hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

[Bryan Sanctuary]

This paper describes some of the consequences of introducing hyper-helicity

Hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

Bryan Sanctuary

[Richard Gill]

There are many repetitions of earlier claims in this paper. Bryan selectively quotes from Bell’s summary of his theorem, but does not tell us what Bell understood by a hidden variables theory. He does not tell us what his definition is, nor what his definition of locality is. This has been extensively debated in the group in recent days.

Right now I just want to draw attention to one thing. Towards the end of the paper Bryan writes

Violation of BI confirms local-realism
There exist many attempts to simulate quantum phenomena, [34] such as the violation of BI click by click, see e.g. [35]. These have mostly failed, although see [36] for an exception.

Reference [36] is

[36] De Raedt, H., Jattana, M. S., Willsch, D., Willsch, M., Jin, F., Michielsen, K. (2020). Discrete-event simulation of an extended Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen-Bohm experiment. Frontiers in physics, 8, 160.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00160/full

The paper was edited by Karl Hess and reviewed by Andrei Khrennikov and Juergen Jakumeit. (The usual suspects!).

So according to Bryan, this paper contains a more or less unique successful attempt to reproduce the violation of BI “click by click”

De Raedt et al write the following:

"Evidently, in a laboratory EPRB experiment, before one can even think about computing correlations of particle properties, it is necessary to first classify a detection event as corresponding to the arrival of a particle or as something else. Any laboratory EPRB experiment with photons employs a specific, well-defined procedure to identify photons [3–10]. Such a procedure is definitely missing in the model Equation (1) proposed and analyzed by Bell [12]. If the aim is to describe the outcome of a laboratory EPRB experiment, then not incorporating such a procedure in the model is a fallacy which, logically speaking, is not much different from trying to model electrodynamics in terms of electrical phenomena without taking into account the magnetic phenomena. Although it is good practice to analyze the most primitive model first, the observation that it does not agree with experimental results only suggests that it is too primitive. The failure of the primitive model to account for the identification process is the fundamental reason why Bell’s theorem cannot have the status of a “no-go” theorem for the existence of a local realist model for a laboratory EPRB experiment.”

"Laboratory EPRB experiments unavoidably require a procedure to classify a detection event as corresponding to a photon or as something else. Independent of the precise nature of this procedure (voltage threshold, local time window, time coincidence, etc.), any model that aims at describing an EPRB experiment should, from the start, account for this procedure by introducing additional variables into the description.”

They are wrong. There is no “unavoidable procedure”. It is not “evidently necessary” to distinguish between a particle and something else.

In fact, the paper successfully (not surprisingly) uses the detection loophole to violate BI click-by-click. As it has to, because of Bell’s theorem. Which de Raedt and his friends do know. They even quote it (as a mathematical theorem, not as a slogan) and agree that there is no doubt that it is true. They have built their career on developing tricks to enable them to get round it, and they know very well exactly which tricks are available to them.

De Raedt, Hess, Khrennikov and Sanctuary all have missed the fact, carefully explained by Bell in “Bertlmann’s socks”, that a decent Bell type experiment should not analyse *particle pairs* but *paired time slots*.

All these kind people are living pre-2015. They have completely missed the rationale of the “loophole free experiments” of 2015. They are wilfully blind. It is interesting that these people are so enamoured of their world view that they close their eyes to evidence that their world view is incorrect. It is of course very human. But it is an anti-scientific attitude.

Fortunately, there do not seem to be any young people following these dinosaurs. So in not too long a time, they will all be gone.

I find it disturbing that Bryan cites such evidently flawed work as some kind of support of his own.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard.

I have now read David Mermin's 2018 paper. My conclusion is that David Mermin, like the rest of us, is human, and may be somewhat limited, he also. He very rightly says in his abstract that there has been an absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century, and that misconceptions are deeply held by virtually all physicists. I also agree with his aim of presenting a general view of science. The question is whether he has achieved this in a sense that can be understood both by scientists and by the general public.

I will give some citations from the paper, and my own comments.

On page 2 he says: 'Science in general, and quantum mechanics in particular, is a tool that each of us uses to organize and make sense of our own private experiences.' This may be true for Mermin himself, and for other scientists with a good backgrown in quantum mechanics. But it is not true for me, and I suspect not either for the majority of people in this world.

On the other hand, I agree with: 'Every experience is private to the person having that experience.' But he repeats: 'Quantum mechanics is a tool that I use to help me make sense of my personal world.' The italics here is from him. The idea here may be inherited from Chris Fuchs, who says similar things. It may be true for Chris Fuchs and David Mermin, but certainly not for most other people.

For the QBists, their actions are closely connected to betting. A longer citation: 'On the basis of my prior experiences I can form expectations for the responses of the world to my actions. Those expectations can be quantified into probabilities. Those probabilities can be expressed as the odds at which I am willing to place or accept bets. Those bets should be coherent.' The last term can be defined by referring to the Dutch book principle.

In fact I agree with some of this. But I have difficulties with regarding these probabilities as subjective probabilities atteched to the actor himself. I can say more on possible arguments behind the Born formula for probabilities, but I will not go further into this here.

What I do not quite agree with, is: 'Science can be viewed as a user's guide to the world.' Yes in making our decisions, we need knowledge, and science may be a source of such knowledge. But most people, when making their decisions, also have other guides.

In fact, the QBist seem to not want to use the word 'knowledge'; they prefer 'belief', then based upon bets and probability considerations. What most people think about as knowledge, is reduced to beliefs associated with a probability 1. I find this artificial. But it is not quite a universal view among the Qbists.

Yes, perhaps: 'All knowledge derives from experience.' A stong no: 'The answer to the sceptical question 'whose knowledge?' is the knowledge of whoever uses quantum mechanics.' This is a very exclusive group.

I could continue, but I think this is enough. My own basis is connected to decisions of the type made by all people. I have discussed this further in my book and in my papers.

Inge

PS.: At the first glance, Brian's last paper 'Hyper-helicity and the foundation of QM' looks very interesting. But we need a concensus on what we should mean by the word 'reality'. Perhaps also 'knowledge'.

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 09 May 2022 14:31:36
To: Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Cc: Bryan Sanctuary
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

--
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/01EB467C-4CA3-4715-8BAF-BE8F014DB857%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Inge

One thing I said to David M. when discussing his paper with him was that we also have knowledge about the world from our ancestors, by evolution. And by “ancestors” I mean ancestors in the deep past. Our brains are actually a stack of brains going back to the first organisms with a central nervous system. Like upgrades, we simply had new memory cards, new processing units, new peripherals (I/O systems) added on top of what our deep ancestors already had.

This built-in picture of the world may not be correct, but it helped us to become such a plague in the world’s ecosystems that we are now rapidly destroying our own environment. In the field of neuro-linguistics, scientists have identified what they call “systems of core knowledge”, basic modules of thought, basic concepts of space, time, number, agent, object. We “know” that everything that happens has a cause. And the initial cause is an agent. We can’t not but see a ‘will’, a sentience, behind everything that happens. Thus pure randomness is an abomination, a horror. 

I think that this is part of the reason we still don’t want to accept quantum mechanics.

Richard

PS I don’t like Dutch book arguments because I don’t like money and I don’t care about being self-consistent. I think there are much more important things in life.

Sent from my iPad

On 9 May 2022, at 18:24, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard.

I agree with everything you say, including your statement about money and about the Dutch Book argument. Nevertheless, and astonishing, this argument may seen to be useful in arguing for the Born formula; see Chapter 5 in my book.

Inge.

Sendt fra min iPhone

9. mai 2022 kl. 18:48 skrev Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

 Dear Inge

[Jay R. Yablon]

In my humble opinion, the meaning of "reality" is and should be simple:

The observables associated with any noncommuting Hermitian operator are subject to a measurement limitation owing to the via Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty principle.  At Copenhagen, Niels Bohr et al. made an tremendous mistake, which still haunts us to this day, by putting forward the still-prevailing view that these uncertainty-limited observables are not elements of reality, and that they only gain reality through their offspring once they are reduced to observation by a measurement which, to use a different paradigm, tells us whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead.

IMHO, those uncertainty-shielded observables are still and should be regarded as "elements of reality" in the sense of EPR.  It is that simple: the observables of noncommuting Hermitian operators ARE still elements of reality, even though they uncertainty-limited in their observability 

Best to all, Jay

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Jay.

I agree with this point og view in the Schrödinger  cat case. Common sense should implisitt that the var at each point of time either is dead or alive. This status can be determined by an observer inside the capsule, wearing a gas mask.

I have more difficulties in the EPR case. Since the operators corresponding to x1-x2 and p1 plus p2 commute, one observer can determine the position of each particle, the other momentum. But unless the observer communicate, not everything can be known. We here have to do with a really peculiar property of the world: For a composite system klint properties may be known, be ‘real’, but not properties of each part.

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

9. mai 2022 kl. 22:18 skrev Jay R. Yablon <yab...@alum.mit.edu>:

In my humble opinion, the meaning of "reality" is and should be simple:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/17bb0bcb-373f-4cd1-a5c5-7b32f9251b6cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Sorry about misprints. Inge.

Sendt fra min iPhone

10. mai 2022 kl. 08:03 skrev Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

 Dear Jay.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard.

Is it really necessary for us to believe that everything that happens has a cause? In case, my own belief is that this common cause may be called God. And that this can be reconciled with the correct version of quantum mechanics.

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

10. mai 2022 kl. 08:27 skrev Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

 Sorry about misprints. Inge.

[Richard Gill]

I’m telling you Inge that it appears that our brains are built to “know” that everything has a cause. It’s how they work, it’s what they do. It enabled our ancestors to survive and multiply. But that does not mean that it is actually true.

For me, the word “God” is a meaningless noise - or some meaningless symbols on paper - which people make, which has some association with the notion of Father (or Mother) who takes care of you. I have no use for the notion. I see plenty of evidence that if there is a God, he/she/it doesn’t care about its creation at all. 

I came to this understanding at the age of 12 or so. Some first experiences of terrible suffering of others. Later it got strengthened in my discussions, as a student, with evangelical fellow students (two of my best friends) who tried to convert me. In between those periods I was strongly influenced by an Anglican priest who told me about what he had been taught in priest-school about the origins of the Bible (old and new testaments). What the gospel authors (and also Paul) were trying to do.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 May 2022, at 08:38, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:

 Dear Richard.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/5FC2C0AE-BBA2-4D10-BD4E-4BB8BA1A9831%40math.uio.no.

[Mark Hadley]

The common belief that the uncertainty relation is about limits of measurement is not really correct.

My understanding of the uncertainty relationship, is that it is a theoretical result about state preparation. It can be derived from quantm theory (Ishams' book gives a very clear treatment). There is an uncertainty relationship that prevents the creation, and description of states, that have well defined values when the observables are non-commuting.

There are several counter examples where non commuting obserables can be measured, but they are not ideal measurements, not state preparations. For example momentum cna be determined by time of flight and postion by impact on a detector. Conversely a singlet state has well defined x, y and z spin even though they cannot be measured simultaneously.

I would argue that EPR is a way to measure two non commuting spin components. Ive not seen it presented this way.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/17bb0bcb-373f-4cd1-a5c5-7b32f9251b6cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark says "I would argue that EPR is a way to measure two non commuting spin components. I've not seen it presented this way."

I did just that, but not  between non-commuting spin components, but by two elements of reality: spin polarization and helicity,  see Eq.(17)  of the paper.

Bryan

Spin with hyper-helicity

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo35%2BX9qE_OoOhOGRXm2pvxj-%3D5QmzzMrBeqbOST-JKc_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard,

It may be that we are built to know that everything has a cause, but for myself I will say that in very many cases I do not know anything about that concrete cause at all.

I appreciate that you see 'God' as a noise. It has been the same way for me in very many years. But during the last 10 years some sort of an image of God has been made more and more clear to me. I know very well the counterarguments. Even Putin seems to have some sort of a God-picture. And the sufferings of the world are completely ununderstanable. But even so, some rater childish image of a higher power behind everything seem unescapable for me. I cannot explain it logically. It just is there.

But this is for me. Very many of my friends think differently.

Inge

---

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 10 May 2022 12:49:15
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

[Jay R. Yablon]

Dear Inge:

I am trying to decipher what you were saying in “For a composite system klint properties may be known, be ‘real’, but not properties of each part.” Please let us know.

Thank you, Jay

____________________________

On May 10, 2022, at 2:26 AM, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:

 Sorry about misprints. Inge.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Jay,

As an example, look at the EPR situation in its original form. The total momentum p1 plus p2 for the two particles may be known, and at the same time the relative position x1-x2. But it is impossible to know both p1 and x1 at the same time for the first particle.

Inge

---

From: Jay R. Yablon <jya...@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: 10 May 2022 16:39:32
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

Due to the fact that the name of God was mentioned in vain when
discussing Bell's inequalities, I must quote Jose Ortega y Gasset (the
great Spanish philosopher according to Schrodinger’s opinion): ”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”. The ‘cultured men’
discussed about 1750 the reality of God as the cause of the world.
Hume questioned determinism in Nature in order to question one of the
proofs of the reality of God as the cause of the world. But the
skepticism of Hume, who, like many modern scientists, was convinced
that all our knowledge is based on experience, questioned the
possibility of empirical knowledge of Nature.

Kant agreed with Hume that our reason cannot prove determinism is in
Nature as a thing-in-itself. But he came to the conclusion that
determinism and realism are the regulative principles of our reason
without which no empirical cognition of Nature is possible. Kant
questioned the claims of our reason to judge the reality of God. But
modern scientists consider it possible to judge not only the reality
of God as the cause of the world, but also the reality of the world.
They do not want to admit that quantum mechanics is not a scientific
theory because of its contradiction to realism and determinism.

The consequence of this conceit of the reason of modern scientists has
become the degradation of physical thinking, manifested with the
greatest clarity in the GHZ theorem [1]. The fact that no one for more
than thirty years has noticed the obvious mistakes made in the
derivation of the GHZ theorem testifies to the complete degradation of
physical thinking. The authors [1] were thanking David Mermin in 1990,
about whose article you wrote. David Mermin apparently knew the GHZ
theorem well and the fact that he did not notice the obvious errors
indicates that the degradation of physical thinking affected him as
well.

[1] 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, 10 мая 2022 г. в 17:54, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/94258729940144db90db620489f32ee6%40math.uio.no.

[Jay R. Yablon]

Dear Inge: Reminiscent of a difference in potential (voltage) in electromagnetism, and the gauge angle in gauge theory.  Best, Jay

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Brian.

If I understand you correctly, you say that two variables, with non-commuting operators, both are elements of reality. Look at a single particle at some fixed time. Would you say that both its position and its momentum are elements of reality? I feel that the concept of reality is crucial, but problematic.

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

> 10. mai 2022 kl. 22:22 skrev Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Inge,

[Inge Svein Helland]

Sorry: Bryan. Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

> 11. mai 2022 kl. 06:17 skrev Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
>
> Dear Brian.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Alexey,

I agree with much of what you say in your contribution, but disagree with the following: 'Quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory because its contradiction to realism and determinism.'  With this I also disagree with Kant's conclusion as you cite it: Determinism and realism are the regulatory principles of our reason, without no empirical cognition of Nature is possible.

First take the issue of determinism, which I think is easy to reject as a necessary principle for scientific thinking. In fact, the whole science of statistics relies on using stochasic models to describe nature or to descibe the phenomenon under study. Using such models, indeed concrete conclusions are derived from empirical data.

The issue of realism is more difficult. As I just said to Brian, the concept of reality is crucial, but problematic. My highest wish now is that we could try to arrive at some concensus in relation to these concepts. Which variables should be considered to be part of reality? Must we accept Hervé Zwirn's conclusion, that all desciption of the world should be from the point of view of some single person? (But different persons can communicate through language.) Any opinions on this is welcome.

I have not read the paper on the GHZ theorem, and cannot comment on this. But if you want to see my conclusions about the Bell theorem with an inequality, please have a look at my paper on this, as posted earlier. As I said, the paper will appear in Foundations of Physics. In parts, it is fairly technical, but its conclusions remain fairly clear and definite, as I see them.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>
Sent: 11 May 2022 06:21:47
To: Алексей Никулов
Cc: Jay R. Yablon; Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/E11EE2B8-0F59-4B2E-A4E3-1B8388C36F98%40math.uio.no.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Sorry again: Bryan, of course. This only strengthen my conclusion in the Bell paper: We are all limited when making decisions.

Inge

---

From: Inge Svein Helland
Sent: 11 May 2022 08:58

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear all,

I am just reading Eric Berne's old book 'Games People Play'. According to Berne, we all play games together all the time, in attemps to get emotional kicks. I guess that my bad habit of making misprints all the time has been some sort of unconscious game from me. I do not know. Other people do other things in order to get the nesessary kicks. Some write blogs and some write contributions to Facebook every second day.

But back to the main issue: I think it is very important to reach at some consensus regarding what we mean by reality. Which variables may be considered variables of the real world? Myself, I have defined what I call accessible variables, variables that can be assigned values after a measurement or an experiment. These may be candidates, but in the first round only to the world as perceived by the person who does the measurement. So in what sense do we have a common world? Can some nonaccessible variables also be considered as real in some sense?

These are my questions. I hope this can initiate some dialogue. (One author that I just read, saw a difference between dialogues and debate. The first have a purpose of reaching some concensus; the second only to express opinions. To begin with, may be opinions are needed.)

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>

Sent: 11 May 2022 09:03:06

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/b0a07916bf124944948a1f428cdbd9f2%40math.uio.no.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Reality is defined as a pure state with dispersion free outcomes.

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/48c84d1da54d4ef9ace8c59ce1e42f08%40math.uio.no.

[Richard Gill]

I found Slava Belavkin’s framework a good one for coming up with a definition of reality, within a mathematical model based on quantum mechanics and on a Heisenberg divide.

Slides of a talk, an unfinished paper, and a master thesis which provides some completion

https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/cat_talk.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2723

Schrödinger's cat meets Occam's razor
Richard D. Gill
We discuss V.P. Belavkin's approach to the measurement problem encapsulated in his theory of eventum mechanics (as presented in his 2007 survey). In particular, we show its relation to ideas based on superselection and interaction with the environment developed by N.P. Landsman (1995, and more recent papers). Landsman writes "those believing that the classical world exists intrinsically and absolutely [such persons later termed by him B-realists] are advised against reading this [his, 1995] paper". He adopts a milder position, calling it that of an A-realist: we live in a classical world but to give it special status is like insisting that the Earth is the centre of the universe. The B-realists are accused of living under some kind of hallucination. Landsman presents arguments pointing in a particular direction to a resolution of the measurement problem which at least would satisfy the A-realists. We point out in this paper that the theory earlier developed by Belavkin (surveyed in his 2007 paper) seems to complete Landsman's program or at least exhibits a "realisation" satisfying his desiderata. At the same time it seems that this completion of the program ends up giving both A- and B-realists equal licence to accuse the others of living under hallucinations.

https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/scripties/feenstrabach.pdf

T.E. Feenstra

Glimpses of a solution to the measurement problem in quantum theory

Bachelor’s thesis, 25-06-2009

Thesis advisor: Prof. dr. R.D. Gill

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/48c84d1da54d4ef9ace8c59ce1e42f08%40math.uio.no.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Inge

I do not adher to the Copenhagen interpretation. All elements of reality exist simultaneously. Sometime we can only measure one.  QM cannot describe two of more non-commuting such elements, but Nature can, as EPR stated, but Bell's theorem stood in the way.  Without it, EPR's conclusion seem to be correct,  qm is incomplete. 

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/190F14CA-509E-458A-A20E-0B800E923B75%40math.uio.no.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Inge

Can you remind d me what you are sorry about? Thanks

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/E11EE2B8-0F59-4B2E-A4E3-1B8388C36F98%40math.uio.no.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

A stochastic model cannot reject determinism. I draw your attention
that a stochastic model is used in theories of hidden variables.
Einstein, Bell and a few others considered it necessary to replace
quantum mechanics with a theory of hidden variables, since they
understood that if the theory denies the cause of phenomena outside
the observer's mind, i.e. in Nature, then the observer's mind becomes
the cause of phenomena. In this they followed Kant, who retained the
concept of a thing-in-itself as the cause of observed phenomena, so
that our mind would not become the cause of phenomena. Hidden
variables, like a thing-in-itself, allow us to avoid the logical
conclusion that the observer's consciousness creates the observed
phenomena. This logical conclusion, following from quantum mechanics,
results in obvious absurdity if more than one observer exists.

I try to draw attention in the preprint “Logical proof of the
absurdity of the EPR correlation” (available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation
) and my unpublished article “Only critics understood quantum
mechanics” that quantum mechanics predicts that two observers can
create different quantum states of the same particle. You and Richard
may be the two observers. In this case you must think that Richard
does not exist and Richard must think that you do not exist in order
you could avoid the obvious absurdity and save your faith in quantum
mechanics.

No religious faith has been as blind as the faith of most scientists
in quantum mechanics is. Such blind faith in the obvious absurdity can
be preserving only thanks to the censorship of the majority, the most
dangerous censorship for science. My manuscript “Only critics
understood quantum mechanics” was rejected without peer review by
Editors of eleven journals. My manuscript “Physical thinking and the
GHZ theorem” was rejected by Editors already in three journals.
Editors are obviously afraid to publish the article that points out
obvious mistakes made by well-known authors in well-known
publications. The mistakes are so obvious that it is surprising that
no one has noticed them for more than thirty years. This fact
indicates that most modern physicists believe rather than think
critically.

I draw attention in the manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ
theorem” to the inconsistency of the well-known GHZ theorem. The
purpose of the GHZ theorem is to prove the incompatibility of the
predictions of quantum mechanics with the assumption of locality and
reality [1]. But, the principle of quantum mechanics is used in
deducing this theorem, according to which quantum mechanics cannot
contradict locality. The authors [1] assume, when deducing the
expectation value (8) in the Appendix F, that measurement of spin
projection of one of the four particles in the GHSZ state (7), for
example 1, does not change the spin states of other particles 2, 3, 4.
The result of measuring the spin projection of each particle does not
depend on the order of measurement of the particles according to the
Appendix F of [1]. The authors of the book [2] justify in section 6.6
“The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Theorem” the independence of the
measurement results of different particles, when deriving the GHZ
theorem, by the well-known principle of quantum mechanics that the
operators can fail to commute only if they act on the same particle.

But quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality according to this
well-known principle since measurement of one particle of the EPR
(Einstein – Podolsky - Rosen) pair cannot change the quantum state of
other particles, if operators acting on different particles commute.
Result of measurements of the first and second particles of the EPR
pair cannot be different in this case. Therefore the expression (B4)
in the Appendix B, according to which the probability to observe spin
up of the first particle of the EPR pair differs fundamentally from
the probability to observe spin up of the second particle, cannot be
correct according to the principle of quantum mechanics that operators
acting on different particles commute. Thus, the Appendix B
contradicts the Appendix F in the work [1].

This contradiction appeared because the authors [1], when deducing the
expectation value (B5) in the Appendix B, followed John Bell. On the
other hand they used the principle of quantum mechanics, operators
acting on different particles commute, when deriving the GHSZ theorem
in the Appendix F of [1], since Bell did not draw readers' attention
to the mathematical fact that quantum mechanics can predict violation
of Bell's inequalities only if this principle was rejected.

Perhaps John Bell himself did not notice this mathematical fact, since
he was following David Bohm in the deduction of Bell’s theorem. David
Bohm also did not draw readers' attention to the mathematical fact
that the correlation between the results of measurements of the spin
projections of two particles of the EPR pair (the EPR correlation),
which he postulated, is possible only if operators acting on different
particles do not commute. I consider it necessary to finally draw
readers' attention to the important mathematical fact that the
principle of quantum mechanics, operators acting on different
particles commute, must be rejected so that predictions of the EPR
correlation and violations of Bell’s inequalities could be possible.

I also consider it necessary to pay attention to the contradictions in
the predictions of the measurement results given by the expression (7)
in [1] for the GHSZ state and by the expression (F2a), used to derive
the expectation value (8) for this state in the Appendix F. The
expression (7) predicts that the first measurement of spin projection
in any direction of one of the four particles will give spin up with
the probability 1/2, whereas the expression (F2a) predicts that this
probability depends on the angle between the measurement direction and
a direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.

This contradiction appeared because the authors [1] did not take into
account the mathematical fact that spin states of several particles
cannot be eigenstates if they are entangled. This mathematical fact
follows from the mathematical definition of entangled states: several
particles are entangled if their state cannot be described as the
product of the states of each of these particles. The spin state of
each of the non-entangled particles, written for a certain direction,
can be expressed in terms of the angles between this direction and a
direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.

But the spin states of entangled particles cannot be mathematically
expressed through these angles. Therefore the angles in the expression
(8) of [1] for the expectation value don't make sense. According to
the expression (F1) and contrary to mathematics, all four particles in
the GHSZ state (7) have eigenstate in the same direction. But the
authors chose this direction arbitrarily. Therefore the angles in
expression (8) of [1] for the expectation value depend on the
subjective choice of the authors.

Editors of three journals could not refute the evidence of mistakes
made by the well-known authors D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony
and A. Zeilinger [1]. Therefore, they decided to ban the publication
of my manuscript so that readers of their journals could not find out
about these mistakes. The well-known authors [1] made obvious mistakes
because of their desire to refute realism. They, in contrast to
Einstein, did not understand that realism is the presupposition of
every kind of physical thinking rather than a claim which can be
disproved with any experimental results. The obvious mistakes made in
the derivation of the GHSZ theorem [1] demonstrates that Einstein was
right: the rejection of realism means the rejection of physical
thinking.

You wrote: “The issue of realism is more difficult”. I should note
that the essence of realism was expressed quite clearly and defined by
Einstein: realism asserts that the moon exists even if no one sees it.
Quantum mechanics does not state explicitly that the moon does not
exist before observation, contrary to the claim of the author [3]
about the experimental refutation of Einstein's desire. But quantum
mechanics definitely states that the spin states of entangled
particles do not exist in the real three-dimensional space before
observation. The authors [1] made an obvious mistake since they did
not understand that the absence of eigenstates of entangled particles
is a mathematical fact. Quantum mechanics contradicts realism
according to rather mathematics than experimental results. And this
contradiction results logically to the obvious absurdity: you and
Richard can create different eigenstates of the same particles.

An honest scientist cannot fail to understand the evidence of the
mistakes made in the derivation of the GHSZ theorem [1] when these
mistakes are pointed out. An honest physicist cannot fail to
understand, at least, that the prediction of the measurement results
given by the expression (7) in for the GHSZ state contradicts the
prediction given by the expression (F2a), used to derive the
expectation value (8) for this state in the Appendix F in the
publication [1]. Already this obvious contradiction indicates that the
GHSZ theorem is false. But Editors of physical journals do not want to
be honest because of their belief in the opinion of the majority. True
science becomes impossible when scientists lose the honesty.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

[2] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006.

[3] J.E. Mooij, Quantum mechanics: No moon there. Nature Phys. 6, 401 (2010).

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 11 мая 2022 г. в 17:55, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

I’m an honest scientist. Well - maybe you don’t believe it, but I feel that I behave honestly as a scientist.

I do not see any mistakes in what you call “the GHSZ theorem”.

I’m a mathematician and for me a theorem is something different from what you call a theorem.

(And I’m not a philosopher or a theologian but a Buddhist and an atheist so actually I am not interested in the question “what is reality”. It’s essentially a meaningless question. Though obviously it has emotional meaning for many. But I don’t think it has scientific meaning. I think that Wittgenstein would agree, and the Buddha would agree, too).

Richard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4i%2BYz7UqUMpyWYGohSQZad97nY5-U%3DdQ604X5vRHYaUv_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

BTW I submitted mypaper to F1000research.com and asked for a rebate because I was a pensioner with no research funds. They refused to give me a rebate because I was not a medical doctor in a developing  country! I thought “F*** ***”. And I won't recommend them to my friends ever again.

But if any of you guys (and a few gals) like to contribute the necessary Euros or dollars but not Roubles, I will be delighted. I could set up a “GoFundMe” appeal if that would appease your funders...

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

If you are an honest scientist and even more so a mathematician, then
you cannot fail to understand that obvious mathematical mistakes were
made in the well-known article [1]. The most obvious mistake is
revealed by the contradiction between the prediction of the

measurement results given by the expression (7) in for the GHSZ state

and the prediction given by the expression (F2a), used to derive the

expectation value (8) for this state in the Appendix F in the

publication [1]. The first measurement of spin projection in any
direction of any particle in the GHSZ state will give spin up (+) with
probability 1/2 according to expression (7) whereas this probability
cos \theta depends on the angle \theta between the direction of
measurement n_1, n_2, n_3 or n_4 and a direction in which this spin
state is eigenstate. According to (F1) all four particles have
eigenstates in the same direction measurements of spin projection
along which should give spin up (+) with probability 1 rather than
1/2.

This contradiction appeared because the authors [1] did not take into
account the mathematical fact that spin states of several particles
cannot be eigenstates if they are entangled. This mathematical fact
follows from the mathematical definition of entangled states: several
particles are entangled if their state cannot be described as the
product of the states of each of these particles. The spin state of
each of the non-entangled particles, written for a certain direction

n_1, n_2, n_3 or n_4, can be expressed in terms of the angles between

this direction and a direction in which this spin state is eigenstate.
But the spin states of entangled particles cannot be mathematically
expressed through these angles. Therefore the angles in the expression
(8) of [1] for the expectation value don't make sense. According to
the expression (F1) and contrary to mathematics, all four particles in
the GHSZ state (7) have eigenstate in the same direction. But the
authors chose this direction arbitrarily. Therefore the angles in
expression (8) of [1] for the expectation value depend on the
subjective choice of the authors.

If you admit the evidence of this mistake, then I will explain to you
the obviousness of other mistakes made by the well-known authors [1].
Or you can read about these mistakes yourself in my manuscript
“Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”, which the editors of physical
journals do not want to publish.

[1] 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, 11 мая 2022 г. в 19:51, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

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

[Jay R. Yablon]

The sentiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen for any discussion of reality is wise:

"The elements of the physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements. A comprehensive definition of reality is, however, unnecessary for our purpose."

The discussions in this group are typically all over the map and I do not want to add to that.

So all I will say is this:

The observable eigenvalues of two mutually-non-commuting Hermitian operators cannot be simultaneously observed, and once one is observed with some degree of precision, there is a loss of precision for the other.  But the Copenhagen interpretation makes a serious mistake in suggesting that these are therefore not elements of reality.

So, for example, for position and momentum represented in Born / Heisenberg commutators, although quantum field theory uses the path integral to account for all possible but unknowable paths of a particle, the unknowability of a path does not remove that path from reality.  It is still physically real, even though unknowable.

Also for example, for quantum spin, the spin can only be known about one of three space axes.  Once a spin is detected to be up or down along e.g. the z axis, its previous angle of orientation in the x-y plane is unknowable.  That orientation too, is still physically real, even though unknowable.

The latter is pertinent for Bell's theorem, because Bell experimentally measures spins.  IF, and I say IF one was able to find a hidden variable theory that explained the cosine correlation without resort to instantaneous communication, that hidden variable would be just that: hidden.  But it would still be an element of reality, because it would have the effect of causing the cosine correlation which is observed in physics reality.

My own personal view, is that "hidden" = "uncertainty," which is to say, IF, and again I say IF one was able to get past Bell, the hidden variable IMHO would be a variable that gets hidden because of the uncertainty principle, which in turn means that variable would arise from a non-commuting operator.  And because Bell is about spins, that non-commuting operator would undoubtedly be a spin operator.  In this way, I am more restrictive than Bell, who was open to any type of hidden variable.  I am not.  These have to be hidden because of an underlying non-commuting operator.

So I guess what I am saying is this:  If there is some hidden variable which by definition cannot be directly observed in any experiment, that variable would still be an element of reality because of its physical contribution to a result that is physically observable.  For example,
 an electron gets observed somewhere soon after we discharge it, even if we don't know he path it took, so that path is still reality.  Or, a particle gets observed with spin up or down even though we don't know exactly how it pointed before we observed it, so that direction is still reality.  Or, re Bell, a hidden variable still yields the statistical result that is Bell's cosine correlation even though we never directly see the particular hidden variable for any individual singlet state pair. 

Jay

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwJN6OGqnCwMudWnFzhTWb6%2BvMc5mZXirUrhdiXMJmyJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Alexei

I am an honest mathematician. Maybe there are errors in paper [1], I never read it. I read later accounts of GHZ and I checked the computations. I have even published about the GHZ experiment. I don’t understand what you write. We start with particles in an entangled state. The separate particle spin observables have eigenvalues -+/-1. By tracing out all particles but one, one finds that the reduced density matrix of a single particle is the completely mixed state. So in any direction, they are equally likely to yield outcomes +/-1

At the moment I don’t have time to check [1]. Maybe someone else can comment.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 May 2022, at 19:50, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,

[Richard Gill]

Jay

Bell is not about spins. It is about a putative underlying deterministic theory which would merely make the same experimental predictions as quantum mechanics.

EPR’s criterion by which they decided that two entangled particles both had both position and momentum must be wrong, useless (Unless reality is dramatically non-local). 

Bell showed that such a deterministic theory cannot exist, if one insists on locality.

I hope we all agree that outcomes of quantum measurements are real. I see no point whatever in using the words “elements of reality” for “quantum observables”. It just muddies the water.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 May 2022, at 03:25, Jay R. Yablon <jya...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

 The sentiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen for any discussion of reality is wise:

, is still physically real, even though unknowable.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/deb3fbc1-f8ac-1320-3703-2006fd07b671%40nycap.rr.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear all,

So far we have obtained several opinions on the questions about reality that I raised. I will give some comments below. I do not regard these comments as final. They reflect my current understanding. The goal is still in due time to arrive at some consensus.

Alexey: You have very strong opinions on the validity of quantum mechanics. But your view seem to be a minority view, which is problematic if we want to reach some form of a consensus. Your reasoning relies partly on what you call mathematical errors. I feel that these issues should be addressed to some mathematician. I do not think that people in this group have the interest nor the capacity to solve these problems.

Richard, earlier contribution: In the terminology of Belavkin and Landsman, as you describe it, I think that I am a B-realist: I believe firmly that the classical world exists in some concrete sense intrinsically and absolutely. The great question to me is what properties of this world may be said to exist. I will come back to this below. I do not think that I quite agree with your last statement that there is no point in using the word 'elements of reality'. One of our goals must absolutely be to arrive at a joint understanding between some variant of quantum mechanics and general relativity. To achieve this, I think it is unavoidable to get a more concrete characteristic of what we mean by the concept of reality.

On quantum mechanics: This is a mathematical theory, a model related to this world, or at least to how we can achieve knowledge of the world. Like any model, it may be incomplete. In [1] Chapter 4 and 5 and in [2], this model was derived under weak assumptions. These assumptions relate not only to the world, but to a concrete observer of the world in some context, or to a group of communicating observers. A brief summary of the main assumptions: (1). The observer (or group of observers) has/have at least two related maximally accessible variables, related to the world, in his/their mind(s). These terms can be precisely defined. On one of these variables a transitive group action exists, and there is a faithful representation of this group. (2). The observer or any person describing the observer believes in the statistical likelihood principle and has ideals that can be modelled by an abstract, completely rational person.

The derivation relies on a model for making decisions in this context related to some measurement, for instance what to measure, and this is a simple model assuming a fixed set of prospects as a point of departure. Making a more advanced modelling attempt here, may be a way to make quantum mechanics mor complete.

Brian: (What I said I was sorry about earlier, was simply that I mistakingly called you Brian.) I have just read through your paper [3] 'Hyper-helicity and the foundations of QM' as far as I understand it. Your disproof of Bell's theorem relies on the introduction of the hidden variable hyper-helicity. It seems to be crucial for you that this variable can be seen as a property of the real world. Among other things you say that spin polarization and helicity both exist as elements of reality. So, as I understand it, you assume that a non-observable variable may be real in some sense. This is, I think, a quite radical assumption, and it disagrees with the world picture of Niels Bohr and his followers, a world picture that is the basis of many books, among them my own. And a world picture that describes very many phenomena in both the microscopic and the macroscopic world; see details in [1].

So we seem to have two complementary world views here, yours and the world view that lies behind my derivation of the quantum model. This is interesting, and should be the source of some further discussions.

Or, just to rule out that possibility, do you assume that hyper-helicity in some way can be measured? Then I think you can have problems with multiple measurements. Assume that that you have two variables x and p connected to some physical thing that according to QM are associated with non-commuting operators, or more generally, cannot be measured simultaneously. Assume for simplicity that this thing is completely isolated, so that there is no time development between measurements. Choose first to measure x and get the value x1, then p and get the value p1. If you now measure x again, you will usually get anothert value x2. Suppose that x and p in some sense exist simultaneously. Does then x have the value x1 or x2?

Richard's comment to Bryan: I do not know the paper by de Raedt et al., but I think oit is a strong statement to say that 'these people are obviously flawed'. Without trying to go into your argument here, my guss is that these people have their own model, and as I have said repeatedly, any model may be limited/incomplete.

Jay: In your contribution you say that all elements of reality exist simultaneously. As I said in my remark to Brian above, this seems to give difficulties in connection to multiple measurements. So your view on hidden variables is interesting, but I cannot agree with it.

Briefly to Richard again: Concerning loopholes, as far as I understand, the 2015 experiments were loophole-free, and our task is now to try to understand these experiments.

Summing up: We seem to have two models related to the world here. One is my own, in the derivation of quantum mechanics, which assumes observer(s) and his/their knowledge in a concrete context. The other is Brian's model, which he claims extend QM, and assumes that some hidden variable is an element of reality.

To say a little more about my own model, the concept of 'knowledge' is also one that can be discussed. In my derivation, I really have a simple concept of knowledge, of the form t=u, where t is some discrete accessible variable, and u is one possible value. These concrete knowledges are associated with eigenspaces of the operator associated with t, in the maximal case eigenvectors, state vector. There may also exist more exotic states that do not have such an interpretation. This problem is formulated as a general to the quantum community in [4].

But of cause, there also exist other kinds of knowledge, in particular knowledge that cannot be expressed directly by language, say knowledge connected to the ability to play and appreciate music.

One very important discussion theme is to what extent ontological aspects of the world may be addressed, even in a model like mine, which starts with epistemology. Aspects of this are discussed in [5].

This will end my contribution. My hope is that the dialogue will continue. In agreement with [6] I am also willing to see my own views as somewhat limited.

Inge

[1] Helland, I.S. (2021). Epistemic Processes. Revised book on Springer.

[2] Helland. I.S. (2022a). On reconstructing parts of quantum theory from two related maximal conceptual variables. Journal of Theoretical Physics 61, 69.

[3] Sanctuary, B. (2022). Hyper-helicity and the foundations of QM. Preprint.

[4] Helland, I.S. (2019). When is a set of questions to nature together with sharp answers to those questions in one-to-one correspondence with a set of quantum states? arXiv: 1909.08834 [quant-ph].

[5] Helland, I.S. (2022b). Epistemological and ontological aspects of quantum theory. arXiv: 2112.10484 [quant-ph].

[6] Helland, I.S. (2022c). The Bell experiment and the limitations of actors. To appear in Foundations of Physics.

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>

Sent: 12 May 2022 07:02:12
To: Jay R. Yablon
Cc: Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/609F9CB7-24FD-4846-A6F5-F4362B1DB73C%40gmail.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard,

I completely agree with you here.

My paper on the Bell experiment will be proof-read today. This means that today will be my last chance to change my meanings about something there.

I have now made my decision: I will not change my meanings about anything. The conclusions may be weird, but this is simply how I understand the Bell situation.

Inge

---

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 May 2022 05:17:26
To: Алексей Никулов
Cc: Inge Svein Helland; Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

The words “objective” and “subjective” do not express the right distinction here. Instead of “objective” I would prefer real, ontological. Instead of “subjective” I would prefer “intersubjectief, relative, epistemological”.

19th century thinking and vocabulary was adequate for a while but turned out to be inadequate. Later 20th century has revised much of that thinking and introduced new vocabulary.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 May 2022, at 19:02, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
>

> If you interpret “quantum state” only in the subjective way, i. e. as
> the knowledge of the observer about probability of results of upcoming
> observations then you must understand that a quantum computer cannot
> be real since no real device can be created on the basis of the
> description of the knowledge of the observer. In addition, you should
> understand that without the objective definition of spin states,
> quantum mechanics cannot predict the violation of Bell’s inequalities,
> since the operators of finite rotations of coordinate system are
> derived from the objective definition of spin states as exist really
> in the real three dimensional isotropic space, see [1]. If you derive
> the violation of Bell’s inequalities without rotation operators, then
> it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
>
> If I am indeed the only person who understands that there are
> mathematical errors in the GHZ theory then the degradation of physical
> thinking is complete among modern scientists.
>
> You wrote that “the two particle (Bell) case is mathematically clear”.
> But this case, like other cases (the GHZ state and the GHSZ state)
> must be clear first of all physically rather than mathematically. The
> EPR state
>
> EPR = (|A+B-> - |A-B+>) /sqrt 2 (1)
>
> describes only the knowledge of the observer that the first
> observation of spin projection in any direction of particle A or B
> will give spin up (+) with probability 1/2. The objective definition
> is impossible for the EPR state (1), as for any entangled state. But
> the objective definition becomes possible after the first observation
> which transforms the EPR state (1) to non-entangled states of the two
> particles A and B.
>
> This transformation occurs according to both the orthodox quantum
> mechanics and Bohm’s quantum mechanics. But the state of non-observed
> particle will be different. According to the Dirac jump of the
> orthodox quantum mechanics only observed particle “jumps into an
> eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured” [2]. The
> dynamical variable is determined by the direction z1 in which Alice,
> for example, measures spin projection of his particle A. According to
> the Dirac jump only the state of the particle A will change when Alice
> will observe spin up along z1. Therefore the EPR state (1) should jump
> to the Dirac state
>
> Dirac = |A+>z1(B-> - |B+>) /sqrt 2 (2)
>
> according to the orthodox quantum mechanics. The particle A and B in
> the Dirac state (2) are not entangled. But the direction in which the
> spin state of the particle B is eigenstate is perpendicular to the
> direction z1 in which the spin state of the particle A is eigenstate.
> Therefore no correlation between results of observations of particles
> A and B should be at measurements of spin projection along the same
> direction z1 according to the orthodox quantum mechanics.
>
> Quantum mechanics can predict the EPR correlation only if not only
> measured particle A but also the other particle B “jumps into an
> eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured”. This
> absurd jump was postulated by Bohm only in 1951 [3]. I call this jump
> of the both particles of the EPR pair (1) into an eigenstate of the
> dynamical variable of one of the particles that is being measured as
> the Bohr jump, since this jump was postulated by Bohm under the
> influence the Bohr claim about ’spooky action at a distance’ in [4].
> According to the Bohr jump of Bohm’s quantum mechanics the EPR state
> (1) jumps in the Bohm state
>
> Bohm = |A+>z1|B->z1 (3)
>
> which provides the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s
> inequalities. The Bohm state (3) provides violation of Bell’s
> inequalities since the eigenstate along z1 is the superposition of
> states
>
> |B->z1 = -sin f/2 |B+>z2 + cos f/2 |B->z2 (4)
>
> along any other direction z2. f is the angle between z1 and z2. I draw
> you attention that the operator of rotation about the y-axis, see [1],
> is used in (4). You must understand that Bell used this operator of
> finite rotations of the coordinate system, which can only be derived
> from an objective definition of the spin state [1], in order to deduce
> the expression (4) in “Bertlmann’s socks” [5].
>
> I draw also you attention that Bohm provided the EPR correlation and
> violation of Bell’s inequalities with help of obvious absurd: he
> postulated that the mind of Alice creates the eigenstate |A+>z1 not
> only the observed particle A but also the eigenstate |B->z1 of other
> particle B. The mind of Bob can create other eigenstates |A+>z2 and
> |B->z2 of the same particles.
>
> [1] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic
> Theory (Volume 3, Third Edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1977).
> [2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
> Press, New York, 1958
> [3] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).
> [4] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
> Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
> [5] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
> Physique 42, 41 (1981).
>
> With best wishes,
> Alexey
>
> чт, 12 мая 2022 г. в 13:28, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Sorry Alexei, I simply cannot understand your arguments. I interpret “quantum state” in the subjective way. The theory of GHZ is well known and it seems you are the only person who thinks there are mathematical errors in it.
>>
>> Also the two particle (Bell) case is mathematically clear. One considers a binary property of two particles in the pure singlet state | Psi > =  (| + - > - | - +>)/ sqrt 2, a vector of length one in  C^4 = C^2 otimes C^2. It is easy to check that the reduced state of each particle separately is the completely mixed state with density matrix I_2 / 2 (a 2x2 matrix).
>>
>> Of course it is another question whether there are situations in the real world for which this is a good model.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> Sent from my iPad

>>
>>>> On 12 May 2022, at 12:10, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Richard,

>>> I drew your attention that the authors of the GHZ theorem [1] did not

>>> take into account the mathematical fact that spin states of several
>>> particles cannot be eigenstates if they are entangled. This

>>> mathematical fact applies to all entangled states including the EPR
>>> state of two particles, the GHZ state of three particles [2,3] and the
>>> GHSZ state of four particles [1]. Entangled states and mixed states
>>> should not be confused here. I consider the mixed states in the
>>> beginning of section 4. THE ASSUMPTION USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE
>>> GHZ THEOREM MAKES IMPOSSIBLE THE PREDICTION OF VIOLATION OF BELL’S
>>> INEQUALITIES of my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”.
>>> The entangled state, the EPR state, is considered  at the end of this
>>> section. I demonstrate at the beginning of this section that quantum
>>> mechanics predicts violation of the obvious inequality (4) when single
>>> particles are measured two times exactly as Bell predicts the
>>> violation of Bell's inequality (8) in his article “Bertlmann’s socks”
>>> [4] when two particles of the EPR pair are measured.
>>>
>>> The first measurements of spin projection in any direction of single
>>> particles are equally likely to yield outcomes +/-1 when these
>>> particles are in the completely mixed state, i.e. when these particles
>>> have eigenstates in different directions with equal probability.
>>> Therefore the probability to observe spin up at the first measurement
>>> of single particles in the mixed state equals 1/2, as at the first
>>> measurement of one of the particles of the EPR pair. But the particles
>>> of the EPR pair cannot have eigenstates in any direction of the real
>>> three dimensional state according to the mathematics of the EPR state.
>>> Non-entangled spin states have different amplitude of probability in
>>> different directions whereas the probability to observe spin up (+)
>>> one of the particles of the EPR pair
>>>
>>> EPR = (1/2)^{1/2}|A+B-> - (1/2)^{1/2}|A-B+> (1)
>>>
>>> cannot differ from 1/2 since we cannot know which particle A or B will
>>> be measured first.
>>>
>>> I wrote on May 1 that “The mass delusion about quantum mechanics was
>>> provoked, first of all, by the fact that the quantum state has two
>>> different definitions: subjective and objective. According to the
>>> subjective definition, proposed by Born, the quantum state describes
>>> the observer's knowledge of the probability of the result of an
>>> upcoming observation. For example, the EPR state (1) describes the
>>> knowledge that the first measurement of spin projection in any
>>> direction of one of the two particles will give spin up with the
>>> probability 1/2. According to the objective definition spin states of
>>> non-entangled particles exist really in the real three-dimensional
>>> space”.
>>>
>>> The authors [1-3] made one of the obvious mistakes when deriving the
>>> GHZ theorem since they did not take into account that the objective
>>> definition can apply only to non-entangled spin states, since
>>> entangled spin states, such as the EPR state and the GHSZ state,
>>> cannot be eigenstates and the operators of finite rotations of
>>> coordinate system are not applicable to them.

>>>
>>> [1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
>>> theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

>>> [2] 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).
>>> [3] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern

>>> Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Jones and
>>> Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006.

>>> [4] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
>>> Physique 42, 41 (1981).
>>>
>>> With best wishes,
>>> Alexey
>>>
>>> чт, 12 мая 2022 г. в 11:20, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/61b66fc3b13d454e9ead0f6dcbe95f76%40math.uio.no.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Sorry, Alexey. This is not a mass delution at all. I feel that you should think through your opinions on this very thoroughly.

Inge

---

From: Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 May 2022 09:15:19
To: Jay R. Yablon
Cc: Richard Gill; Inge Svein Helland; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations; Jay R. Yablon

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

Dear Jay,

I cannot agree that “The sentiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen for
any discussion of reality is wise”. Exactly the EPR work [1] provoked
the mass delusion that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation
and violation of Bell’s inequalities. You wrote: “The observable

eigenvalues of two mutually-non-commuting Hermitian operators cannot
be simultaneously observed, and once one is observed with some degree

of precision, there is a loss of precision for the other”. It is
correct. But I must remind you that operators acting on different
particles commute according to the orthodox quantum mechanics. No
correlation between results of measurements of different particles can
be predicted by the orthodox quantum mechanics according to this
principle.

The mass delusion has reached the point that the authors [2,3] of the
GHZ theorem predict perfect correlations between the results of
observing different particles using this principle of orthodox quantum
mechanics, according to which no correlation can be predicted. The
errors and contradictions made in the derivation of the GHZ theorem
[2,3] are so obvious that it seems that scientists have completely
stopped thinking.

The GHZ theorem [2,3] is one of the most obvious evidence of the mass
delusion that resulted from a false understanding of quantum mechanics
by most physicists. The title of the EPR article [1] contributed to
this misconception. The title ”Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” is misleading for two
reasons: 1) quantum mechanics describes the results of observation
rather than physical reality; 2) this description is not complete,
since quantum mechanics does not describe the observation process.
Einstein understood that quantum mechanics does not describe physical
reality. He explained clearly in 1949 ”reasons which keep he from
falling in line with the opinion of almost all contemporary
theoretical physicists”: ”What does not satisfy me in that theory,
from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which
appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete
description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly
exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation)” [4].

Einstein understood also that no description of the results of
observation can be complete. He tried to explain this obvious fact to
young Heisenberg back in 1926: ”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” [5].

[1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can QuantumMechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).

[2] 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).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

[4] A. Einstein, Remarks concerning the essays brought together in
this co-operative volume. in Albert Einstein philosopherscientist, ed.
by P.A. Schillp, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 665-688, 1949.
[5] W. Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze. Gesprache im Umkreis der
Atomphysik, (Munchen, 1969).

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 07:36, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Inge Svein Helland]

Violation of Bell's inequality using quantum mechanics is standard. When you talk about commuting operators, you are also using quantum mechanics.

Inge

---

From: Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 May 2022 10:51
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Richard Gill; Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations; Jay R. Yablon

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

Dear Inge,

If you are sure that there is no mass delusion at all, then try to
predict violation of Bell’s inequality following the principle that
operators acting on different particles commute.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 11:16, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> I am sure you are an honest scientist. But your honesty is obviously
> not enough yet to admit that the debates about Bell’s inequalities do
> not make sense, since the orthodox quantum mechanics does not predict
> the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities. Similarly,
> most physicists lack the honesty to admit that quantum mechanics is
> not a scientific theory. Editors of physics journals lack the honesty
> even to admit that the well-known authors D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home,
> A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger have made obvious mistakes in deducing the
> GHZ theorem.
> I think that the mass misconception about quantum mechanics has become
> possible because of the arrogance of modern scientists who believe
> that they understand better than ‘cultured men’ of the 18th and 19th
> centuries what is ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’, for example. This
> unjustified arrogance was already with Heisenberg, who decided to
> refute the philosophy of Descartes and Kant, which interfered with
> faith in quantum mechanics. But Heisenberg was familiar at least with
> this philosophy, although he did not understand it enough. Heisenberg
> understood what realism is, although his practical realism is
> nonsense.  Modern scientists, talking about realism in connection with
> quantum mechanics, do not want to know not only what ‘cultured men’
> thought about realism, but even what the creator of quantum mechanics
> thought about realism.
>
> With best wishes,
> Alexey
>
> пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 11:13, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Inge Svein Helland]

'...belong to the same quantum mechanics.' Are you talking about different quantum mechanicses?

Remember that quantum mechanics is a theory, a model. As any model it can be incomplete. But believing in it as a model, can not be a mass delusion.

Inge

---

From: Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 May 2022 11:47:09

To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Richard Gill; Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations; Jay R. Yablon
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

Dear Inge,

I repeat, if you are sure that there is no mass delusion at all, then

try to predict violation of Bell’s inequality following the principle

that operators acting on different particles commute. If you cannot do
this, then you should not claim that commuting operators and violation
of Bell's inequality belong to the same quantum mechanics.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 12:20, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Alexey,

I do not think that I agree to what you say when you use the word 'fantazise'.

Let this be clear: I believe that Heiseberg's uncertainty principle is at the core of quantum mechanics, and that Bohr's complementarity principle is very useful. If you claim that 'the principle operators acting on different particle commutes' refutes these principles, you have to convince me about that by a detailed argument.

Inge

---

From: Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 May 2022 12:19:05

To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Richard Gill; Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations; Jay R. Yablon
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

Dear Inge,

Any blind faith in science becomes a delusion when scientists are not
critical enough of this faith and begin to fantasize instead of
thinking. The faith in quantum mechanics is so blind that most
physicists did not want to admit that the principle operators acting
on different particles commute refutes the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle and the Bohr complementarity principle. Therefore most
modern scientists cannot understand that only Bohm’s quantum mechanics
but not the orthodox quantum mechanics can predict the EPR correlation
and violation of Bell’s inequalities. The authors of the GHZ theorem
made obvious mistakes because of this misunderstanding.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 12:53, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Inge Svein Helland]

This is interesting indeed. Language is very important for understanding things.

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

13. mai 2022 kl. 12:59 skrev Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

 Incidentally, I recently read some fantastic books by Masha Gessen, a Russian woman who emigrated to the US. She is a journalist and a writer and an intellectual. In one book she explains how the communist regime suppressed the sciences of sociology, psychology, politicology; through Marxism they rewrote philosophy, history, economics. She writes that when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russian intellectuals simply did not have the language to understand what was happening to them and to understand the new world they were entering.

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 May 2022, at 06:36, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

I think that I have demonstrated that essential elements of quantum mechanics can be derived through concepts related to language, what I call conceptual variables.

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

13. mai 2022 kl. 13:08 skrev Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

 This is interesting indeed. Language is very important for understanding things.

[Inge Svein Helland]

To be on the safe side, I attach the article with this demonstration again. All comments are of interest.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>

Sent: 13 May 2022 13:15:37
To: Richard Gill
Cc: Алексей Никулов; Jay R. Yablon; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/70B09D57-CA48-48CB-AF57-A5FC27B72B9C%40math.uio.no.

[Richard Gill]

 On Facebook there was some discussion between Bryan, Jan-Åke and myself, on his latest paper (on his blog) on hyperhelicity.

Bryan insisted that Jan-Åke and I kept claiming that there were mathematical errors in Bryan's work, but that we never showed him what those errors were.

This is clearly a communication problem: what is a mathematical error? Obviously, an error in mathematical formula manipulations is a mathematical error, but I think basic errors in argumentation, ie, in logic, especially if they involve words like "theorem" and "proof", are also mathematical errors. OK, that's a matter of opinion. I hope Bryan admits that I'm a mathematician and I hope he doesn't think I'm a bad mathematician. (He claims to have disproved a theorem which I have also proved in several mathematical papers but he does not show me where my proofs were wrong, and he doesn't read my papers because they are too long.)

So, let me quote from Bryan's paper (containing a quotation from Bell), and let me try to explain again why I consider that Bryan's statement contains a very serious mathematical error.

Bryan writes: "Here we accept Bell’s inequalities, but reject Bell’s Theorem which states in his own 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'."

I know the included Bell quote. The wording is correct, including Bryan's expansion of Bell's original sentence. But Bryan has not given us Bell's context. Bell was not talking about any old hidden-variable theory. He was talking about that class of hidden-variable theories which he had defined in the same paper mathematically extremely precisely. He also, in the same paper, motivated his definition by physical arguments - certainly arguments which would have appealed to Einstein and others of his generation.

Bell very explicitly means an essentially (or effectively) deterministic theory in which all randomness is merely a consequence of statistical variation in initial conditions of relevant variables. As I pointed out, the same definition is accepted by authorities such as Gerard 't Hooft and Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer. These authorities say explicitly that Bell's theorem is correct, and they escape from his consequences by allowing "super-determinism".  Many of the other authors whom Bryan quotes as critics of Bell agree with Bell's definition of a local hidden variables model, too. Some of them claim to have counter-examples. So far, the scientific community has not accepted any of those counter-examples. 

Bryan has quite simply not carefully read what Bell was talking about. That leads him to make what I consider to be a mathematical error. But hell, what's in an adjective. It's an error, and it's a crucial error, whether we want to call it a mathematical error or not.

Bryan presents an alternative theory of his own, of a completely different nature. Bell was certainly not talking about theories like Bryan's. Bryan *says* that his theory is local and that it agrees with quantum mechanics. (In fact, as Jan-Åke kept pointing out, it does not agree fully with quantum mechanics, because it does not predict that the outcomes are binary, and it does not predict the joint probabilities of the outcomes). Bryan never says what he means by saying that a theory of the kind he is talking about is local! So he writes what appears to be a mathematical claim, but he does not support it with any mathematics! He just throws words about - he writes poetry, he uses suggestive and emotive words, not backing them up with scientific formulations. He makes grand claims but does not back them up. Hence, his paper got rejected by a succession of three or four journals, whether for bad reasons or good reasons. (I think it is bad that arXiv: general physics did not allow him to post it there). Oh well, I am sure it will finally appear somewhere, and then arXiv will be obliged to take it also. Personally, I doubt it will have much impact.

We will see. Our bet will be settled in a year and a half. In half a year, the main paper will surely have been published. After another year, we will look and see if it has created a revolution in quantum physics. I really would like not to talk about it any more till this time is up, because I don't want to be accused of having manipulated the physics community against Bryan's ideas. But if his main paper is published, I would probably publish my criticism on PubPeer, so that other people can find it too. 

Richard

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

Many physicists, like you, believe that Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle is at the core of quantum mechanics. They just believe
rather than understand. They not only do not understand, but even do
not want to understand that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be
refuted even without the principle that operators acting on different
particle commutes, with the help of the method of the velocity
measurement learned in primary school. I drew attention to this
obvious fact in my talk presented at the conference "Foundations of
Probability and Physics-5" Vaxjo University, Sweden, August 24-27,
2008, see section 2.2.1. “One more challenge to the universality of
the Heisenberg uncertainty relation” in [1]. This conference was
organized by Andrei Khrennikov.

With the help of the principle of commutability of operators acting on
different particles, the uncertainty principle is refuted just as A.
Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen [2] wanted to do it with the help
of the locality requirement. Einstein hardly expected that the blind
faith of the majority in quantum mechanics was so strong that his
requirement for locality would lead to such a grandiose delusion as
the refutation of local realism and the idea of creating a quantum
computer based on the EPR correlation. Perhaps if Einstein had limited
himself to the principle that operators acting on different particle
commutes, this whole story might not have happened.

This principle refutes Heisenberg's uncertainty principle since
according to quantum formalism ”the commutability of the operators is
a necessary and sufficient condition for the physical quantities to be
simultaneously measurable” [3]. Einstein with his co-authors [1] used
the law of momentum conservation in order to refute the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle and the Bohr complementarity principle. We can
know exactly the total momentum of two particles A and B, for example
p_{x,A} + p_{x,B} = 0. Therefore we can know exactly the momentum of
the particle A p_{x,A} = −p_{x,B}, after accurately measuring the
momentum p_{x,B} of the particle B. Then we can measure exactly the
coordinate x_{A} of the particle A in the same state in which we know
the exact value of its momentum p_{x,A} if the operators acting on
different particles commute and therefore the measurement of the
particle B cannot change the state of the particle A, see section 2.
THE ASSUMPTION USED BY EPR IS USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE GHZ THEOREM

of my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”.

[1] A.V Nikulov Bohm's quantum potential and quantum force in
superconductor, https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4118.pdf .
[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can QuantumMechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).
[3] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic

Theory (Volume 3, Third Edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1977).

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 17:27, 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/CAA%3Dwgk%2BjqPiVU9nq6TnAUTJUz%3DkGwj5yKwW15G2oHgKRzOaNow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard

Ok, your opinion of course. In my three papers Bell is not featured, which you miss. Your critique of my use and understanding of Bell does not retract from the discovery. All I do is find a missed property of spin that accounts for the violation of BI.  I do not contest BI

By accounting for the violation, I am violating Bell's Theorem.  Which is right: non-locality, or helicity? I justify it by extending the Dirac field. 

That's all. 

I have no doubts about helicity being an object or reality. I am most concerned about the responses from experts in QFT, as I said before.  They are under review.

Bryan

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Alexey,

Your two arguments look plausible, but I think that you neglect important elements of the situations.

First to the 'velocity measurement learned in primary school'-situation. The formula v_z = z/t is true just before the measurement of the position z. Anybody accepting some form of quantum mechanics would say the following: When measuring z, the velocity is 'disturbed' so that it is no longer z/t, but has a new uncertainty.

So to the EPR-situation. (Your own discussion here seems to indicate that you accept some form of quantum mechanics, since you talk about operators.) But what you seem to neglect in this example, is the following: In EPR the two particles with their associated observers are assumed to be spacelike-separated. Thus the two observators can not communicate. We then must talk about what each observer knows, not about what 'we' know. The observer at B can measure p_(x,B), and thus know p_(x,A). But that is unknown to the observer at A. Similarly, the position x_A, measured by the observer at A, is unknown to the observer at B.

The difficulty with this is that the observers can share information later. Then we may relate uncertainty to a number of repeated sets of measurements. The discussion of this will depend on what interpretation of QM you believe in. According to Hervé Zwirn's convivial solipsism, must any information from observer A to observer B be seen as a measurement, and this introduces a new uncertainty. Likewise information the other way. I find this plausible, but will add the following: A third person receiving the information, will also have limitations regarding which variables he is able to tackle at the same time; see my Bell paper.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 May 2022 17:29:51
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Richard Gill; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations; Bryan Sanctuary

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iKCBbxpwAaxhBSWqsmoP1aWqd6t_Bpjrv_EQ4pZCX1rew%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan

I wish you would try to listen. The questions I am asking need to be answered if you want to convince anyone from the field.

You "have no doubts about helicity being an object or reality." Then show us how your helicity is an object of reality. So far, there is only your belief, no mathematical argument.

While you are at it, do tell us how the model is more complete than quantum mechanics. You haven't told us yet how to predict (statistics of) measurement outcomes. You haven't even told us how the model predicts what the measurement outcomes are.

/JÅ

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

I am hampered by lack of knowledge of QFT.

You say that you have discovered a missed property of spin that accounts for the violation of BI. I analysed your argument. I pointed out that you had rewritten the singlet correlations as a sum of two terms. One term was the correlation which one would have had if the entanglement had immediately decayed on separation of the two particles. The other term looked similar but involved ‘anti-Hermitean observables’. These are what you call hyper-helicities. They are each simply the imaginary unit “i” times a regular spin observable. Because there are two of them (two particles) the result includes an “i” squared, so becomes real.

This re-writing may or may not be useful. It doesn’t change Bell’s conclusions. You decide unilaterally to call both the Hermitean and the anti-Hermitean observables “elements of reality” and now you unilaterally declare that your model is local and realistic.

Your anti-Hermitean observables have eigenvalues +/- square root of minus one. What does it mean to measure such an observable? Your theory looks like Joy Christian’s: your measurement outcomes are not +/-1, instead they are a kind of unit-like things in a non-commutative algebra. Some simple algebraic computations show the singlet correlations popping up. I always said about Christian’s work that it was poetry, not physics.

You say that you are violating Bell’s theorem (by a counter example). I say that you are not violating Bell’s theorem and you evidently don’t grasp what it says. You are unilaterally changing the meaning of words.

Say I had a theorem which says that all swans are white. You point to a black frying pan and say: look, there’s a counterexample.

I don’t think your new nomenclature will catch on. But who knows, maybe there is something interesting in your discovery for specialists in QFT. I suggest you ask Jarek Duda (Krakow) if you can give a talk on your theory in his Zoom seminar on the nature of time.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 13 May 2022, at 18:03, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,
I drew your attention that the authors of the GHZ theorem [1] did not
take into account the mathematical fact that spin states of several
particles cannot be eigenstates if they are entangled. This
mathematical fact applies to all entangled states including the EPR
state of two particles, the GHZ state of three particles [2,3] and the
GHSZ state of four particles [1]. Entangled states and mixed states
should not be confused here. I consider the mixed states in the

beginning of section 4. THE ASSUMPTION USED AT THE DEDUCTION OF THE

GHZ THEOREM MAKES IMPOSSIBLE THE PREDICTION OF VIOLATION OF BELL’S

INEQUALITIES of my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”.

[1] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s
theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

[2] 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).
[3] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006.
[4] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 12 мая 2022 г. в 11:20, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/61b66fc3b13d454e9ead0f6dcbe95f76%40math.uio.no.

[Richard Gill]

Sorry Alexei, I simply cannot understand your arguments. I interpret “quantum state” in the subjective way. The theory of GHZ is well known and it seems you are the only person who thinks there are mathematical errors in it.

Also the two particle (Bell) case is mathematically clear. One considers a binary property of two particles in the pure singlet state | Psi > = (| + - > - | - +>)/ sqrt 2, a vector of length one in C^4 = C^2 otimes C^2. It is easy to check that the reduced state of each particle separately is the completely mixed state with density matrix I_2 / 2 (a 2x2 matrix).

Of course it is another question whether there are situations in the real world for which this is a good model.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

> On 12 May 2022, at 12:10, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Dear Richard,

[Richard Gill]

I would just like to comment on Inge’s statement: “Richard's comment to Bryan: I do not know the paper by de Raedt et al., but I think it is a strong statement to say that 'these people are obviously flawed'. Without trying to go into your argument here, my guess is that these people have their own model, and as I have said repeatedly, any model may be limited/incomplete.”

I did not say that these people are obviously flawed. I said something much stronger. I said that they are *wrong*. More specifically, their central assumption is false. They wrote: "Evidently, in a laboratory EPRB experiment, before one can even think about computing correlations of particle properties, it is necessary to first classify a detection event as corresponding to the arrival of a particle or as something else.”

This is quite simply not true. They seem to think that the purpose of EPRB experiments is to “compute correlations of particle properties”. 

Wrong! The purpose of those experiments is to determine whether an underlying deterministic, local, theory could explain certain experimental observations. Notice the give-away word “evidently”. They say it is evidently necessary, but they don’t explain why. It is just their private prejudice, based on dramatic misunderstanding.

Bell explained at length in “Bertlmann’s socks” exactly why it is not necessary, and moreover, he explained how one can deliberately design an experiment which does not rely on such assumptions. So de Raedt et al. contradict, without mention, what Bell insisted on, decades earlier. They moreover have not studied the protocols of the 2015 experiments. Which go out of their way *not* to identify events as belonging to particles or not. So, the paper makes false assumptions, and misrepresents celebrated experiments. 

The paper should be withdrawn. The authors are evidently incompetent. Their substantial results are uninteresting. Since the paper is so obviously out of touch with reality, and since it is not published in a particularly important journal, it is probably better just to ignore it.

De Raedt et al. develop a simulation model which *cannot* reproduce the 2015 experiments. They don’t “have their own model”. They have specialised in computational techniques for simulating results of some earlier (pre 2015) experiments, using known defects of those experiments. There is nothing new in that paper, and a lot of evidence the authors don’t know what they are talking about.

It’s sad that Bryan finds this paper impressive, and something of a breakthrough. Since I admire Bryan in many ways and would like to help him develop his ideas and get them known and discussed, I think I should let him know where I think he has some “blind spots”.

Anyway, he’ll get his paper published before the end of the year, and then we will wait another year to find out if he has swung the majority view in physics about quantum entanglement of separated physical systems.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 12 May 2022, at 10:39, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

PS did you know that David Bohm developed a whole system of organising discussions, in order to turn debates (which are some kind of struggle between parties) into dialogues: constructive attempts to find the truth and therefore also consensus?

https://www.amazon.nl/Dialogue-David-Bohm/dp/0415336414/

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Jay

I thought your ideas are clearly stated and well expressed. We have similar views. In spite of pretty much everything that Bell did was classical, he applies his ideas to quantum throughout his work.  I think that anyone, like me and you, who read 1964 must conclude  he is talking about spin, I.e. quantum but spin is not classical.  However, there you find the definitions people perennially debate about, especially non- locality, and generally obfuscate and throw up confusions in nuances about who defines what, and is consciosness involved? Or is God giving Alice and Bob connectivity? We need more clear thinking people like you!

. But Bell's classical ideas mean his assumption of spin always up or dn, is incomplete, and so Bell's theorem, when it came, depends only on classical ideas, and is only applicable to classical systems.

In other words, those who insist Bell's theorem is classical, must accept that it is not applicable to Nature, which is quantum, and hence there is no basis for application to non- local connectivity. On the other hand, if one insists that the theorem is applicable to quantum, we get the wrong answer.

Thank you

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/deb3fbc1-f8ac-1320-3703-2006fd07b671%40nycap.rr.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

If you interpret “quantum state” only in the subjective way, i. e. as
the knowledge of the observer about probability of results of upcoming
observations then you must understand that a quantum computer cannot
be real since no real device can be created on the basis of the
description of the knowledge of the observer. In addition, you should
understand that without the objective definition of spin states,

quantum mechanics cannot predict the violation of Bell’s inequalities,
since the operators of finite rotations of coordinate system are
derived from the objective definition of spin states as exist really

in the real three dimensional isotropic space, see [1]. If you derive
the violation of Bell’s inequalities without rotation operators, then
it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

If I am indeed the only person who understands that there are
mathematical errors in the GHZ theory then the degradation of physical

thinking is complete among modern scientists.

You wrote that “the two particle (Bell) case is mathematically clear”.
But this case, like other cases (the GHZ state and the GHSZ state)
must be clear first of all physically rather than mathematically. The
EPR state

EPR = (|A+B-> - |A-B+>) /sqrt 2 (1)

describes only the knowledge of the observer that the first

observation of spin projection in any direction of particle A or B

will give spin up (+) with probability 1/2. The objective definition
is impossible for the EPR state (1), as for any entangled state. But
the objective definition becomes possible after the first observation
which transforms the EPR state (1) to non-entangled states of the two
particles A and B.

This transformation occurs according to both the orthodox quantum
mechanics and Bohm’s quantum mechanics. But the state of non-observed
particle will be different. According to the Dirac jump of the
orthodox quantum mechanics only observed particle “jumps into an
eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured” [2]. The
dynamical variable is determined by the direction z1 in which Alice,
for example, measures spin projection of his particle A. According to
the Dirac jump only the state of the particle A will change when Alice
will observe spin up along z1. Therefore the EPR state (1) should jump
to the Dirac state

Dirac = |A+>z1(B-> - |B+>) /sqrt 2 (2)

according to the orthodox quantum mechanics. The particle A and B in

the Dirac state (2) are not entangled. But the direction in which the

[1] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic

Theory (Volume 3, Third Edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1977).

[2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
Press, New York, 1958
[3] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).

[4] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
[5] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de

Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 12 мая 2022 г. в 13:28, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
>

[Richard Gill]

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Date: 13 May 2022 at 04:46:39 CEST
To: Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

Alexei

I disagree.

Maybe the word subjective is badly chosen. The quantum state is a function of the procedure leading to the creation of the state. It codes what is relevant about the past in order to predict the future.

Sent from my iPhone

[Richard Gill]

The words “objective” and “subjective” do not express the right distinction here. Instead of “objective” I would prefer real, ontological. Instead of “subjective” I would prefer “intersubjectief, relative, epistemological”.

19th century thinking and vocabulary was adequate for a while but turned out to be inadequate. Later 20th century has revised much of that thinking and introduced new vocabulary.

Sent from my iPhone

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jay,

I cannot agree that “The sentiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen for

any discussion of reality is wise”. Exactly the EPR work [1] provoked

the mass delusion that quantum mechanics predicts the EPR correlation
and violation of Bell’s inequalities. You wrote: “The observable

eigenvalues of two mutually-non-commuting Hermitian operators cannot
be simultaneously observed, and once one is observed with some degree

of precision, there is a loss of precision for the other”. It is

correct. But I must remind you that operators acting on different

particles commute according to the orthodox quantum mechanics. No
correlation between results of measurements of different particles can
be predicted by the orthodox quantum mechanics according to this
principle.

The mass delusion has reached the point that the authors [2,3] of the
GHZ theorem predict perfect correlations between the results of
observing different particles using this principle of orthodox quantum
mechanics, according to which no correlation can be predicted. The

errors and contradictions made in the derivation of the GHZ theorem

[2,3] are so obvious that it seems that scientists have completely
stopped thinking.

The GHZ theorem [2,3] is one of the most obvious evidence of the mass
delusion that resulted from a false understanding of quantum mechanics
by most physicists. The title of the EPR article [1] contributed to

this misconception. The title ”Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of

[1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can QuantumMechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).

[2] 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).

[3] D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s

theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).

[4] A. Einstein, Remarks concerning the essays brought together in
this co-operative volume. in Albert Einstein philosopherscientist, ed.
by P.A. Schillp, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 665-688, 1949.
[5] W. Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze. Gesprache im Umkreis der
Atomphysik, (Munchen, 1969).

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 07:36, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

I am sure you are an honest scientist. But your honesty is obviously
not enough yet to admit that the debates about Bell’s inequalities do
not make sense, since the orthodox quantum mechanics does not predict
the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities. Similarly,

most physicists lack the honesty to admit that quantum mechanics is

not a scientific theory. Editors of physics journals lack the honesty

even to admit that the well-known authors D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Home,

A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger have made obvious mistakes in deducing the
GHZ theorem.
I think that the mass misconception about quantum mechanics has become
possible because of the arrogance of modern scientists who believe
that they understand better than ‘cultured men’ of the 18th and 19th
centuries what is ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’, for example. This
unjustified arrogance was already with Heisenberg, who decided to
refute the philosophy of Descartes and Kant, which interfered with
faith in quantum mechanics. But Heisenberg was familiar at least with
this philosophy, although he did not understand it enough. Heisenberg
understood what realism is, although his practical realism is
nonsense. Modern scientists, talking about realism in connection with
quantum mechanics, do not want to know not only what ‘cultured men’
thought about realism, but even what the creator of quantum mechanics
thought about realism.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 11:13, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
>

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

If you are sure that there is no mass delusion at all, then try to

predict violation of Bell’s inequality following the principle that
operators acting on different particles commute.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 11:16, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

I repeat, if you are sure that there is no mass delusion at all, then

try to predict violation of Bell’s inequality following the principle

that operators acting on different particles commute. If you cannot do

this, then you should not claim that commuting operators and violation

of Bell's inequality belong to the same quantum mechanics.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 12:20, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

Any blind faith in science becomes a delusion when scientists are not
critical enough of this faith and begin to fantasize instead of
thinking. The faith in quantum mechanics is so blind that most

physicists did not want to admit that the principle operators acting
on different particles commute refutes the Heisenberg uncertainty

principle and the Bohr complementarity principle. Therefore most
modern scientists cannot understand that only Bohm’s quantum mechanics

but not the orthodox quantum mechanics can predict the EPR correlation
and violation of Bell’s inequalities. The authors of the GHZ theorem

made obvious mistakes because of this misunderstanding.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 13 мая 2022 г. в 12:53, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:
>

[Richard Gill]

Incidentally, I recently read some fantastic books by Masha Gessen, a Russian woman who emigrated to the US. She is a journalist and a writer and an intellectual. In one book she explains how the communist regime suppressed the sciences of sociology, psychology, politicology; through Marxism they rewrote philosophy, history, economics. She writes that when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russian intellectuals simply did not have the language to understand what was happening to them and to understand the new world they were entering.

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 May 2022, at 06:36, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear all,

My article in Foundations of Physics on the Bell situation and our joint limitations as observers and actors is now available online:

https://trebuchet.public.springernature.app/get_content/f93db5c3-5eaf-4061-9de3-093ee7ddf448

The discussions in this forum have up to now been focused on opinions related to strong inputs by Bryan and Alexey. This is understandable. We are all limited, and it is not easy to have in mind all the time that our opinions may be related to our own specific background.

Primarily, I am not interested in opinions. As I have said before I strongly want a dialogue, joint efforts in our search for the final interpretation of quantum mechanics. I realize that I am also limited myself. Therefore I am interested in concrete critique on the background of this article. As long as I have the capacity, I will try to answer this critique. In this way we might perhaps work together towards some kind of joint insight.

With this I am open for all inputs.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>

Sent: 13 May 2022 04:47:05

To: Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Subject: Fwd: [Bell_quantum_foundations] hyper-helicity and the foundations of qm

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/B984A8A6-C3E9-45FA-90B3-7772313FD95C%40gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On tor, 2022-05-12 at 10:18 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

In other words, those who insist Bell's theorem is classical, must accept that it is not applicable to Nature, which is quantum, and hence there is no basis for application to non- local connectivity. On the other hand, if one insists that the theorem is applicable to quantum, we get the wrong answer.

This is Bell's conclusion. 

If you care to read what he writes.

(Bell is actually more detailed, and lists three possible alternatives, but this is how scientists work.)

/Jan-Åke

-- 

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:482 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Richard Gill]

I enjoyed Inge’s paper in FooP, though I disagree with a lot of his wordings. I also find the hard pure maths part hard to follow but I hope to study it later. I attach a copy of the paper with annotations (yellow marker and yellow stickers explaining why I made those marks).

I could convert the comments into a kind of post-publication referee report and post it to PubPeer, but I’m not sure if that is useful. If Inge would like it, I’m happy to do that. Then he could post his responses to PubPeer, too. And of course, others can add their opinions and ideas.

Richard

[Inge Svein Helland]

Thank you very much, Richard. I will be busy this weekend, but I really look forward to a public dialogue later

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

14. mai 2022 kl. 12:15 skrev Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:



I enjoyed Inge’s paper in FooP, though I disagree with a lot of his wordings. I also find the hard pure maths part hard to follow but I hope to study it later. I attach a copy of the paper with annotations (yellow marker and yellow stickers explaining why I made those marks).

I could convert the comments into a kind of post-publication referee report and post it to PubPeer, but I’m not sure if that is useful. If Inge would like it, I’m happy to do that. Then he could post his responses to PubPeer, too. And of course, others can add their opinions and ideas.

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/AAC50E4E-4122-457A-A4B3-61218B3E13D7%40gmail.com.

On 14 May 2022, at 09:11, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:

Dear all,

My article in Foundations of Physics on the Bell situation and our joint limitations as observers and actors is now available online:

https://trebuchet.public.springernature.app/get_content/f93db5c3-5eaf-4061-9de3-093ee7ddf448

The discussions in this forum have up to now been focused on opinions related to strong inputs by Bryan and Alexey. This is understandable. We are all limited, and it is not easy to have in mind all the time that our opinions may be related to our own specific background.

Primarily, I am not interested in opinions. As I have said before I strongly want a dialogue, joint efforts in our search for the final interpretation of quantum mechanics. I realize that I am also limited myself. Therefore I am interested in concrete critique on the background of this article. As long as I have the capacity, I will try to answer this critique. In this way we might perhaps work together towards some kind of joint insight.

With this I am open for all inputs.

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/AAC50E4E-4122-457A-A4B3-61218B3E13D7%40gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,
It is correct that “The formula v_z = z/t is true just before the
measurement of the position z”. That is why the method of the velocity
measurement learned in primary school refutes Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle, since the position z is measured in the same state of the
particle as the velocity v_z = z/t. Heisenberg and Bohr postulated
that the velocity v_z should be 'disturbed' when measuring z, in order
to substantiate the uncertainty principle. But this substantiation
does not save the uncertainty principle in the considered case, since
the velocity changes after rather than before the measurement of the
position z. The method of the velocity measurement learned in primary
school also refutes the Bohr complementarity principle since the
velocity v_z = z/t and the position z are determined in the same
measurement.
Anybody accepting some form of quantum mechanics knows that the first
measurement increases uncertainty in the result of the second
measurement since almost all textbooks write about this claim of
Heisenberg and Bohr. But textbooks do not write about the exact
opposite statement of another creator of quantum mechanics, Dirac.
Dirac stated in 1930 that ”after the first measurement has been made,
there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” and postulated
on the base of this statement ”that a measurement always causes the
system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is
being measured” [1]. Thus, the creators of quantum mechanics directly
contradicted each other.
The Dirac jump is much more important for quantum mechanics than
Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, since without it quantum mechanics
would predict an obvious absurdity. Einstein drew attention as far
back as 1927 during the discussion at the Fifth Solvay Conference [2]
that the necessity of the Dirac jump logically follows from Born 's
proposal to consider the Schrodinger wave function as a description of
the amplitude of the observation probability. Einstein considered a
simple example in 1927 [2]. 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.
Einstein, in contrast to Dirac, understood that the Dirac jump ”leads
to a contradiction with the postulate of relativity” [2]. The
contradiction of quantum mechanics with the postulate of relativity is
a result of two different definitions of quantum state: subjective and

objective. According to the subjective definition, proposed by Born,
the quantum state describes the observer's knowledge of the

probability of the result of an upcoming observation. 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” [3]. But the wave function describes a real
quantum state between observations. Therefore Dirac postulated the
jump of the system rather than of our knowledge.
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. I
draw your attention to the fact that Einstein understood back in 1927
that, what Herve Zwirn and supporters of QBism are writing about only
now. But Einstein, unlike Herve Zwirn and supporters of QBism,
understood that it was absurd that quantum mechanics postulated the
influence of the observer's mind on the state of a quantum system.
Most physicists, unlike Einstein, Schrodinger and a few other critics,
did not understand that quantum mechanics postulated this absurdity,
since the creators of quantum mechanics falsely, contrary to logic,
replaced ‘observation’ with ‘measurement’. The EPR paradox and Bell’s
inequalities could appear only because of the inability of creators of
quantum mechanics and most physicists to think logically.
It is not needed to consider the EPR situation and observers in order
to understand that the principle of commutability of operators acting
on different particles contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This contradiction is obvious from the quantum formalism according to
which ”the commutability of the operators is a necessary and

sufficient condition for the physical quantities to be simultaneously

measurable” [4]. I should say that A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N.
Rosen did not assume that the two particles with their associated
observers should be spacelike-separated. The need for spatial
separation was invented only by Bell. The refutation of Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle by the principle of quantum mechanics, that
operators acting on different particles commute, does not require any
separation at all.
The contradiction between these two principles is not the only
contradiction of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is logically so
contradictory that I am surprised that anyone could believe in this
trick at all. The belief of the majority of scientists in quantum
mechanics can only be explained by the fact that for them the
majority's faith is more important than logic. Unwillingness to notice
the obvious contradictions of quantum mechanics leads to
misconceptions and obvious mistakes. The authors of the GHZ theorem
[5,6] made obvious mistakes precisely because of this. They used the

principle of commutability of operators acting on different particles,

according to which quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality, in
order to prove that quantum mechanics contradict locality.

[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University
Press, 1958).
[2] A. Einstein, ”Electrons et photons,” Rapports et discussions du
cinquieme Gonseil de physiqueBruxelles du 24 au 29 octobre 1927 sous
les auspices de 1 Institut International de physique Solvay, p. 253.
Paris, Gautier-Villars et Gie, editeurs (1928).
[3] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin Edition, 1959.
[4] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic

Theory (Volume 3, Third Edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1977).

[5] 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).

[6] 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

сб, 14 мая 2022 г. в 13:15, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

>
> I enjoyed Inge’s paper in FooP, though I disagree with a lot of his wordings. I also find the hard pure maths part hard to follow but I hope to study it later. I attach a copy of the paper with annotations (yellow marker and yellow stickers explaining why I made those marks).
>
> I could convert the comments into a kind of post-publication referee report and post it to PubPeer, but I’m not sure if that is useful. If Inge would like it, I’m happy to do that. Then he could post his responses to PubPeer, too. And of course, others can add their opinions and ideas.
>
> 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/AAC50E4E-4122-457A-A4B3-61218B3E13D7%40gmail.com.
>
>

> On 14 May 2022, at 09:11, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> My article in Foundations of Physics on the Bell situation and our joint limitations as observers and actors is now available online:
>
> https://trebuchet.public.springernature.app/get_content/f93db5c3-5eaf-4061-9de3-093ee7ddf448
>
> The discussions in this forum have up to now been focused on opinions related to strong inputs by Bryan and Alexey. This is understandable. We are all limited, and it is not easy to have in mind all the time that our opinions may be related to our own specific background.
>
> Primarily, I am not interested in opinions. As I have said before I strongly want a dialogue, joint efforts in our search for the final interpretation of quantum mechanics. I realize that I am also limited myself. Therefore I am interested in concrete critique on the background of this article. As long as I have the capacity, I will try to answer this critique. In this way we might perhaps work together towards some kind of joint insight.
>
> With this I am open for all inputs.
>
> 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/AAC50E4E-4122-457A-A4B3-61218B3E13D7%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

I find this debate perplexing. Am I the only one?

1) Although reading original papers is virtuous, with time, clearer treatments appear in text books. I refer to Chris Isham foundations of quantum theory. The derivation is beautiful, clear and simple. The assumptions are explicit and clear. 

He derives a Bells inequality and also derives the uncertainty relationship for state preparation ( not measurement)

 

2) Why does it matter what Bell Bohr or anyone said? ( Einstein was repeatedly wrong about his own theory of general relativity!!) The maths, the predictions, are crystal clear and unambiguous. Adding spurious commentary to a mathematical proof and then questionning that commentary does not seem very productive to me. 

Cheers

Mark

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Mark.

1) I have read Chris Isham’s book, amdin fact I truede to meet him and discuss many years ago in London. Unfortunately, he had then retired completely from Physics, and spent his time caring for a sick uncle. So I had to start afresh in a say.

2) Of course it matters what good people say. They may be wrong sometimed, but you need to have your own filter.

Inge

Sendt fra min iPhone

14. mai 2022 kl. 13:44 skrev 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.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%2Bo17rU7niSETOpGiS8Bnjpfj2niT57x%3DSR83ThEfaANBBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

Bell showed that quantum correlations could not be explained in a classical way. You agree. The experiments have shown that nature is quantum, not classical. You already believed that.

Bell did not assume “spin is always up and down”. I repeatedly asked you for a precise reference to such an assumption in his work and you have not given me one.

You are fighting an imaginary opponent. You simply failed to understand Bell’s reasoning. You object to other people’s lurid language and general hype.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 14 May 2022, at 05:43, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwBbhDpNfZgzTHp5em_bx0kp-8FK6dH8bB4dg3C4d5H_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

When you talk about ‘state preparation’, you have to say who prepares
the state and how he does it. Scientists must finally understand what
Einstein tried to explain to the young Heisenberg in 1926, so as not
to repeat Heisenberg's mistakes. Einstein tried to convince young
Heisenberg that his proposal to describe the observed, not the
existing 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” [1].

Quantum mechanics has many contradictions, not only logical, but also
mathematical. Moreover, quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a
scientific theory. The trick is to describe the observed without
describing the observation process. Quantum mechanics has many
interpretations precisely because it is a trick, not a scientific
theory. A scientific theory should not have interpretations, since a
scientific theory should clearly and definitely say what and how it
describes.

The trick cannot become a scientific theory if everyone stops to add
interpretations to it, as you suggest. Your suggestion to replace
"observation" with "preparation" does not change anything. Most people
believe in quantum mechanics precisely because it is successful. But
scientists should understand rather than blindly believe in a theory
due to its success. Otherwise, delusion is inevitable. Mass delusion
is already taking place, in particular the delusion about the reality
of a quantum computer.

Modern scientists should know at least what Heisenberg knew. Natural
sciences are based on the Cartesian polarity between the ’res
cogitans’ and the ’res extensa. Heisenberg understood that quantum
mechanics rejected the Cartesian polarity. But he did not understand
that it was a fundamental mistake which has resulted in mass delusion
and the degradation of physical thinking.

[1] W. Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze. Gesprache im Umkreis der
Atomphysik, Munchen, 1969.

With best wishes,
Alexey

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Без вирусов. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

сб, 14 мая 2022 г. в 15:17, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:
>
> It is well known that time of flight momentum and position are compatible measurements.
>
> Or to put it another way that the uncertainty in measurements is not absolute. It is not an important feature of quantum theory. In contrast, the uncertainty in state preparation is fundamental.
>
> There are no contradictions in quantum theory. That's why it is so successful. Graduate students use it on a daily basis to give unambiguous probabilistic predictions that are always correct.
>
> Once you move beyond the pragmatic use of quantum theory, and add interpretations then there are indeed contradictions. Which is why we have not settled on an agreed interpretation.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iL8FfQOs0qDygb_CUxDh7gctrqFzoVudvC4nAM75StEOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You stubbornly do not want to understand that orthodox quantum
mechanics does not predict the quantum correlations that you write
about and because of which Bell's inequalities are violated. These
quantum correlations were invented by Bohm in 1951, who postulated an
obvious absurdity.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вс, 15 мая 2022 г. в 09:36, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

I do not follow “orthodox quantum mechanics” of the 30’s and 40’s of the last century (the 20th).

I follow the “orthodox quantum mechanics” of the last decades of this century (the 21st).

Please do not accuse me of being obstinate. With all respect, you are the obstinate one, on this topic.

Your thinking seems to me to be 19th century thinking. As I recently pointed out, a lot of 20th century thinking never became commonplace in the former Soviet Union. I’m not saying that all the new thinking of the 20th century was good, on the contrary; but I do think that some of it is very good indeed. I think we discovered through the terrible events and the amazing discoveries of the 20th century that a whole lot of 19th century thinking was quite inadequate. The 21st century is confirming this in a most horrific way, right now, in certain parts of the former Soviet Union.

Richard

[Richard Gill]

Alexandre, you think that Bell’s Bertlmann’s socks (4) is compatible with (9) because conventional mathematics in inconsistent.

I don’t think so.

You seem to be the only one who thinks it. 

To be honest, I think it is a crazy idea. (I tend to do like crazy ideas and in general I admire people who come up with crazy ideas - it makes life more interesting).

On 15 May 2022, at 09:20, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:

"The predictions of quantum mechanics *are* classical probability distributions of outcomes of experiments"

Ok Richard. That's it!
I agree that one can show (4) is compatible with (9) in "Bertlmann's socks"

"I have understood your opinion to be that Bell’s theorem is both true and not true, thus mathematics as we know it is inconsistent. You know that my opinion is that that opinion is un-tenable. Moreover, so far it is not published, so it is quite pointless to talk about it at present."

The Continuum hypothesis is already published.
Do I need to publish?
Don't you think that would be a little obvious?

Alexandre

Em dom., 15 de mai. de 2022 às 03:35, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> escreveu:

Alexandre, please explain what you mean.

The predictions of quantum mechanics *are* classical probability distributions of outcomes of experiments.

Local realism is the assumption that a *classical probability distribution* of initial values of variables in an underlying deterministic dynamical model generate the probability distributions of outcomes experiments predicted by quantum mechanics.

Bell’s theorem says that in a certain context, any such model is forced to be non-local, in a certain precise mathematical sense.

I have understood your opinion to be that Bell’s theorem is both true and not true, thus mathematics as we know it is inconsistent. You know that my opinion is that that opinion is un-tenable. Moreover, so far it is not published, so it is quite pointless to talk about it at present.

[Alexandre de Castro]

Richard,
I do not understand what you mean.
It doesn't make any sense.

Alexandre

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi all 

I am looking at this is you have not seen it. No conclusion yet

https://www.academia.edu/s/930257544d?source=link

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Same problems as your paper:

- not a counterexample.

- author does not understand that belief is not enough, such a claim needs a mathematically solid basis

/Jan-Åke

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I am telling you what you need to do to convince others. You do not have a counterexample. 

(You do not have a counterexample yet, if you like to think of it like that. If you want to produce a counterexample, I am telling you what you need to do. Please listen to the advice.)

Besides, you are arguing that I believe in "quantum nonlocality" but I do not. You are arguing with the wrong person.

I'll now make a statement which might confuse you, but it is not meant that way. I am just trying to explain my viewpoint.

There is no such thing as "quantum nonlocality". Quantum mechanics is local in any sense of "local" that is applicable to quantum mechanics as a theory. It is signal-local so you cannot send signals faster than the speed of light. It is local in the sense that measurement operators representing measurements at different sites commute, so there is no influence from one site to another even within quantum mechanics. 

(There is if you believe that the quantum state is "real" and that measurements project onto measurement eigenstates, but from the point of view of the statistical predictions, you do not need the "projection postulate" so the theory itself is local.)

It is only when you attempt to force quantum-mechanical predictions from a local hidden variable model that Bell's theorem tells you something. A hidden-variable model that gives the quantum predictions must be nonlocal. But this is not a quantum-mechanical description. That definition of "local" does not apply to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is not "nonlocal" in this sense.

Complicated? Yes. Most of science is complicated.

You claim to have a local hidden variable model that violates Bell's inequality. This is what is needed for a counterexample. You do not have one.

/Jan-Åke

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 06:41 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Jan-Åke 

It is remarkable that you are now resorting to say it is "belief" about helicity and others.  Do you not realize, as I and others do and said for years, that your quantumly weird nonlocality is pure belief, revelation,  with no statistical model, only classical concepts and rests upon Bell's theorem and nothing else.

My equations are objective with no revelation. You just want a statistical model.

I am writing a reply to you and Richard, anon.

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 09:32 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Hi Jan-Åke

Can you rationalize your comments about you not using non-locality in q computing in terms of these definitions:

 Wikipedia sums up non-locality

``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 particle ... and hence assured the ``proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair."

This concerns the projection postulate, and is a problem only if you believe (yes, believe is the right word here) that the quantum state is real, a property of the world and not merely a property of your mathematical description. If you do believe that the quantum state is real, then there is a nonlocal influence in measurement because then the projection postulate projects immediately (instantaneously=faster than the speed of light).

The projection postulate is not needed when calculating probabilities from quantum mechanics. If you do not believe that the quantum state is real, no such problems occur. Quantum mechanics is then a local theory.

Scholarpedia states, ``Bell's theorem asserts that if certain predictions of quantum theory are correct then our world is non-local. "Non-local" here means that there exist interactions between events that are too far apart in space and too close together in time for the events to be connected even by signals moving at the speed of light." 

I see no mention of HV.  Then I looked up quantum computing with a qubit:

That is because it is an oversimplified description. You and I can both complain about authors that oversimplify, but that does not mean that the issue is not well understood. It is just that these authors oversimplify. Or for that matter simply don't know or perhaps understand the matter at hand.

"The quantum teleportation of a qubit is achieved using quantum entanglement, in which two or more particles are inextricably linked to each other. If an entangled pair of particles is shared between two separate locations, no matter the distance between them, the encoded information is teleported."

Also oversimplified. No theorist in the field would write this in a research paper. Typically you find this in popsci or material intended to convince politicians to fund research.

I submit that your explanation is your rationalization but is inconsistent with the literature.  You, whether you admit it or not, are using non-locality. A rose is a rose.

No, I resubmit that you are reading the wrong sources. This is well understood in the literature. Not so in popular science. 

 However I do agree with you that qm is a local theory.

(BTW  helicity cannot be seen, (hidden), it sits on one spin (local) and it varies in frequency and phase (V) = LHV

Then show that mathematically. So far I only have words that do not correspond to a mathematical statement. 

Translate your description into a proper local hidden variable model. Write a mathematical relation that for each possible helicity and spin (given frequency and phase) translates into measurement outcomes: if Alice measures at angle alpha, what is her measurement outcome?

Sorry but you are inconsistent and merely rationalizing.  

No, you are inconsistent. 

- you claim your model is local realist

- you do not tell us what "real" means (how does the helicity determine the measurement outcomes?)

- you do not tell us what "local" means (even if the helicity determines the measurement outcomes, how do I verify that the setting at Alice does not influence the outcome at Bob?)

I do not care if you believe "helicity" is "real", tell me how this determines the outcomes, mathematically.

I do not care if you believe it "sits on one spin", tell me how you avoid influence from Alice's setting to Bob's outcome under the previous deterministic map, mathematically.

Then you at least have something that can be talked about. Before that it is just empty words.

/Jan-Åke

I am replying to you and Richard as I mentioned.  

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

I disagree. Every theory that I know has different interpretations. GR certainly does. The difference with QM is that each GR is rather good whereas every interpretation of QM has significant short comings.

Pragmatic QM predicts the probabilistic results of measurements using state vectors ( and stater operators) from a rigged Hilbert space. I don't think it has any contradictions. 

I don't have to say how a state is prepared, given the state operator the results are known independently of who or how it is prepared. 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 12:39 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Jan-Åke 

I cannot say things more clearly than in my papers.  Both you and Richard are full of contradictions. I do not think I am. 

You say: " No theorist in the field would write this in a research paper."  So let us look at Bennett et al.

Can you tell me what they mean in their opening paragraph apropo your defense of locality? 

  "The existence of long range correlations between Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) [1] pairs of particles raises the question of their use for information transfer "

If that is not non-locality then please explain what those "long range correlations" are and how they are mediated.

It says "raises the question". The answer is "they can't be used for information transfer"

Classical information transfer, that is.

This is all very complicated and we are only scraping the surface here.

Please see below.

Please explain what the title means and what on Earth are Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels ? (EPR wood turn in their graves)

  "Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels "

They go on to state:

  "Alice could then teleport quantum states to Bob over arbitrarily great distances, without worrying about the effects of attenuation and noise on, say, a single photon sent through a long optical Aber. "

The entangled state used is the spin equivalent of the EPR state. Sometimes this is called "EPR-Bohm state", but more commonly "Bell state".

Alice performs a measurement on her unknown quantum state |psi> and one half of the EPR-Bohm state. 

This destroys the unknown quantum state |psi>

Alice sends the measurement outcome to Bob in the form of classical data.

Bob uses those measurement outcomes to recreate the unknown quantum state |psi> from his half of the EPR-Bohm state.

Neither Alice or Bob has learnt anything about what the unknown state |psi> is, since the measurement outcome is unrelated to the components of the vector |psi>.

The shared EPR-Bohm state serves as the "quantum channel". An "EPR channel."

If Alice and Bob can create a shared EPR-Bohm state, they could do this "over arbitrarily great distances, without worrying about the effects of attenuation and noise on, say, a single photon sent through a long optical fiber."

(Of course, creating the shared EPR-Bohm state must be done under the effects of attenuation and noise. But once it is established, the protocol works without those effects. There is a whole research direction called quantum communication which tries to solve the tech problems associated with this.)

I am sorry  Jan-Åke  you are inconsistent with everything that Bennett et al said and stated.  

No I am not. You do not understand what they say.

I can go on ad nauseum to many, many, 1000s of peer reviewed papers that say and do exactly what you say they do not, (they use non-locality and teleport).  You cannot explain the Bennett step from Eq.(4) to (5).

You cannot save Bell.  You are teleporting qubits if you swap entanglement in your algorithms.  

I note that IBM wants to join circuits with a finite number of qubits to make bigger circuits. All those circuits rely on teleportation to connect those circuits.  Really quantum computing must change and modify the use of qubits. And why is there no convincing evidence for quantum cryptography?  It's because they are measuring stuff which is something else.

Teleportation (aka non-locality) pervades your field, yet you deny it now. Yet in your papers, ( looked at a few) you discuss non-locality all the time, for example in your paper

Quantum teleportation may be a misnomer, but it has a well-defined meaning. The protocol can be used to recreate a quantum state remotely. At the price of using one EPR-Bohm pair.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.13036.pdf  you mention non-locality 25 times.  and others as much.

No, I mean the same thing as before: if you try to force QM into a realist model, that model needs to be nonlocal. 

What you are claiming now, in this discussion, gives the reason why it is very difficult to discuss with you when you keep changing your tune.  After all the papers you have written, you now contradict yourself  and tell me

"There is no such thing as "quantum nonlocality"."  a quote from  Jan-Åke Larsson.  How much more of a contradiction is that?!

I have not changed tune. When people write "quantum nonlocality", this is what it means: if you try to force QM into a realist model, that model needs to be nonlocal. This confuses people. I would rather not use that term. 

You must understand the details here otherwise you will never convince anyone.

Besides, the burden of proof is on you, you are inconsistent. 

- you claim your model is local realist

- you do not tell us what "real" means (how does the helicity determine the measurement outcomes?)

- you do not tell us what "local" means (even if the helicity determines the measurement outcomes, how do I verify that the setting at Alice does not influence the outcome at Bob?)

I do not care if you believe "helicity" is "real", tell me how this determines the outcomes, mathematically.

I do not care if you believe it "sits on one spin", tell me how you avoid influence from Alice's setting to Bob's outcome under the previous deterministic map, mathematically.

Then you at least have something that can be talked about. Before that it is just empty words.

/Jan-Åke

Sorry but you are simply inconsistent and fooling yourself you are doing it right. 

Bryan

 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan, it seems you do not want to understand. Not much I can do about that.

Quantum mechanics is local, in itself. But if you force a realist model, that model must be nonlocal. (That is a consequence of Bell's theorem.) Hence the term "quantum nonlocality".

You claim to have a local realist model that violates the Bell inequality. You do not. You will never convince people if you go on like this.

/JÅ

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 13:39 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Ok this will get us no where slowly and really you and RIichard have tied yourselves up and, like a farce, your defense gets out of hand and you finally contradict yourself. I have not. 

I understand the words of Bennett, Wiki, Scholar..and the myriad papers that all use nonlocality. I understand the math mostly. But you claim that what everyone says is not what they mean, and only you have it right!

So please confirm that you do not swap entanglement over great distances in your research,  and all of your work is 100% local.  With that, I can then quote from your papers and sink you like the Moskva.

I highly recommend you stop further discussion on this or you will soon be asserting black is white to support your defense of Bell.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Jan is correct.

All the results at each arm of the EPR experiment can be calculated from the values of the state operator at that one location.

The settings at the other arm do not change that state operator and therefore do not in any way affect the probabilistic results.

Note that the state operator for the singlet state is a mixed state and does not have a unique decomposition into pure states. Which is a significant feature of QM.

To my mind QM is long overdue to be explained. That's a philosophical predisposition of mine. But the pragmatic approach to QM is local, consistent, free of contradictions and confirmed by every experiment ever undertaken. Calculations and predictions are unambiguous and can be undertaken by our graduate students. 

I hope that helps. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/e3783bf21c5039d25305bbd71009921e929b3030.camel%40liu.se.

[Mark Hadley]

The difference between an interpretation and a theory is that an interpretation does not make new predictions. It's just saying "why not look at it this way?"

So for example GR could be a self interacting spin two field on a flat background. Or it could be a four dimensional spacetime curved and embedded in a higher dimensional space or a 4D space with intrinsic curvature. No new predictions. So they are the same theory. 

Similarly there are different ways to teach newton's laws. 

On Sun, 15 May 2022, 21:07 Алексей Никулов, <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mark,

You consider different, alternative theories as different
interpretations of one theory. This is what creates the illusion of
the existence of the theory. If we admit that there are many
alternative theories, then it will be necessary to admit that there is
not a single theory. Theories alternative to quantum mechanics were
considered as interpretations because alternative theories were always
being banned by censorship. Hugh Everett understood that physics is
confused with psychology in quantum mechanics. He noted correctly in
the beginning of his famous paper 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”
[1]. Process 1, according to von Neumann [2], is the process of
observation at which the mind of the observer changes or even creates
the quantum state of the observed system.

Everett made an attempt to propose an alternative theory that would
not contain this absurdity. His theory is considered as an
interpretation of quantum mechanics. But it is nonsense to consider
the theory describing a reality of multiple universes as an
interpretation of quantum mechanics having a fundamentally different
subject of description – the knowledge of the observer and its
influence on the quantum system, the state of which is considered as
real during Process 2, i.e. between observation.

The illusion that the Everett theory is only an interpretation of
quantum mechanics is one of the causes of the illusion that a quantum
computer can be real. David Deutsch, the author of the idea of quantum
computing, understood a quantum computer can be real only in the
reality of numerous parallel universes. He wrote in the Chapter
"Quantum computers" of the book "Structure of Reality”: “For those who
are still inclined to think that there is only one universe, I offer
the following problem: explain a principle of action of the Shor’s
algorithm. I have not predicted that it will work, as for this purpose
it is enough to solve some of the consistent equations. I ask you to
give an explanation. When the Shor’s algorithm has a factorized
number, having involved about 10^500 computing resources which can be
seen, where this number was factorized? In the whole universe exists
about 10^80 atoms, the number is negligibly small in comparison with
10^500. Thus, if this single universe was a measure of a physical
reality, the physical reality could not contain resources sufficient
for the factorization of such a big number. Who then has factorized
it? How and where the calculation was carried out?” [3].

But the numerous creators of the quantum computer have the illusion
that a quantum computer can be real according to quantum mechanics,
since they consider the Everett theory to be only an interpretation of
quantum mechanics. Such an illusion became possible because of your
pragmatic point of view that the theory should describe results of
measurements rather than a reality which is a cause of these results.

Another cause of the illusion that a quantum computer can be real is
Hilbert space. Quantum computing is considered in a multidimensional
Hilbert space, while a quantum register must exist in the real
three-dimensional space. I drew attention that of a quantum register
cannot exist in the real three-dimensional space in the report
“Quantum register cannot be real”, see slides on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
. Your pragmatic point of view, which, unfortunately, is followed by
many modern scientists due to blind faith in quantum mechanics leads
to obvious delusions.

[1] H. Everett ’Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Rev.
Mod. Phys. 29, 454-462 (1957)
[2] J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik.
Berlin: Springer, 1932; Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
Princeton University Press, 1955.
[3] D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality. The Penguin Press, 1997.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вс, 15 мая 2022 г. в 22:39, '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%2Bo2gV5anhN6Mx%3D_3geeca92SyLjdzAHNu1rGrHM0Yp%2BVzw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

QM does account for double slit that's exactly what does... accounting. 

I agree that it gives no underlying explanation. And that is deeply unsatisfactory to me. But opinion is widely divided on what it even means to have an explanation.

Historically, ideas about what constitutes an explanation change drastically. 

It's not clear to me that nature is local. GR certainty allows non local, acausal structures. I think that's relevant, but I'm in a minority. 

On Sun, 15 May 2022, 21:16 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark

Thanks for that. Of course everything we do is local, and my whole point is Nature is local, and entanglement does not persist after a singlet separates. No "undivided whole" etc.

Qm cannot account for the double slit or violation of BI. You cannot explain the violation with qm, so here qm fails.

The singlet is a pure state, it's state operator is idempotent. 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 16:16 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Hi Mark

Thanks for that. Of course everything we do is local, and my whole point is Nature is local, and entanglement does not persist after a singlet separates. No "undivided whole" etc.

That is actually Schrödinger and Furry's hypothesis, both from 1936, just after the EPR paper.

E. Schrödinger. “Probability Relations between Separated Systems”. Mathematical Proceedings of the

Cambridge Philosophical Society 32, 446–452 (1936). doi: 10.1017/S0305004100019137.

W. H. Furry. “Note on the Quantum-Mechanical Theory of Measurement”. Physical Review 49, 393–

399, 476 (1936). doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.49.393.

Their hypothesis was ruled out by an experiment by Wu and Shaknow published 1950, as shown by Bohm and Aharonov in 1957.

C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov. “The Angular Correlation of Scattered Annihilation Radiation”. Physical

Review 77, 136 (1950). doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.77.136.

D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov. “Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and

Podolsky”. Physical Review 108, 1070–1076 (1957). doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.108.1070.

Note that this is well before Bell's paper.

Qm cannot account for the double slit or violation of BI. You cannot explain the violation with qm, so here qm fails.

The singlet is a pure state, it's state operator is idempotent. 

The local state operator of the singlet is one half times the identity. Irrespective of the remote setting.

/Jan-Åke

Bryan

On Sun., May 15, 2022, 15:39 Mark Hadley, <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Mark Hadley]

I'm telling you what the words mean. That's how they are used. It's probably easier if you use the words like everyone else... 🤣🤣

On Sun, 15 May 2022, 21:38 Алексей Никулов, <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mark,

It is according only to your pragmatic point of view that “The

difference between an interpretation and a theory is that an

interpretation does not make new predictions”. This point of view,

which, unfortunately, is followed by many modern scientists due to

blind faith in quantum mechanics leads to obvious delusions, in
particular about the reality of a quantum computer. It is nonsense to
think that a theory predicting an effect as a consequence of an
influence of the mind of the observer and another theory predicting
the same effect as a manifestation of a reality are only
interpretations of the same theory.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вс, 15 мая 2022 г. в 23:30, '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%2Bo02RN3n_pX0oK2HbvmWXA9vZOYjGDJ-LfzpJ2aYm-7gRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,

The "settings" are not in the state, the "settings" are in the measurement setup.

The "remote setting" at Alices site is the setting Bob chooses. And vice versa. 

The local state operator is the state at Alice (or at Bob). It is the partial trace over the singlet state, over the remote system.

The local state operator is one half the identity. The calculation is simple. The local state does not depend on the remote setting.

/JÅ

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 16:46 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

.The local state operator of the singlet is one half times the identity. Irrespective of the remote setting.

/Jan-Åke

First there are no remote settings for the singlet.  It's a pure state.  Second a singlet is not one half times the identity, it is

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Exactly right

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,

I'm just using the QM formalism.

The partial trace over Bob's system is Alice's local description of the part of the system she can access. 

There is nothing wierd or nonlocal about that.

It is a local description because it does not depend on Bob's measurement setting choice.

/JÅ

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 17:37 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Jan Ank, 

Of course I know you did a partial trace of the singlet which  gives a state operator as only 1/2 Identity. But that means that you assume that the singlet stretches from Alice to Bob! Your Battleship is sunk, you contradict yourself again by  first  adamantly saying there is no non-locality, then you turn around and do a partial trace of an entangled singlet over spacetime! 

Do you not see you dillusions? 

The state operator at Alice is 1/2(I + simgaA_n) not what you say. sigma_n is Pauli spin component of Alice,   Bob is 1/2(I - sigmaB _n).  That is what happens to the singlet upon separation.

It assume a product state. You assume the entanglement persists to space time. You therefore use nonlocality after spending hours telling me you don't. 

We most certainly have very different views. 

 Ryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Bryan

Yes, let's wait and see.

Best

Jan-Åke

On sön, 2022-05-15 at 22:19 -0400, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Dear Richard and Jan-Åke

 

I wrote a reply to your last emails, but I will not post it.  It is not worth arguing about.   I suggest we just wait and see.

 

The main reason I stop  this for now is that you both argue black is white so I cannot pursue logical discussions: Jan-Åke insists there is no non-locality, then immediately takes a partial trace of an entangled pair over spacetime!! ; Richard argues that Bell's theorem has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, even though it permeates Bell's work.  

In short, I tried to express the ideas clearly in the papers. Those are where my answers lie for now.

Bryan

On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:37 PM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jan Ank, 

Of course I know you did a partial trace of the singlet which  gives a state operator as only 1/2 Identity. But that means that you assume that the singlet stretches from Alice to Bob! Your Battleship is sunk, you contradict yourself again by  first  adamantly saying there is no non-locality, then you turn around and do a partial trace of an entangled singlet over spacetime! 

Do you not see you dillusions? 

The state operator at Alice is 1/2(I + simgaA_n) not what you say. sigma_n is Pauli spin component of Alice,   Bob is 1/2(I - sigmaB _n).  That is what happens to the singlet upon separation.

It assume a product state. You assume the entanglement persists to space time. You therefore use nonlocality after spending hours telling me you don't. 

We most certainly have very different views. 

 Ryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

Your site seems to have been down for two days now. I’m writing a paper on your hyper-helicity theory because you kept asking me to study your actual mathematics,  but now I can’t download the main reference!

About these two issues: Bryan, you are the one who wants to make things black and white, but actually they are complex.

Non-locality. A correlation between measurement outcomes at two different locations is a non-local thing. It takes information from both locations. Correlation is not causality, but as a general rule, there is no correlation without causation. The causation need not be direct but it can also be from the common past, and it can also be from the common future. Post-selection creates correlation between events in the past.

Bell and QM. Bell is fascinated by quantum mechanics and by the question whether or not typical manifestations of quantumness could be attributed to classical physical mechanisms. He moved on from EPR (a brilliant argument, from QM and assuming some concept of locality, that that QM was incomplete), brilliantly turned the argument on its head, and used EPR-B to show that QM predictions could not be mimicked by classical physical models without violating cherished features of such models. Now we have experiments which seem to show that experimental reality cannot be modelled by classical physical models without violating cherished features of such models.

Bryan, your thinking is permeated by QM. You see the world through a QM filter, through QM terminology, through QM concepts. Nothing wrong with that. Good luck with hyperhelicity! Bell was able to switch his thinking. Through the week at CERN he did exceptionally good QM particle physics. In the evenings and at the weekends he thought about what it could all possibly mean. He could take off his QM spectacles and briefly put on other spectacles. He was able to do “what if” thought experiments. Bryan has no patience for that. He has bought into QM and wears his QM spectacles all the time.

You should be delighted with Bell’s theorem. It supports your world-view! It supports your physics.

Nothing wrong with constantly wearing the QM spectacles, except that it leads to confusion when trying to communicate with those who are interested in metaphysical “what if” thought experiments. There is a big academic field (foundations of physics, quantum foundations) where a big academic community has developed the language and the concepts in order to hold these discussions in a civilised way. People who want to contribute to those discussions had better learn the common language of the participants. Alexei is a good example of someone who has his own language and consequently has a lot of trouble communicating with others. Maybe his ideas are perfectly sound. But in order to communicate them to first quarter of the 21st century scholars and scientists, he has to understand their language and adapt his communications to their language. He is repeatedly saying that the world has gone to the dogs because the current generations have forgotten various key philosophical and meta-physical principles of the late 19th and early 20th century. The old always complain about the degeneration of the young.

Right now in NL thanks to scandal after scandal we see that our country is run by oligarchs who have forgotten the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. And the population seems to have forgotten them also! Policy is left to managers who hire IT businesses (run by their friends) to create AI systems which “learn” the prejudices of the establishment. Poorer people with foreign surnames and low incomes are more likely to commit social security fraud hence when the computers see the smallest error in filling in a complex form, it immediately deduces an attempt to fraud. That’s artificial intelligence for you! It’s no better than human intelligence. Repeats exactly the same mistakes. 

This has led to 40 000 families being criminalised through illegal communication of personal information between tax office and justice. This has led to 1600 Dutch children being taken from their families in recent years by illegal further communication between the previously mentioned organisations and child protection agencies. 1600 illegal kidnappings of children from vulnerable families, crushed by a blind bureaucratic machine!

The agencies are still unable to refund the families who were cheated and forced further into poverty and given a criminal record, and the agencies are still unable even to communicate to them to tell them that they are entitled to a refund. They have budgeted the operation on the assumption that only 10% will ask for their money back, anyway.

Here’s the real scandal. The government fell because of these scandals, and the Dutch people voted exactly the same politicians back into power. 

Right wing extremists have growing influence, exploiting conspiracy theories of crackpots who believe post-modernist ideas that there is no absolute truth and every theory is as legitimate as every other. We live in interesting times.

Richard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/99c29d583e2e24286e1d8484f6651fe932aae838.camel%40liu.se.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

In science, it is not always necessary to follow the opinion of everyone, or rather of the majority, since the majority is often mistaken. Especially now, when science has become mass. Most modern scientists use the word ‘interpretation’ instead of the words ‘alternative theory’ in order to preserve the illusion that we have a theory of quantum phenomena. And almost everyone has their own pet excuse for this illusion, which contradicts each other. You are trying to justify the illusion with the help of pragmatism and the senseless substitution of ‘observation’ with ‘preparation’. Inge follows QBism, Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics and even convivial solipsism. According to this epistemic approach quantum mechanics describes the interaction of the mind of an agent/observer with the quantum system. This approach is closest to the essence of quantum mechanics. Einstein was understanding back in 1927 that quantum mechanics describes exactly this absurdity, according to Born's proposal.

Richard seeks to refute local realism by following the “orthodox quantum mechanics” of the last decades of this century, which is fundamentally different from the “orthodox quantum mechanics” of the 30’s and 40’s of the last century. You wrote yesterday: “The settings on the other arm do not change this state operator and, therefore, do not affect the probabilistic results in any way”. I must say that you follow here to the main assumption of the EPR according to which the “orthodox quantum mechanics” of the 30’s and 40’s of the last century cannot predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities.

Jose Ortega y Gasset (the great Spanish philosopher according to Schrodinger's opinion) predicted the crisis of physics as a consequence of the barbarism of specialisation inherent in contemporary scientists. Ortega y Gasset 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 alone really wasn't sufficient. But Ortega y Gasset hardly expected that the crisis would reach such an extent that almost everyone would have their own understanding of quantum mechanics and physical thinking would almost completely degrade. This degradation became possible primarily because quantum mechanics has always been for most physicists rather a religion that is believed in than a scientific theory which should be understood. Einstein foresaw this attitude. He wrote to Schrodinger in 1928: ”The soothing philosophy - or religion? - of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that for the present it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which they are not easily chased away. Let us therefore let them rest. · · · This religion does damned little for me”.

With best wishes,

Alexey

пн, 16 мая 2022 г. в 09:52, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4048C1D9-E9D7-43E7-A6D1-21D1C3107D1D%40gmail.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear all,

Richard and I have had a private exchange of opinions based on my Bell experiment paper. He has suggested that I should post this dialogue to the entire group.

As I understand it now, the only question that Richard has not given his answer to yet, is whether or not he sees the 4 variables A, B, C and D (I refer to my paper) as some joint elements of reality in some sense.

Any further opinions, based on the article or on the dialogue, will be of great interest to me.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>
Sent: 14 May 2022 15:48:12
To: Mark Hadley
Cc: Алексей Никулов; Richard Gill; Jay R. Yablon; Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations; Jay R. Yablon
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] foundations of qm

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/EE4CCCEC-AF10-48B8-80AA-4D14A3799B94%40math.uio.no.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Sorry, I mean A, B, A' and B'. Inge

---

From: Inge Svein Helland
Sent: 16 May 2022 12:00:14

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear all,

The last correction is in fact interesting. At the moment when I wrote this, I had a couple of other issues in my mind, not primarily this discussion.

As I say, we are all limited when making decisions.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>

Sent: 16 May 2022 12:04:19

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4fe3c78c8cf44f9ea7a3e4f88c2db7bd%40math.uio.no.

[Richard Gill]

I think that the notion “elements of reality” is unnecessary. I do think that actual outcomes of actually performed experiments are real. The rest are just theoretical extrapolations based on conceptions about the nature of reality which are up to discussion. Taking a standpoint now on what else is reality, means adoption of a religion. Fine by me, if you find it useful. But please don’t impose it on others. Physics is about the physical world. What we can share, are results of experiments. And in daily life: we agree that we see things which we like to name as tables and chairs. The rest is extrapolation/imagination/theology. Of course the purpose of physics, as an enterprise of a particular ape on a particular planet, is to explore if there is more. One may strongly adhere to the notion that there is more. That is the motivation of most physicists. But we are not true scientists if we believe in the conclusion before evaluating the evidence.

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 May 2022, at 12:04, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

I totally agree that data, outcomes of actual performed experiments, are real. Whether there is more, is a philosophical question, no primarily a theological one. Kant seemed to believe that there are synthetic elements a priory, as he said.

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 16 May 2022 12:27
To: Inge Svein Helland
Cc: Mark Hadley; Алексей Никулов; Jay R. Yablon; Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations; Jay R. Yablon

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/2F362056-B9C8-4231-8611-EC050C21BCA8%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

I think that philosophical questions and theological questions are difficult to distinguish. And that Kant’s and Descartes‘ programs failed. Wittgenstein, and those who came after him, exposed their failures. The First World War exposed the bankruptcy of 19th century optimism. The Second World War rubbed this in. Now we are experiencing the Third.

Most “interpretations” of quantum mechanics lead to the same behaviour. The empirical predictions are not altered. Similarly, most religions have the same image of how one should live. The same basic moral precepts. They differ in their rules about how society should be ordered. And importantly, in who is a member of society and who isn’t. Thus they are entwined with power structures and used to justify power structures.

Marxism was a theory of economics and of history. However, Marxists see themselves as those who know what the inexorable development of society will be. Hence they choose to be on the winning side. This obviously will give them advantages, if they are right. Marx himself was a humanist who was rightly concerned by inequality and injustice. But the Marxists converted Marxism into a religion and used it to their own advantage in order to gain power and wealth; they could motivate their behaviour and strengthen their power by selling Marxism as a new religion for the masses. Marxism became the new opium of the liberated masses in Communist nations. Yet it failed.

I highly recommend the German movie “Goodbye Lenin”.

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 May 2022, at 12:34, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Mark Hadley]

Actually, I think this thread is worth pursuing ( unlike elements of reality) as it can clarify both use of language and qm calculations.

It is a fact that QM is a type of probability function defined on configuration space. For an entangled state it can't be factorised. 

For a joint probability function, you get a probability function for one parameter by integrating over the unwanted parameter. Effectively taking the partial trace. I'll give a couple of classical examples later. This gives correct predictions for that parameter but discards information on correlations. 

Jan gives the correct state operator for A It does not depend on the experimental set up at B. In that sense it is local. But it can't be used to calculate correlations. 

1) you have a pair of shoes put them each in separate boxes and post one to Amsterdam the other to Brighton. At A or B the probability of finding a left shoe in the box is 50:50 Before boxes are opened that's all that can be said. But the joint probability function is needed to see that they must be anti correlated

2) we both go on an airplane with 100 seats. We have a joint probability function for where we each sit. It is a function of 10,000 points in configuration space. To know the probability of where you sit you would integrate (sum) over where I might sit. To get a function defined over the 100 seats. But this loses the fact that we can't both be in the same seat. No correlation information. If you know where I sit, then your probability function changes. 

In this there is no major difference between classical and quantum probability functions. 

Bell just says that there is nothing you can put in the shoe boxes that will reproduce the probabilities predicted by QM. No pattern of shoes, no machine and no computer in the shoe box that can give the same outcomes. 

I hope that helps. 

On Mon, 16 May 2022, 03:19 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Richard and Jan-Åke

 

I wrote a reply to your last emails, but I will not post it.  It is not worth arguing about.   I suggest we just wait and see.

 

The main reason I stop  this for now is that you both argue black is white so I cannot pursue logical discussions: Jan-Åke insists there is no non-locality, then immediately takes a partial trace of an entangled pair over spacetime!! ; Richard argues that Bell's theorem has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, even though it permeates Bell's work.  

In short, I tried to express the ideas clearly in the papers. Those are where my answers lie for now.

Bryan

On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:37 PM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jan Ank, 

Of course I know you did a partial trace of the singlet which  gives a state operator as only 1/2 Identity. But that means that you assume that the singlet stretches from Alice to Bob! Your Battleship is sunk, you contradict yourself again by  first  adamantly saying there is no non-locality, then you turn around and do a partial trace of an entangled singlet over spacetime! 

Do you not see you dillusions? 

The state operator at Alice is 1/2(I + simgaA_n) not what you say. sigma_n is Pauli spin component of Alice,   Bob is 1/2(I - sigmaB _n).  That is what happens to the singlet upon separation.

It assume a product state. You assume the entanglement persists to space time. You therefore use nonlocality after spending hours telling me you don't. 

We most certainly have very different views. 

 Ryan

[Richard Gill]

Mark, I think it was you you wrote

“Note that the state operator for the singlet state is a mixed state and does not have a unique decomposition into pure states. Which is a significant feature of QM.”

It is incorrect to call it a mixed state. A mixed state can by definition be expressed as a non-trivial probabilistic mixture of other states. The singlet state is a pure state, not a mixed state.

The definition of an entangled state is one that cannot be expressed as a statistical mixture of product states.

The singlet state is a pure state and an entangled state.

I hope everyone understands what a product state is.

Bryan seems to believe in quantum mechanics and also to believe that two particles in the singlet state, on separation, rapidly “collapse” into a product state. He thinks he can allow for the singlet correlations by hypothesizing higher dimensional Hilbert spaces for the two particles. He certainly cannot reproduce the complete collection of quantum predictions (correlations, expectation values, possible values of outcomes) in this way. Bell and Tsirelson show that there exists formidable mathematical obstructions to this claim.

Bryan will have to come up with a new quantum mechanics altogether. Critics have been looking for that since the inception of the theory.

Richard