequalities despite its well-known principle is a matter of logic and
mathematics. This question should be clarified to the end, since the
question of whether Bell's inequalities make sense depends on the
solution of this question.
With best wishes,
Alexey
чт, 5 мая 2022 г. в 11:59, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
Алексей Никулов
I read your papers and have been looking through your book. Thank you
for the link to my paper [1]. I draw attention in this paper that the
opinion of Bell and most physicists that ordinary quantum mechanics is
just fine for all practical purposes is not entirely correct. Quantum
mechanics cannot describe some quantum phenomena, and there are
mathematical errors in the description of some phenomena. Most of all,
I was struck by a mathematical error in the description of the Zeeman
effect. I noticed this error thanks to Anthony Leggett. My co-author
of the paper [2] asked me in 2014: "Why is the energy of the magnetic
moment in an external magnetic field not taken into account in the
theory of flux qubit?"
I asked Leggett that question. He replied: “But when we go over to the
Hamiltonian formalism by the standard ’canonical’ procedure, the total
Hamiltonian turns out to be just the kinetic energy! Where has the
’magnetic’ energy gone? Perhaps our naive tendency to identify the
Hamiltonian with the ’energy’ is (as in some cases involving
time-dependent forces) misleading?” I quote Leggett's answer in the
paper [2], because I noticed that the energy of the magnetic moment
cannot be deduced from the canonical Hamiltonian only thanks to this
answer. Although it's funny that I did not notice this obvious fact
without the Nobel prize winner.
When I noticed this obvious fact, I looked at how the energy of the
magnetic moment in an external magnetic field is deduced in books, for
example in the book [3], when describing the Zeeman effect. It turned
out that this energy is derived from the canonical Hamiltonian, which
cannot be done without a mathematical error. A mathematical error (an
obvious error!) is indeed in the paragraph 113 ”An atom in a magnetic
field” of the book [3]. This error appeared because Dirac in 1930 used
a non-canonical definition of the Hamiltonian to describe the Zeeman
effect in the book [4]. Authors of the books, [3] and others,
published after 1930 followed Dirac, but used the canonical
Hamiltonian. It is very strange that no one has noticed for many years
that different quantum phenomena cannot be described without a
mathematical error using one definition of the Hamiltonian. This once
again shows that most physicists believe rather than understand
quantum mechanics.
I have a sharply negative attitude to QBism and convivial solipsism,
since I consider it unacceptable to confuse physics with psychology in
physical theory, as the creators of quantum mechanics did. The mass
misconception about quantum mechanics has become possible precisely
because in this theory reality is confused with our knowledge of the
probability of observation results. When two years ago I wrote Gerard
't Hooft about the observer's consciousness he answered: “Every now
and then you write some sentences that I agree with, but when people
start to stir the notion of "consciousness" into quantum mechanics I
reach for my trash box”.
I agree with the Nobel prize winner that any physical theory in which
“consciousness” is used in any way should be thrown into the trash
box. But Gerard 't Hooft does not want to admit that we should throw
quantum mechanics in the trash box first of all. I should note that
the two Nobel laureates Gerard 't Hooft and Anthony Leggett have not
just different, but opposite opinions about consciousness in quantum
mechanics. This is one of the evidences of the deepest crisis of
modern physics.
[1] Nikulov, A.: Could ordinary quantum mechanics be just fine for all
practical purposes? Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3, 41-55 (2016)
[2] V.L. Gurtovoi, A.V. Nikulov, Energy of magnetic moment of
superconducting current in magnetic field. Physica C 516, 50–54
(2015).
[3] Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M.: Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic
Theory, 3rd edn, vol. 3. Elsevier Science, Oxford (1977)
[4] Dirac, A.M.: The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford
University Press, New York (1958)
With best wishes,
Alexey
чт, 5 мая 2022 г. в 12:07, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:
Inge Svein Helland
Dear Alexey.
Thank you for a long answer. I am not familiar with the Zeeman effect, so I have very little to say about this part. But I notice that you conclude that 'most physicists believe rather than understand quantum mechanics' even after referring to a deep thinker like Dirac.
I think that the term 'understanding' is very important. My opinion is that one can understand a theory on many different levels. One level is connected to what I call conceptual variables. Very many quantum states can be understood from the point of view that they correspond to a question 'What will t be if we do a measurement?' together with a sharp answer, say, 't=u', where t is a conceptual variable (this term can be defined by the requirement that the above question should have meaning), and u is one of the values that t can take.
This does not cover all aspects of quantum mechanics, but is a useful beginning for some understanding.
Starting in this way, it seems to be avoidable to in some way or other consider links between physics and psychology, which you consider unaccessible. A long paper discussing such links is 'Quantum cognition' by Pothos and Busemeyer (Ann. Rev. Psychol. 73, 749-778, 2022). Just after I received your paper, I received a preprint from Andrei Khennikov (Quantum-like modelling of cognition, decision making, ecological, social, political, and spritual phenomena), where he seems to have even wider views.
You also cite Gerard 't Hooft. He may have his opinions, as we all do. My hero in physics is Leonard Susskind. These two have independently arrived at new ideas (holography) that may seem to give possibilities to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity.
One might in some sense agree with you that there is a crisis in modern physics. I think that this crisis can be resolved, but not in any way by rejecting quantum mechanics. It is an important theory that may pave the way towards deeper understanding. But some of this belongs to the future.
Inge
Sent: 05 May 2022 13:06:28
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Richard Gill; Jan-Åke Larsson; bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com
Алексей Никулов
Dirac may have been a deep thinker, which I doubt, but he constantly
contradicted himself, like other creators of quantum mechanics. He
postulated the contradiction of quantum mechanics with the theory of
relativity through the Dirac jump and proposed the relativistic
quantum theory in the same book [1] published in 1930. Einstein rather
than Dirac was a deep thinker. Einstein as far back as 1927 during the
discussion at the Fifth Solvay Conference rightly noted that Born’s
proposal to consider the Schrodinger wave function as a description of
the amplitude of the observation probability requires the Dirac jump.
Einstein, in contrast to Dirac, understood that the Dirac jump ”leads
to a contradiction with the postulate of relativity”.
Quantum mechanics contradicts the postulate of relativity because of
two different definitions of the quantum state: subjective and
objective. I wrote about these two definitions on May 1. According to
the subjective definition, proposed by Born, the quantum state
describes the observer's knowledge about the probability of the result
of an upcoming observation. For example, the EPR state describes the
knowledge that the first measurement of spin projection in any
direction of one of the two particles will give spin up with
probability 1/2. This knowledge, as any knowledge, changes by jumping
instantly and no-locally because of an observation. On other hand,
according to the objective definition the quantum state exists really,
i.e. regardless of the observer's knowledge, between observations.
Einstein drew attention back in 1927 that the quantum state must
change by jumping together with the observer's knowledge during
observation, in order quantum mechanics does not predict the absurd.
Dirac postulated three years later just this jump.
Einstein considered a simple example in 1927. A particle flying
through a small hole propagates further as a spherical probability
wave, according to Born's proposal. Before the first observation, the
probability is not zero along the entire front of the spherical wave.
But once we see a particle at one point in space, the probability at
other points should instantly become zero. Otherwise, the theory will
predict the possibility of seeing one particle in several places at
once, i.e. the absurd.
If the wave function described only the knowledge of the observer,
then the jump at observation would not contradict the postulate of
relativity. Heisenberg justified the postulate of the jump in quantum
mechanics by a discontinuous change in our knowledge: ”Since through
observation our knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously,
its mathematical representation also has undergone the discontinuous
change and we speak of a quantum jump” [2]. But the wave function
describes a real quantum state between observations. Therefore Dirac
postulated the jump of the system rather than of our knowledge.
I doubt that Dirac was a deep thinker in particular because he
postulated the jump because of measurement rather than because of
observation. Dirac postulated ”that a measurement always causes the
system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is
being measured” on the base of the assumption that ”after the first
measurement has been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of
the second” [1]. It is extremely surprising that neither Dirac nor
numerous believers in quantum mechanics could understand that no first
measurement can provide determinacy of the result of the second
measurement. But we know from our experience that after the first
observation has been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of
the second observation since our knowledge changes at the first
observation. Thus, Dirac postulated the jump of the quantum state of
the observed system under the influence the jump in the observer's
knowledge.
Perhaps you have already realized that QBism and convivial solipsism
only repeat the mistakes made by Dirac and other creators of quantum
mechanics, adding unnecessary fantasies to these mistakes. The main
mistake from which all the other mistakes logically followed was
Heisenberg's proposal to describe the observed, not the existing. I
have already quoted Heisenberg's memoirs several times about how
Einstein tried to convince young Heisenberg in 1926 that his proposal
is wrong:
”But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on
observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It
is the theory which decides what we can observe. You must appreciate
that observation is a very complicated process. The phenomenon under
observation produces certain events in our measuring apparatus. As a
result, further processes take place in the apparatus, which
eventually and by complicated paths produce sense impressions and help
us to fix the effects in our consciousness. Along this whole path -
from the phenomenon to its fixation in our consciousness-we must be
able to tell how nature functions, must know the natural laws at least
in practical terms, before we can claim to have observed anything at
all” [3].
Heisenberg, like most physicists, couldn't understand what Einstein
was explaining so clearly. Bell understood. He wrote 63 years later:
”Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is observable. I
think he was right - ’observation’ is a complicated and theory-laden
business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of
fundamental theory” [4]. Bell in this sense was a deeper thinker than
Heisenberg. Although one does not need to be a deep thinker to
understand that the proposal to describe the observed does not
simplify, but complicates the task of theory.
If we cannot create a theory of some quantum phenomena, for example,
the Stern-Gerlach effect, in which no description of the observation
process should be, then we especially cannot create a theory in which
this description should be. Heisenberg’s proposal can simplify the
task of the theory if only the theory of the observables does not
describe the observation process. Quantum mechanics has created the
illusion of describing paradoxical quantum phenomena by hiding all the
difficulties in the observation process, which no theory can describe.
Only Schrodinger and few other critics were understanding that quantum
mechanics is a trick rather than a physical theory.
Therefore I agree with Gerard 't Hooft that any physical theory in
interacts with a quantum system. Therefore I also agree with Einstein
that realism is the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking.
I do not think that all quantum mechanics should be rejected. Quantum
mechanics describes most quantum phenomena absolutely realistic
without Born's proposal. I draw attention to the non-universality of
quantum mechanics in a chapter “The quantum mechanics is a
non-universal theory. The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic
Born's interpretation of the wave function” written in 2013 for a book
at the suggestion of a publishing company. Unfortunately, the chapter
has not been published, since no one wants to admit that quantum
mechanics is not a universal theory. Therefore the chapter is
available only at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4760 . I've known
Andrei Khrennikov for a long time and I know he doesn't agree that
Born's proposal is misleading.
[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
Press, New York, 1958
[2] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin Edition, 1959.
[3] W. Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze. Gesprache im Umkreis der
Atomphysik, Munchen, 1969.
[4] J.S. Bell, Against Measurement, Phys. World 3, 33 (1990).
With best wishes,
Alexey
чт, 5 мая 2022 г. в 15:34, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
Inge Svein Helland
Dear Alexey,
Your long answer again points at important problems. Physicists have all sorts of opinions on these problems. My own opinions have partly been based on my background as a statistician, not a physicist. Thus I have wanted to approach quantum mechanics as an outsider, with the hope that at least certain parts of it could be explained to other outsiders. I fact I have done so in a series of notes to statisticians at the same time that I wrote my physics papers. I admit that I have taken as a point of departure what you call the subjective definition of a quantum state, and this has lead to the two papers that I posted earlier today. I have not excuded objectivity. Of course the real world exists. But we are limited in our ability to find all the knowledge of the world that we want to find. Science in all its variants is our best way to find such knowledge. Thus I completely agree with the Einstein-quotation in the next paragraph.
(I looked briefly on your own paper that you refer to, and found among other things this quotation by Einstein: ) 'The reciprocal relationship of
epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind.
They
are dependent upon each other.
Epistemology without
contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science
without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all
- primitive and muddled.'
My starting point has been epistemology, but I think it has been an epistemology with contact with science. In fact, my own background science, statistics, has more contact with all sorts of science than pure physics have.
I see a close connections between theories and models. Both exist in the minds of scientists. For my views on models in connection to statistics, and also on my views on decisions and their relation to at least some part of quantum theory, see my article recently posted on the arXiv:
arXiv:2205.00776 (2022).
I am interested in opinions, but primarily opinions that can be related to my own. I must confess that in some of the strong opinions that you express, I have difficulty with finding an openness towards other views, and that may make it difficult to answer you.
Unfortunately, I will now be away from my computer for a few days, but I will try to take discussions up again on Monday.
My hope is also other reactions than those given by you, Alexey.
Inge
Алексей Никулов
I am glad that you completely agree with the Einstein-quotation. I
often quote Jose Ortega y Gasset (the great Spanish philosopher
according to Schrodingers opinion) who wrote in his famous book ”The
Revolt of the Masses” published 1930: ”The most immediate result of
this unbalanced specialisation has been that today, when there are
more scientists than ever, there are much less cultured men than, for
example, about 1750. Newton was able to found his system of physics
without knowing much philosophy, but Einstein needed to saturate
himself with Kant and Mach before he could reach his own keen
synthesis. Kant and Mach - the names are mere symbols of the enormous
mass of philosophic and psychological thought which has influenced
Einstein have served to liberate the mind of the latter and leave the
way open for his innovation. But Einstein is not sufficient. Physics
is entering on the gravest crisis of its history, and can only be
saved by a new ’Encyclopaedia’ more systematic than the first”.
Einstein understood that the rejection of realism by Heisenberg, Bohr
and other creators of quantum mechanics was a mistake because he
saturated himself with the Kant philosophy. Einstein was right already
because the rejection of realism led to the idea of a quantum
computer, which cannot be real because his idea contradicts realism.
You wrote that you have taken as a point of departure the subjective
definition of a quantum state. I draw your attention that only the
subjective definition is possible for the entangled spin states, for
example the EPR state, you wrote as the expression (1) in your article
“The Bell experiment and the limitations of actors Bell experiment”. I
draw your attention that the expression for the non-entangled spin
states depends on the direction in the real three-dimensional space. A
direction z1 exists along which this spin state is the eigenstate,
State = |+>_{z1} and the superposition of state
State= |+>_{z1} = cos f/2 |+>_{z2} - sin f/2 |->_{z2} (1)
along any other direction z2. “f” is the angle between z1 and z2. The
probability cos^{2} f/2 to observe spin up |+> depends on the
direction z2 in which the spin projection is measured. The probability
to observe spin up |+> cos^{2} f/2 = 1 when the spin projection is
measured along z1, i.e. at f = 0. The dependence the amplitude of the
probability cos f/2 on the direction in the real three-dimensional
space means that the state exists in this real space. Therefore the
spin state (1) has both the subjective and objective definition. But
the probability to observe spin up of one of the particles of the EPR
pair
EPR = (1/2)^{1/2}|A+B-> - (1/2)^{1/2}|A-B+> (2)
cannot depend on the direction in which the spin projection is
measured. The probability cannot differ from 1/2 since we cannot know
which particle A or B will measured first. Therefore only the
subjective definition for the EPR state (2) is possible. The EPR state
(2) can describe only the knowledge of the observer that the first
entangled spin states can have only the subjective definition. But
real device, quantum register, cannot be created on the base the
description of the knowledge of the observer. A quantum register must
exist in the real three-dimensional space. Therefore quantum register
cannot be real. I drew attention to this obvious mathematical fact in
the report “Quantum register cannot be real” the conference "Quantum
Informatics — 2021» (slides are available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
) and in an article “Quantum register cannot be real” that was
rejected already in three journals, see attached file.
With best wishes,
Alexey
чт, 5 мая 2022 г. в 22:11, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
Bryan Sanctuary
Hi Richard
Although all the different variations of what Bell did and said that you bring up are interesting, I still want to insist to you that I am more interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics than Bell.
My first paper, Spin with hyper-helicity, was a phenomenological introduction to helicity as a missed property of spin. You rejected helicity as a counterexample that disproves Bell.
The second paper, Non-Hermitian coherent hyperspin, gives the QFT analysis which puts helicity on the same mathematical footing as the usual Dirac spin but comes to the startling conclusion that anti-matter is not formed as Dirac suggested, but it is just the second spin axis spinning!! I was surprised at that consequence, but there are many others.
Did you have a chance to have a look? Have you assembled your panel to assess that paper?
Bryan
Richard Gill
I want to repeat my suggestion that you post them on F1000research.com We can then together invite experts to publish reviews there. There is a section for mathematics, physics, and computational sciences. It doesn’t have any papers yet. Time to start it up. Other members of this group could publish there too. I have several papers in my “back drawer” which deserve to see the light of day and I’m getting very tired of fighting referees and editors in a long tedious process. Alessandro and Alexei have controversial ideas and controversial works which could be published there.
Richard Gill
Bryan Sanctuary
Jan-Åke Larsson
Richard Gill
<ict.pdf>
Richard Gill
<ict.pdf>
Jan-Åke Larsson
Notation is clear to me, so you must ask me. I cannot guess your questions. Please be specific, give a line number. I'll respond.
And you repeat your mantra "Your paper does not provide a counterexample." which is your wish only because it does.
Once you understand the QFT you will see that my spin is 4 dimensional, and that Dirac's antimatter is not formed, and hole theory is not supported. All that in addition to Bell's theorem being toast, it surprised me.
Quite a difference!
Bryan Sanctuary
Bryan Sanctuary
Resending to the groupOn sön, 2022-05-08 at 13:33 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:Notation is clear to me, so you must ask me. I cannot guess your questions. Please be specific, give a line number. I'll respond.
Notation is as clear to me as it needs to be: (the "notation ruse" You have no notation questions, it was a ruse to disicredit, LOL, LOL, ) you do not specify the outcome statistics, or even what the outcomes are.
And you repeat your mantra "Your paper does not provide a counterexample." which is your wish only because it does.No. Your paper does not predict the statistics of the measurement outcomes. Quantum theory does.If you translate into a single probabilistic model, that model is not "local realist" using Bell's definition.Your paper does not contain a model that predicts the statistics of the measurement outcomes.It does not even prescribe what the measurement outcomes are.Your model is not a counterexample.
Once you understand the QFT you will see that my spin is 4 dimensional, and that Dirac's antimatter is not formed, and hole theory is not supported. All that in addition to Bell's theorem being toast, it surprised me.Bryan, a 4 dimensional spin does not help you. Your "model" is not a counterexample.
Alexandre de Castro
your suggestion is interesting. Our ideas can be published first and peer reviewed after publication.
But I think we should find a free site because science is becoming too commercial these days.
Alexandre
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/52B48438-B2E9-4F8D-9278-254AACE614F0%40gmail.com.
Jan-Åke Larsson
(the "notation ruse" You have no notation questions, it was a ruse to disicredit, LOL, LOL, )
My states are pure,And you repeat your mantra "Your paper does not provide a counterexample." which is your wish only because it does.No. Your paper does not predict the statistics of the measurement outcomes. Quantum theory does.If you translate into a single probabilistic model, that model is not "local realist" using Bell's definition.Your paper does not contain a model that predicts the statistics of the measurement outcomes.It does not even prescribe what the measurement outcomes are.Your model is not a counterexample.Your predictions (and hopes) only, no substance, but I agree a model is needed, but not essential. I don't have to do anything but agree with the experimental data with a local calculation of a particle that carries both polarization and helicity. That I did. Usually, with agreement, we say, let's find the statistical model. So that is next.Can you please give me the model that you use that gives the right statistics for teleportation? i.e. a nice physical model, click by click? You do not have one; you cannot account even for the data, and when I do, you demand the model is needed!!
Once you understand the QFT you will see that my spin is 4 dimensional, and that Dirac's antimatter is not formed, and hole theory is not supported. All that in addition to Bell's theorem being toast, it surprised me.Bryan, a 4 dimensional spin does not help you. Your "model" is not a counterexample.In my Non-Hermitian coherent spin paper, I think you might understand the 4 dimensional property by reading my equations 28 and 29: but you must understand the properties of gamma matrices to get the implication.Thanks for the comments
Jan-Åke Larsson
Ok Jan-Åke, I have nothing I can think to say against a closed mind, stubbornness and fear. Continue to teleport, until you see it is a waste of timeI'll respond when you have a real question.Bryan
Richard Gill
Richard Gill
Inge Svein Helland
Dear all.
This is an interesting discussion, and I have tried to follow it.
One issue that has been taken up, is that of mathematical models. I think that models are important, and they determine the way that we think. At the same time, models are formed by the minds of scientists, and scientists also live in a society. Quantum mechanics has been developed by various groups of scientists, and it still exists, with all its weirdness. By contrast, relativity theory was developed by a single mind, by Albert Einstein.
How should we react to all of this? It is interesting that a wide variety of different views hve appared during this discussion. Alexey wants to reject at least parts of quantum mechanics because he is convinced that his particular version of realism is unavoidable. This seems to be a minority view. Bryan claims that he has a counterexample to Bell's theorem, but that is countered by several others. As I see it - I may have misundestood Brian's points - his main idea is to introduce a new variable, hyperhelicity, which is inaccessible to any observer, but nevertheless is considered to be a part of reality.
It is also interesting that several of the participants have discussed their ideas in articles, partly articles they they have had difficulties with getting published. As I see it, much of this can be traced back to the process of making decisions, decisions made during discussion contributions, decisions made during the writing of papers, and decisions made by editors and by reviewers.
In this respect, I have been lucky. My paper 'The Bell experiment and the limitation of actors', attached here in the version that I think will be the final one, has bee accepted by the editors of Foundation of Physics'. It also contains some points around my own proposals for a foundation of quantum mechanics. This is based on variables that we have in our minds. I call some of these variable accessible, they may be given values in some measurement or experiment.
The great question is then what really exists in the real world. This goes back to the discussion between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Most of we my own writings are based on how I interpret Bohr, a general epistemic view on the foundation. But I admit that Einstein also had a point.
As I interpret Bohr, he thinks that the only variables that exist, are the one that can be measured, the accessible ones. So, on this basis he would reject Bryan's idea.
I also try to connect my variables to decisions. But this implies a simplified pictiure of decisions: We always have the choice between a finite number of prospects. This simple picture is also repeated in my paper on mathematical models, also attached here. It is simply a model for the process of making decisions.
Real decisions are more complicated. We may start with a finite number of prospects, but then, during the process, new aspects may turn up, and we have to revise our way of thinking.
So, I really think that the world is more complicated than what we are able to catch with our models, in our limited way of thinking. Myself, I have not found other solutions than relying on some sort of a religious faith. I discuss this also in one of my papers, published in European Journal of Theology and Philosophy 2 (1), 10-17 (2022).
This ends my discussion contribution for now, but I am also interested in other views in connection to what I have said above.
Inge
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Non-Hermitian coherent hyperspin
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.
Richard Gill
Inge Svein Helland
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your quick answer.
I am a great admirer of Mermin. I have sent him my book; he gave a prompt reply, but since then I have not heard from him.
Now I have printed out the paper that you attached, and I will read it as soon as I can.
This is my decision.
Inge
Sent: 09 May 2022 09:54:52
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Jan-Åke Larsson; bryancs...@gmail.com; Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Non-Hermitian coherent hyperspin
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/745e7b20810e4e47a4ac6bccb6b38017%40math.uio.no.
<Hilbertspace2.pdf><Model2.pdf>
Bryan Sanctuary
Dear Richard and Jan-Åke
We have had long exchanges in this forum, and earlier too, and I have decided that I cannot continue to discuss QM with Richard and Jan-Åke. Having known two of the most ardent supporters of Bell’s work for 20 years, I realize that their positions are not only stubbornly entrenched in their almost patriotic adherence to Bell’s theorem, but they also illogical and untenable. Over these years I have been pilloried by them because “you do not understand Bell!”. This theme of my inability to grasp the essential aspects of the foundations of qm is evident in their continued remarks about my background as a theoretical chemist and generally that if one does not accept the bizarre concept of non-locality, then s/he is a quantum crackpot.
I endured this in mostly good spirits because I did not have the full answer, just the notion that coherence is essential. Although sometimes I reacted, their goal is to discredit my competence and claim my problem is the lack of whatever marbles are needed to grasp the subtle aspects of Bell.
It is to early for me to claim success in finding that missing property of spin, its helicity, which led to gobsmacking conclusions: like antimatter is not formed and most certainly the rejection of non-locality. These results are in my three papers under review now:
Spin with hyper-helicty----phenomenological
Non-hermitian coherent spin---QFT of Dirac equation
Hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm--some consequences
Time will tell but clearly Richard and Jan-Åke are either not able to grasp the ideas, or do not want to try.
I do not know if Richard and Jan-Åke are dishonest, disillusioned, or just plain ignorant of their contradictions. In their zeal to discredit my work they have both tied themselves in knots and this has led them losing credibility, and me no longer willing to discuss with them:
Jan-Åke asserts in the strongest terms over many exchanges that I just do not get it that QM is a local theory and non-locality and teleportation are misnomers. They are doing it right and my ideas are nonsense. After all this that superior arrogance, Jan-Åke finally said that the state operator of a singlet state at Alice is 1/2x Identity!!!!!!!!! To get this, he did a partial trace over Bob’s particle in a singlet state!!!!!! this can ONLY mean that the singlet stretches non-locally between Alice and Bob!!!! And this sank his battleship—he lost his integrity and credibility. He has contradicted himself and his comments are either disingenuous or just straight ignorant. The local state operator at Alice is ½(I+signmA_n) with signmA_n being the nth component of Alices Pauli operator. In spite of his assertions to the contrary, Jan-Åke’s is fooling himself that his work is local.
Richard, no less arrogant in his defense by asserting that Bell’s Theorem is fine and dandy for classical systems but it is not applicable to quantum mechanics!!!!!! He pontificates about the nitty gritty details of Bell’s work and thereby casts doubts and nuances (which he does with most others on this forum who raise a voice against his beloved theorem). Richard completely tied himself into his knot since it is clear from most of Bell’s work, and that of 1,000’s of other physicists who use Bell’s Theorem, that the only place Bell’s Inequalities and theorem are used is in QM!! Richard lost his credibility by making all sorts of quantum inferences about hidden variables, and then states that my helicity, is not a counter example because Bell Theorem is about classical systems, and I am doing QM!!!!!
I have read many of the posts on this forum, and many people are confused, and this confusion is exacerbated by Richard who calls into doubt irrelevant points which detract from the discussion. Moreover, neither Richard and Jan-Åke have studied QFT and his is evident from their comments.
The ONLY cogent remark they have made is that a statistical model is needed for measurement. I agree with that, but it is not necessary to disprove Bell’s Theorem. I need only show that a LHV accounts for the violation without non-local connectivity and I did this by finding the helicity. True a statistical model would be welcomed but the challenge is to do what QM cannot, what Bell says is impossible, but which Nature does: describe two complementary elements of reality simultaneously. That is what I am discussing with Chantal and Pierre.
I urge Richard and Jan-Åke to think of their positions considering their contradictions. They need to recognize that Nature is a bit more quantum than they will admit. Jan-Åke needs to realize just what he is doing in his quantum computing: he is teleporting and using non-local entanglement. Richard needs to stop his attacks on the credibility of others when their ideas do not mesh with his.
Both need to study QFT.
I will wait for the referees remarks.
Bryan
Richard Gill
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6ae4842f-e9b7-46f2-aee7-0c05783916c2n%40googlegroups.com.
Richard Gill
Dear Richard and Jan-Åke
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6ae4842f-e9b7-46f2-aee7-0c05783916c2n%40googlegroups.com.
Bryan Sanctuary
Richard Gill
On 16 May 2022, at 15:03, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jan-Åke Larsson
Bryan Sanctuary
Jan-Åke
You cannot save yourself. You say there is nothing non-local in your work but your work is full of it. I am not even motivated to read your comments anymore. They are just irrelevant, inconsistent and closed minded. If you and the rest of those in Quantum Information are similarly confused about what is local or not, then the field has little future.
I really have little interest in your inane and inconsistent comments which make no sense. You have fooled yourself into believing your fallacious rationalizations.
So think before you utter and maybe you will see your inconsistencies.
Your methods and ideas have NO future. If, and I hope, yes, honest unbiased physicists accept my extension of Dirac, then you and all others in quantum info will capitulate.
The Field of Quantum Information will collapse, papers will be retracted and 60 years of nonsense will end.
That is my goal. The abject absurdity of the idea of instant-action-at-a-distance will be, once again, repudiated.
Bryan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f310897cbc6d26dae6852a1779df0c9742ff8999.camel%40liu.se.
Jan-Åke Larsson
Bryan Sanctuary
Richard Gill
- Niels Bohr.
On 16 May 2022, at 15:03, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Алексей Никулов
You quite right that the mixed state is fundamentally different from
the entangled state: the mixed state is a mixture of spin states that
have eigenstates in different directions of the real three-dimensional
space, whereas particles in the entangled state, for example in the
EPR state, cannot have eigenstates in any direction. The authors of
the GHZ theorem [1,2] made one of the mistakes precisely because they
did not understand that particles in the entangled state, in such as
the GHZ state, cannot have eigenstates. It remains for you to
understand that the mind the observer, Alice or Bob, creates
eigenstates of the both particles of the EPR pair when observing one
of the particles, according to the “orthodox quantum mechanics” of
both the 30’s of the last century and of the last decades of this
century.
[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
пн, 16 мая 2022 г. в 17:20, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
Richard Gill
On 16 May 2022, at 16:15, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxMZFX9kpyk%2Bmr5K%3Dh5ksuTbF6tfxMJgXBG%3DtzRwuWzLg%40mail.gmail.com.
Inge Svein Helland
Dear all,
In all modesty I think that I may have something to say which perhaps is relevant in connection to the debate between Bryan and Jan-Åke/Richard, which now seems to be locked, partly due to harch words on both sides.
I will not go into the points raised by Jan-Åke. These concerns technical issues in QM, and should be solved as technical issues.
But the discussion between Bryan and Richard may seem to have roots in their views on reality. Richard dismisses the question about what we see as element of reality, seemingly from the premise that these belong to the philosophical/theological sphere, and therefore irrelevant to science. While Bryan bases essential parts of his theory on the assumption that hyper-helicity is an element of reality. This is an assumption, but a perfectly permissible assumption. And is is, as an assumption, belonging to the field of philosophy, not mathematics.
In my opinion, physics needs both mathematics and philosophy behind its basis. This is quite obvious to me, but is apparently not accepted by Richard.
Is Bell's theorem disproved by Bryan? One can perhaps say that it is disproved under certain assumptions, including the one mentioned above. I feel that the discussion, if you are able to continue it, should go on these assumptions, not on a for or against Bell.
In my own paper, I have other assumptions behind both my view on reality and on the interpretation of quantum mechanichs. Under these assumptions, the Bell theorem is not disproved. On the contrary, Bell's discussions, which I in no way see as wrong, has strong consequences. One of his arguments behind the theorem, the hypothetical derivation of the CHSH inequality, seem to have as consequences, if we believe that this ineqality can be violated, the any person discussing the derivation has a limitation: He is simply not able to keep enough variables in his mind during the discussion.
All this is also based on assumptions, a basic philosophy. I start with Hervé Zwirn's convivial solipsism, which says that every decription of the real world should be relative to the mind of some actor. In a physical situation this actor will among other things have several variables in his mind, what I call conceptual variables. My view on physics, in particular my derivation of parts of QM is based on these variables.
But I disagree somewhat with Hervé Zwirn. He says that different actors can communicate, which I also do, but I see this communication as more important than he does. Through communication, through a common language, we form and develop common variables, not least in a physical situation. My partial derivation of QM can also be based on these varables.
The derivation itself is mathematics, but it is all based on a set of philosophical assumptions, which Bryans mathematical results also is.
It is very interesting that Bryan refer to quantum field theory, on which my knowledge is limited. But I know that there are tight bounds between quantum mechanics and field theory. A final theory, one that could be connected to general relativity, must take these bounds into consideration. QM would need a clear interpretation. I also know that there are difficulties in field theory, difficulties connected to infinities. Finally, I know that group theory is important in field theory. My simple opinion here is that it should not be enough to base it on abstract group theory; I prefer group actions on concrete conceptual variables.
My hope is that the discussion should continue, perhaps from the premises that I have sketched above.
Inge.
Sent: 16 May 2022 16:27
To: Richard Gill
Cc: Bryan Sanctuary; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations; Mark Hadley
Richard Gill
Inge Svein Helland
17. mai 2022 kl. 08:29 skrev Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
Dear Inge
--
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/B7B85BD3-6A98-43B4-A4E2-354AFB81C669%40gmail.com.