34 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 22, 2023, 10:02:25 PM1/22/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

James Jr Tankersley

8:46 PM (now)

*Malus’ law states that the intensity of plane-polarized light that passes through an analyzer varies as the square of the cosine of the angle between the plane of the polarizer and the transmission axes of the analyzer.*"

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Even though we know how to close the detection loophole with electron spin experiments, photon-based experiments are still being used to test Bell's inequalities, without properly closing the detection loophole (*Eberhart requires 72.5% detection, but CHSH simulations modeling Malus law loss at the polarizing beam splitter appears to require detection closer to 100% to close the detection loophole*)

A recent paper cites 3 Bell tests in 2015 (*2 photon based with ~75% detection rates*) as being loophole free. [1]. A recent Nova documentary also cites a recent Vienna photon based experiment [4.1] as being loophole free.

The 2015 Electron spin experiment is loophole free as far as we know (*Hensen et al, with 100% detection*), but has not been repeated in almost a decade, as far as I can determine, and the published run was apparently only 245 events, with a high probability of being a random chance result [1] (*1 in 27*) [5].

If future Electron spin experiments with sufficient trial data refute the tiny trial run above, we appear to have something interesting (*but no similar experiments in this many years???*)

Eberhart is cited as requiring a minimum of 72.5% detection rate to avoid detection loop hole. (*Now achievable with high quality photon detectors*)

However, Eberhart's minimum detection must assume a "random distribution" of photon loss, not the "highly selective" loss Malus law causes to photons with real polarities before entering polarizing beam splitters (*which very selectively lose photons based on pre-existing photon polarization*).[3]

CHSH simulations of photon with real polarities before hitting polarizing beam splitters, modeling loss using Malus Law calculations, show S violations around 2.2 when detection efficiency is modeled at around 90%[2]. The detection rate needed to close the loophole may need to be closer to 100%, based on the numbers the simulations are providing.

Cheers,

Jim Tankersley

(*usually busy with work, but recently inspired by recent events*)

[1] LOOPHOLE-FREE BELL TESTS AND THE FALSIFICATION OF LOCAL REALISM, 2018, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.09289.pdf, 2018 (*accessed 2023-01-22*)

[1.1] Discussion, page 8 "*Finally, by using highly efficient detectors and testing a version of the CH model, they were able to close the detection loophole (Shalm et al., 2015). The necessary theoretical efficiency for this experiment, which Shalm et al. calculated using the method proposed by Eberhard, was 72.5% (Eberhard, 1993) (Shalm et al., 2015). The actual detector efficiencies used were 74.7 ± 0.3% and 75.6 ± 0.3% as calculated using the method proposed by Klyshko (Klyshko, 1980) (Shalm et al., 2015).*"

[2] Testing Bells Theorem, https://sites.google.com/site/physicschecker/unsettled-physics/testing-bells-theorem-paper (*access 2023-01-22*)

[3] Malus Law, https://byjus.com/jee/malus-law/ (*accessed 2023-01-22*)

[3.1] "*What is Malus Law?*

[4] Einstein's Quantum Riddle, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=068rdc75mHM (*accessed 2023-01-22*)

[4.1] Dominik Rauch, University of Vienna (*43 minute point*)

[5] Quantum Entanglement Bell Tests Part 4: Delft – The 1st Loophole-free Bell Test, Karma Penny, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XHJfUeEmns&t=17s (*accessed 2023-01-22*)

Jan 23, 2023, 1:27:22 AM1/23/23

to 'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Thanks James for bringing this up!

The bigger the claim, the greater the amount of evidence required to prove it.

This is about as big as it gets, so I think it is not too much to ask for at least a repeat of some of the currently best experiments (with the issues we saw resolved).

I suggest we add a session to the talks about this topic, because this is too important: until we *really* have a loophole free experiment (that includes all loopholes) that is statistically significant, we cannot simply assume the question has been resolved.

Best wishes,

Chantal

--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8eca5042-4562-4cbf-8192-cf7fea1c83bbn%40googlegroups.com.

Jan 23, 2023, 2:37:39 AM1/23/23

to Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

Hi James,

The Eberhard (or CH) inequality requires 66.7% overall efficiency.

Malus' law simulation is only possible up to 50% overall efficiency.

I agree that the Hensen et al experiment has too low number of events.

There are several truly loophole-free experiments nowadays.

We should spend our time on something other than this.

/Jan-Åke

The Eberhard (or CH) inequality requires 66.7% overall efficiency.

Malus' law simulation is only possible up to 50% overall efficiency.

I agree that the Hensen et al experiment has too low number of events.

There are several truly loophole-free experiments nowadays.

We should spend our time on something other than this.

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.

--

Jan-Åke Larsson

Professor, Head of Department

Jan-Åke Larsson

Professor, Head of Department

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

Jan 23, 2023, 3:59:10 AM1/23/23

to Chantal Roth, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

There are repeats and *improvements* of the best experiment. I’ve said this several times before, but here I go again (sorry to those who me say this N times before where N is about 10 or so).

Take a look at:

Zhang, W., van Leent, T., Redeker, K. et al.

A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users.

Nature 607, 687–691 (2022).

You can find it on arXiv too.

I extracted the Bell test part of the experiment and took a look at the data here:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.

Jan 23, 2023, 4:06:38 AM1/23/23

to Chantal Roth, 'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Chantal,

I say the claim is that QM makes correct predictions,( and therefore violates Bell's) . And there is a lot of evidence that QM makes correct predictions. And no contrary evidence.

To argue that the predictions of QM are wrong is the big claim, that needs enormous evidence. There is none.

The predictions of QM apply to realistic and to loophole free experiments.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.

Jan 23, 2023, 4:09:51 AM1/23/23

to Chantal Roth, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

PS Chantal wants a loophole-free experiment which excludes all loopholes. There are two kinds of loopholes: those which in principle require better experimental procedures including better data processing; and metaphysical loopholes such as the conspiracy aka superdeterminism loophole, which philosophers of science will go on discussing for centuries.

I submit that the Zhang et al experiment of 2022 satisfies Chantal’s criteria as far as experimental imperfections are concerned. Some people might object that the distance between the labs “as the crow flies” is a bit too short, though the distance via glass fibre cable is plenty. Does Chantal demand that the guys in Munich raise the money to buy another lab another 100 meters further from their existing two labs? Does she seriously believe that in the counterfactual world where they had already done this, their experiment would not have been successful?

I’m with Jan-Åke on this: *we* should spend our time on something other than this; the tax-payers of the world deserve that their money is spent on other things; the experimentalists of the world should concentrate their resources on more challenging and interesting work.

On 23 Jan 2023, at 07:26, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Jan 23, 2023, 4:10:38 AM1/23/23

to Richard Gill, 'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Thanks Richard - I have not seen these yet (I was trying to avoid the topic, but... it seems I get drawn in again :-).

In your opinion, which is *the one* experiment that is the most convincing, the one that clearly has no loopholes and is statistically significant? Is it the one you listed below?

(You know, given that people consider all kinds of crazy explanations, including retrocausality, parallel universes, instant communication and so on, I think it is not so crazy to look at these experiments critically :-).

Best wishes,

Chantal

Jan 23, 2023, 4:16:21 AM1/23/23

to Chantal Roth, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Chantal, my short answer is “yes”. (Why do you think I keep mentioning it all over the place and spent a lot of time looking closely at some of the data?)

These guys are from the Weinfurter group. They did the best of the four loophole free experiments of 2015. They have a lot of routine and expertise, and now they are embedding a Bell test inside more complex experiments intended to demonstrate DIQKD. Alice and Bob each have three settings. Two of them are used for the Bell test, the third for the cryptography application.

On 23 Jan 2023, at 10:10, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Thanks Richard - I have not seen these yet (I was trying to avoid the topic, but... it seems I get drawn in again :-).In your opinion, which is *the one* experiment that is the most convincing, the one that clearly has no loopholes and is statistically significant? Is it the one you listed below?(You know, given that people consider all kinds of crazy explanations, including retrocausality, parallel universes, instant communication and so on, I think it is not so crazy to look at these experiments critically :-).Best wishes,ChantalOn Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Richard Gill wrote:

There are repeats and *improvements* of the best experiment. I’ve said this several times before, but here I go again (sorry to those who me say this N times before where N is about 10 or so).

Take a look at:Zhang, W., van Leent, T., Redeker, K. et al.A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users.Nature 607, 687–691 (2022).You can find it on arXiv too.I extracted the Bell test part of the experiment and took a look at the data here:

Jan 23, 2023, 4:18:33 AM1/23/23

to James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear James,

The controversy about loopholes does not make sense since Bell's

inequalities appeared because of a false understanding by most

physicists of quantum mechanics. It is funny that no one noticed

during many years that the orthodox quantum mechanics cannot predict

the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities due to its

well-known principle that the operators can fail to commute only if

they act on the same particle.

Bohm misled Bell by rejecting this principle in order to postulate the

EPR correlation, he has not written that quantum mechanics cannot

predict the EPR correlation if this quantum principle is valid. Bell

misled all physicists since he did not understand that only Bohm’s

quantum mechanics but not the orthodox quantum mechanics can predict

the EPR correlation. Bell misled in particular the authors of the

well-known GHZ theorem [1,2]. These authors used the principle the

operators acting on different particles commute, according to which

quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality, in order to deduce the

GHZ theorem which should prove that quantum mechanics contradicts

locality.

I draw attention to this obvious contradiction in the manuscript

“Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. Unfortunately, Editors of

Physical Review A, Annalen der Physik and Annals of Physics rejected

this manuscript without peer review within a few days, from 1 to 3. In

contrast to these Editors, Editors of ‘Foundations of Physics’ did not

reject this manuscript up to now although I submitted it to this

journal July 7 and is considered by a reviewer since August 8. I

assume that my manuscript has not been rejected so far because

Professor Anton Zeilinger is a member of the Advisory Board of

‘Foundations of Physics’. I understand that it is difficult to make a

decision about my manuscript, since on the one hand it is impossible

to deny the mathematical fact that quantum mechanics cannot predict

EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities because of its

principle that the operators acting on different particles commute,

and on the other hand it is difficult to admit that many physicists

have been mistaken for many years.

[1] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos,

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 73-76, (1989).

[2] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Shimony A. Zeilinger, A.: Bells

theorem without inequalities. Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131-1143 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пн, 23 янв. 2023 г. в 12:09, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/400EBBAD-4CDC-4ED2-BB67-3B4DF6444B81%40gmail.com.

The controversy about loopholes does not make sense since Bell's

inequalities appeared because of a false understanding by most

physicists of quantum mechanics. It is funny that no one noticed

during many years that the orthodox quantum mechanics cannot predict

the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities due to its

well-known principle that the operators can fail to commute only if

they act on the same particle.

Bohm misled Bell by rejecting this principle in order to postulate the

EPR correlation, he has not written that quantum mechanics cannot

predict the EPR correlation if this quantum principle is valid. Bell

misled all physicists since he did not understand that only Bohm’s

quantum mechanics but not the orthodox quantum mechanics can predict

the EPR correlation. Bell misled in particular the authors of the

well-known GHZ theorem [1,2]. These authors used the principle the

operators acting on different particles commute, according to which

quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality, in order to deduce the

GHZ theorem which should prove that quantum mechanics contradicts

locality.

I draw attention to this obvious contradiction in the manuscript

“Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. Unfortunately, Editors of

Physical Review A, Annalen der Physik and Annals of Physics rejected

this manuscript without peer review within a few days, from 1 to 3. In

contrast to these Editors, Editors of ‘Foundations of Physics’ did not

reject this manuscript up to now although I submitted it to this

journal July 7 and is considered by a reviewer since August 8. I

assume that my manuscript has not been rejected so far because

Professor Anton Zeilinger is a member of the Advisory Board of

‘Foundations of Physics’. I understand that it is difficult to make a

decision about my manuscript, since on the one hand it is impossible

to deny the mathematical fact that quantum mechanics cannot predict

EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities because of its

principle that the operators acting on different particles commute,

and on the other hand it is difficult to admit that many physicists

have been mistaken for many years.

[1] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos,

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 73-76, (1989).

[2] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Shimony A. Zeilinger, A.: Bells

theorem without inequalities. Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131-1143 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пн, 23 янв. 2023 г. в 12:09, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

Jan 23, 2023, 4:19:48 AM1/23/23

to Richard Gill, 'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Richard, (emails crossed...)

Yes, I mean experimental loopholes, that's it. I doubt anyone is asking them to buy another lab... the issues that are left are much less exciting than that.

I am not ready to start "believing" in ideas like retrocausality just yet (or any of the other wild ideas), only because of that (everything else in QM is much clearer and has nothing really weird about it).

Given that there are so many (wild) theories about this, I think it warrants to keep a critical eye on the experimental results.

Best wishes,

Chantali

Jan 23, 2023, 4:23:52 AM1/23/23

to 'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Thanks - here is the link to the supplementary information:

Do you know if they provide the data as well?

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/065F6016-F164-463C-B2E1-F66EE1F84A55%40gmail.com.

Jan 23, 2023, 5:43:11 AM1/23/23

to James Jr Tankersley, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Jim

The Munich experiment involves three parties: Alice, Bob and Charlie. And a sequence of tests of three “aligned” time-slots for the three parties.

Photons go from Alice and Bob’s place to Charlie's where they interfere. Charlie does a measurement there. Of course they may not arrive at all.

So we have three parties with settings a, b, c say, and outcomes x, y, z

Charlie’s setting “c” is fixed

In the experiment one studies the probability distributions p(x, y | a, b, c, z) for a particular z (two clicks of two particular photo detectors).

This is what is called an “event ready” Bell experiment. The special value of z signals when the measurements of Alice and Bob will be used to calculate correlations. Because from the QM point of view, those are occasions on which those atom spins were entangled.

It’s also called “entanglement swapping”, its a version of quantum teleportation.

The correct analysis of the resulting Bell experiment does not require any belief in QM! You don’t have to “believe” in quantum teleportation, or whatever. It’s the other way round. The results might lead you to agree that it really does seem to exist….

Richard

Jan 23, 2023, 8:37:52 AM1/23/23

to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Thank you, I will study this later this evening.

Also, I just re-read an old paper I wrote and realized I was communicating poorly. Re-written summary:

... Bell's experiment is a brilliant test to settle the issue (and photon based experiments appear to show that Quantum Theory wins). But computer experiments [20] that model results with LHV (Local Hidden Variable) models, show that photon based experiments have an un-accounted for "selective detect loophole" (requiring close to 100% detection, not the approximately 70% detection rates currently allowed), and Bell CHSH experiments may actually settle the issue in EPRs favor.

Jan 23, 2023, 8:53:22 AM1/23/23

to James Tankersley Jr, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Hi James,

The Eberhard (or CH) inequality requires 66.7% overall efficiency.

Malus' law simulation is only possible up to 50% overall efficiency.

The Eberhard (or CH) inequality requires 66.7% overall efficiency.

Malus' law simulation is only possible up to 50% overall efficiency.

What is [20]?

I agree that the Hensen et al experiment has too low number of events.

There are several truly loophole-free experiments nowadays.

We should spend our time on something other than this.

/Jan-Åke

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAD%3DV2Ruhy4m-AxBYUMdHOvTTuK%2BS%2BF94FmquGpOVpnYUKsQCUg%40mail.gmail.com.

Jan 23, 2023, 11:17:10 AM1/23/23

to Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Will work on this summary more this evening, but I am trying to communicate something similar to below

Bell's experiment is a brilliant test to settle the issue, and computer models show that Bell's inequalities do conclusively detect the difference between QM vs ERP modeled reality. Computer CHSH experiments [20] with LHV (Local Hidden Variable) models also show that photon loss in polarizing beam splitters using Malus Law distribution, cause a false positive violation of Bell's inequalities **at any loss level**. This is the "Malus Law Detection Loophole", it is much more strict than the standard detection loophole, and requires CHSH experiments to exclude "Malus Law distribution" photon loss completely. CHSH experiments using polarizing beam splitters suffer from the "Malus Law Distribution Loophole" and always provide false positive violations of Bell's inequalities. Electron spin tests do not suffer from "Malus Law Detection Loophole" and should be conducted with large data sets to settle the Bell's inequalities test.

[2] Testing Bells Theorem, https://sites.google.com/site/physicschecker/unsettled-physics/testing-bells-theorem-paper (access 2023-01-22)

Jan 24, 2023, 6:29:39 AM1/24/23

to Алексей Никулов, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Alexey,

You are surely wrong.

I, and others, can use QM to calculate EPR correlations. It is not difficult. The results are confirmed by experiment. If you make different predictions then you are wrong. If you don't know how to make predictions then read the books and learn.

Your supposedly well known principle. Is probably wrong, but certainly not part of the axioms of QM that I know.

An expectation value for an experiment is given by

Tr(\rho A)

For any state \rho and and observable represented by A

Correlation outcomes are just a special case. For an entangled state rho cannot be factorised, which may be where you are confused.

This works for anything, including EPR

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJwNsPKTmQ2Cur-1KbG8wz-mdP1tT5_Z8Rfz8ReCaoK6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Jan 24, 2023, 11:40:19 AM1/24/23

to Mark Hadley, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Mark,

If you do not know about the principle that the operators can fail to

commute only if they act on the same particle, it does not mean that

this principle is not one of the main principles of quantum mechanics.

This principle is used by the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2] when

they apply the operators of measurements of spin projection in

different directions in any order. The authors of the book [3] write

directly about this in section “6.6 The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger

Theorem” : “We know that the three operators Sx(a), Sy(b), and Sy(c)

commute. (This is because each acts on a different particle. Only if

Sx and Sy act on the same particle do they fail to commute.) Thus, we

can apply them to the GHZ state in any order”.

Unfortunately, numerous authors of publications about Bell's

inequalities and participants in the Bell's inequality debate do not

know quantum mechanics, but the perversion of quantum mechanics by

Bohm, or their own fantasies about quantum mechanics. Bohm misled even

Bell. Bell misled all physicists, including to the authors of the GHZ

theorem [1,2], who prove the contradiction of quantum mechanics with

locality with the help of the principle according to which quantum

mechanics cannot contradict locality.

It should be noted that the principle that the operators acting on

different particles commute saves quantum mechanics from predicting

the obvious absurd. Bohm had to abandon this principle in order to

invent the EPR correlation in 1951. As a consequence, the EPR

correlations invented by Bohm logically leads to absurdity, see my

preprint “Logical proof of the absurdity of the EPR correlation”

available at ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation

.

[1] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos,

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 73-76, (1989).

[2] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Shimony A. Zeilinger, A.: Bells

theorem without inequalities. Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131-1143 (1990).

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

Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Jones and

Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 24 янв. 2023 г. в 14:29, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

If you do not know about the principle that the operators can fail to

commute only if they act on the same particle, it does not mean that

this principle is not one of the main principles of quantum mechanics.

This principle is used by the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2] when

they apply the operators of measurements of spin projection in

different directions in any order. The authors of the book [3] write

directly about this in section “6.6 The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger

Theorem” : “We know that the three operators Sx(a), Sy(b), and Sy(c)

commute. (This is because each acts on a different particle. Only if

Sx and Sy act on the same particle do they fail to commute.) Thus, we

can apply them to the GHZ state in any order”.

Unfortunately, numerous authors of publications about Bell's

inequalities and participants in the Bell's inequality debate do not

know quantum mechanics, but the perversion of quantum mechanics by

Bohm, or their own fantasies about quantum mechanics. Bohm misled even

Bell. Bell misled all physicists, including to the authors of the GHZ

theorem [1,2], who prove the contradiction of quantum mechanics with

locality with the help of the principle according to which quantum

mechanics cannot contradict locality.

It should be noted that the principle that the operators acting on

different particles commute saves quantum mechanics from predicting

the obvious absurd. Bohm had to abandon this principle in order to

invent the EPR correlation in 1951. As a consequence, the EPR

correlations invented by Bohm logically leads to absurdity, see my

preprint “Logical proof of the absurdity of the EPR correlation”

available at ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation

.

[1] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s Theorem,

Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos,

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 73-76, (1989).

[2] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Shimony A. Zeilinger, A.: Bells

theorem without inequalities. Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131-1143 (1990).

Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Jones and

Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 24 янв. 2023 г. в 14:29, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

Jan 24, 2023, 2:36:20 PM1/24/23

to Алексей Никулов, Mark Hadley, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Alexei

I have to say that I think you are talking nonsense. But you already know that that is my opinion.

Moreover we had this discussion many times before and as far as I know no single person supports your opinion.

Maybe you can give a reference to any publication by other authors who support your point of view and have expressed it in different words. So far you are not being very successful in communicating your standpoint. If there is someone else who does understand you, maybe they will be better able to explain your argument to us than you are.

Yours

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 17:40, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear Mark,

I have to say that I think you are talking nonsense. But you already know that that is my opinion.

Moreover we had this discussion many times before and as far as I know no single person supports your opinion.

Maybe you can give a reference to any publication by other authors who support your point of view and have expressed it in different words. So far you are not being very successful in communicating your standpoint. If there is someone else who does understand you, maybe they will be better able to explain your argument to us than you are.

Yours

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 17:40, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear Mark,

Jan 24, 2023, 3:05:54 PM1/24/23

to Алексей Никулов, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Alexey,

You may consider it a fundamental principle. I won't argue that with you.

But it's a fact that QM can easily be used to calculate EPR correlations and it gives answers confirmed by experiment.

Are you denying that? Do you have different predictions for EPR outcomes?

Mark

Jan 26, 2023, 4:23:05 AM1/26/23

to Mark Hadley, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Mark,

According to the postulate of quantum mechanics about the Dirac jump,

only a measured particle should jump “into an eigenstate of the

dynamical variable that is being measured”. Therefore when Alice

measures spin projection of the particle A of the EPR pair

|EPR> = (|A+,B-> + |A-,B+>)/2^0.5 (1)

along the z-axis and observe spin up with the probability of 0.5, only

the particle A should jump into the eigenstate along the z-axis,

whereas the state of the particle B should not change according the

principle of quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute

only if they act on the same particle. Therefore Alice will create new

states

|Alice> = |A+z>(|B-> + |B+>)/2^0.5 (2)

according to which Bob will see spin up of the particle B with the

probability of 0.5. Thus, quantum mechanics predicts no correlation

between results of the observations of spin projections in the same

direction of particles in the EPR state (1).

To predict the EPR correlation, it is necessary to postulate that not

only the measured particle A, but also particle B should jump “into an

eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured”. This is

exactly what Bohm did when he claimed about the particles of the EPR

pair that “every component of its spin angular momentum opposite to

that of the other one” and even that ”each atom would continue to have

every component of its spin angular momentum opposite to that of the

other one”, see the section ”The Hypothetical Experiment Einstein,

Rosen and Podolsky” of his book [1].

Bell said in the Introductory remarks “Speakable and unspeakable in

quantum mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting, May 7, 1984 that the

creators of quantum mechanics were sleepwalkers who didn't understand

what they were claiming. That's the smartest thing Bell said. But for

some reason Bell did not understand that Bohm was the same sleepwalker

who did not understand what he was claiming. Bohm was claiming the

following: If Alice directed her analyzer along the z-axis, then not

only her particle, but also Bob's particle should jump into

eigenstates along the z-axis,

|Bohm_z> = |A+z>|B-z> (3z)

but if she directed the analyzer along the x-axis than the both

particles should jump into eigenstates along the x-axis

|Bohm_x> = |A+x>|B-x> (3x)

The expressions (3) predict the EPR correlation along both the z-axis

and the x-axis. They also predict violation of Bell’s inequalities

when the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system are

used. But here the question arises: "What eigenstates should the

particles jump into if Alice directed her analyzer along the z-axis

and Bob along the x-axis?" Quantum mechanics does not put particles in

front of such an absurd choice due to its principle that the operators

can fail to commute only if they act on the same particle. But quantum

mechanics cannot be used to calculate EPR correlations, contrary to

your confidence, also because of this principle.

Bohm misled himself, Bell, and most physicists because of the illusion

that the EPR correlation could be derived from the law of conservation

of angular momentum. This illusion is misleading for several reasons:

1) in physics there is the law of conservation of angular momentum,

but there is no law of conservation of discrete values of angular

momentum projections; 2) in quantum mechanics, conservation laws are

valid with precision only down to the uncertainty relation; 3) only

what exists can be conserved, whereas not only spin projections of

particles, but even spin states that determine the probabilities of

observations of discrete values of spin projections cannot exist in

the EPR state. Therefore, the EPR correlation can be a consequence

only of a peculiarity of the observer's mind, which can create only

oppositely directed projections of spins, and not the conservation

law.

[1] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice-Hall (1951).

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 24 янв. 2023 г. в 23:05, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

According to the postulate of quantum mechanics about the Dirac jump,

only a measured particle should jump “into an eigenstate of the

dynamical variable that is being measured”. Therefore when Alice

measures spin projection of the particle A of the EPR pair

|EPR> = (|A+,B-> + |A-,B+>)/2^0.5 (1)

along the z-axis and observe spin up with the probability of 0.5, only

the particle A should jump into the eigenstate along the z-axis,

whereas the state of the particle B should not change according the

principle of quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute

only if they act on the same particle. Therefore Alice will create new

states

|Alice> = |A+z>(|B-> + |B+>)/2^0.5 (2)

according to which Bob will see spin up of the particle B with the

probability of 0.5. Thus, quantum mechanics predicts no correlation

between results of the observations of spin projections in the same

direction of particles in the EPR state (1).

To predict the EPR correlation, it is necessary to postulate that not

only the measured particle A, but also particle B should jump “into an

eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured”. This is

exactly what Bohm did when he claimed about the particles of the EPR

pair that “every component of its spin angular momentum opposite to

that of the other one” and even that ”each atom would continue to have

every component of its spin angular momentum opposite to that of the

other one”, see the section ”The Hypothetical Experiment Einstein,

Rosen and Podolsky” of his book [1].

Bell said in the Introductory remarks “Speakable and unspeakable in

quantum mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting, May 7, 1984 that the

creators of quantum mechanics were sleepwalkers who didn't understand

what they were claiming. That's the smartest thing Bell said. But for

some reason Bell did not understand that Bohm was the same sleepwalker

who did not understand what he was claiming. Bohm was claiming the

following: If Alice directed her analyzer along the z-axis, then not

only her particle, but also Bob's particle should jump into

eigenstates along the z-axis,

|Bohm_z> = |A+z>|B-z> (3z)

but if she directed the analyzer along the x-axis than the both

particles should jump into eigenstates along the x-axis

|Bohm_x> = |A+x>|B-x> (3x)

The expressions (3) predict the EPR correlation along both the z-axis

and the x-axis. They also predict violation of Bell’s inequalities

when the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system are

used. But here the question arises: "What eigenstates should the

particles jump into if Alice directed her analyzer along the z-axis

and Bob along the x-axis?" Quantum mechanics does not put particles in

front of such an absurd choice due to its principle that the operators

can fail to commute only if they act on the same particle. But quantum

mechanics cannot be used to calculate EPR correlations, contrary to

your confidence, also because of this principle.

Bohm misled himself, Bell, and most physicists because of the illusion

that the EPR correlation could be derived from the law of conservation

of angular momentum. This illusion is misleading for several reasons:

1) in physics there is the law of conservation of angular momentum,

but there is no law of conservation of discrete values of angular

momentum projections; 2) in quantum mechanics, conservation laws are

valid with precision only down to the uncertainty relation; 3) only

what exists can be conserved, whereas not only spin projections of

particles, but even spin states that determine the probabilities of

observations of discrete values of spin projections cannot exist in

the EPR state. Therefore, the EPR correlation can be a consequence

only of a peculiarity of the observer's mind, which can create only

oppositely directed projections of spins, and not the conservation

law.

[1] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice-Hall (1951).

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 24 янв. 2023 г. в 23:05, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

Jan 26, 2023, 5:04:49 AM1/26/23

to Алексей Никулов, Mark Hadley, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Alexei, it seems you use different postulates from just about everyone else. That makes communication difficult. Maybe you should write out your postulates in a clear mathematical form.

>

> Dear Mark,

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Jan 2023, at 10:23, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone

>

> Dear Mark,

Jan 26, 2023, 5:11:46 AM1/26/23

to Алексей Никулов, James Tankersley Jr, Chantal Roth, Richard Gill, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Alexey,

What you are saying is simply wrong. And is refuted by experiments

I've never come across that postulate. It's unnecessary and as you show it is wrong. It may be a good working assumption for systems that are not entangled.

In QM the expected outcome of of an experiment is given by the Trace of the state operator and measurement operator. I'd say that was axiomatic. Try deriving your postulate from the axiom. I think you will find it only follows as a special case.

In EPR the beam is unpolarised. It can be expressed as a classical mixture up/down + down/up The decomposition is not unique. A measurement of one side reveals which of the two it is.

To give another counter example if I split a pair of shoes into two boxes and send one to Alice and the other to Bob. Then they have a 50:50 chance of having a left shoe. As soon as Alice finds a left shoe that changes the probability of Bob having a left shoe.

Cheers

Mark

Jan 26, 2023, 5:19:20 AM1/26/23

to Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

On 2023-01-26 11:11, 'Mark Hadley' via
Bell inequalities and quantum foundations wrote:

Dear Alexey,What you are saying is simply wrong. And is refuted by experiments

I've never come across that postulate. It's unnecessary and as you show it is wrong. It may be a good working assumption for systems that are not entangled.

In QM the expected outcome of of an experiment is given by the Trace of the state operator and measurement operator. I'd say that was axiomatic. Try deriving your postulate from the axiom. I think you will find it only follows as a special case.

In EPR the beam is unpolarised. It can be expressed as a classical mixture up/down + down/up The decomposition is not unique. A measurement of one side reveals which of the two it is.

In EPR EACH SINGLE beam is unpolarized. THE TWO-SYSTEM state CANNOT
be expressed as a classical mixture up/down+down/up. The
decomposition INTO SUPERPOSITIONS is not unique. A measurement of
one side projects onto a single vector for the other side.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1hbT_uLmtfhkf%3DURS1OMbN00-zM4moEXdsUZSRz9GuEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Jan 26, 2023, 12:12:35 PM1/26/23

to Mark Hadley, Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com, Jan-Åke Larsson, Richard Gill, Inge Svein Helland

Dear Mark,

Schrodinger defined in 1935 the EPR (Einstein – Podolsky - Rosen)

correlation as ‘entanglement of our knowledge’: ”Maximal knowledge of

a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its

parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at

the moment are not influencing each other at all”. Your example with a

pair of shoes is the example ‘entanglement of our knowledge’. I

consider a similar example in the preprint “Logical proof of the

a closed box. Bob takes one ball without looking, and drives away with

it at an arbitrarily long distance. Alice, before she looks at the

remaining ball, knows that Bob will see the blue ball with a

probability of 0.5 and with the same probability of the red ball. Her

knowledge can be described using the expression for the EPR pair

The knowledge of Alice will change when she will see the red ball, for

example. The new knowledge may be described with the help of the

expression

|Alice> = |A+>|B-> (2)

which means that she will see the red ball with the probability of 1

during the second observation, and Bob will see a blue ball with the

same reliability.

The expression (1) for the EPR pair can be used for the description of

Alice’s knowledge about both balls and spin projections since only two

results can be observed in both cases. But a fundamental difference is

between these cases. We can think that Alice sees a red ball since her

ball was red before her observation. But we cannot think so in the

case of spin projections since spin projections can be measured in

different directions.

To make the essence of the fundamental difference clear even to

schoolchildren, I marked the spin projections in different directions

with different colors in Fig.1 of my preprint “Logical proof of the

absurdity of the EPR correlation”. Even smart schoolchildren should

understand due to Fig.1 that quantum mechanics cannot do without the

Dirac jump because the observable does not exist before observation.

The Dirac jump can provide the perfect correlation between the results

of the first and second measurement of the same dynamical variable,

i.e. spin projections in the same direction. But the Dirac jump cannot

provide the EPR correlation since Dirac postulated in 1930 that only a

wrong? Don't you agree that the Dirac jump can provide the perfect

correlation between the results of the first and second measurements

of a single particle, but cannot provide the EPR correlation? I am not

talking about an experiment, but about the fact that quantum mechanics

cannot predict EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities. If

you think that there is absolutely reliable experimental evidence for

the violation of Bell's inequalities, then you should conclude that

quantum mechanics is the wrong theory.

With best wishes,

Alexey

чт, 26 янв. 2023 г. в 13:19, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities

and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>:

Schrodinger defined in 1935 the EPR (Einstein – Podolsky - Rosen)

correlation as ‘entanglement of our knowledge’: ”Maximal knowledge of

a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its

parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at

the moment are not influencing each other at all”. Your example with a

pair of shoes is the example ‘entanglement of our knowledge’. I

consider a similar example in the preprint “Logical proof of the

absurdity of the EPR correlation” available at ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation

.

Two observers Alice and Bob know that two balls, red and blue, are in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation

.

a closed box. Bob takes one ball without looking, and drives away with

it at an arbitrarily long distance. Alice, before she looks at the

remaining ball, knows that Bob will see the blue ball with a

probability of 0.5 and with the same probability of the red ball. Her

knowledge can be described using the expression for the EPR pair

|EPR> = (|A+,B-> + |A-,B+>)/2^0.5 (1)

in which (+) represents the red ball and (-) represents the blue ball.
The knowledge of Alice will change when she will see the red ball, for

example. The new knowledge may be described with the help of the

expression

|Alice> = |A+>|B-> (2)

which means that she will see the red ball with the probability of 1

during the second observation, and Bob will see a blue ball with the

same reliability.

The expression (1) for the EPR pair can be used for the description of

Alice’s knowledge about both balls and spin projections since only two

results can be observed in both cases. But a fundamental difference is

between these cases. We can think that Alice sees a red ball since her

ball was red before her observation. But we cannot think so in the

case of spin projections since spin projections can be measured in

different directions.

To make the essence of the fundamental difference clear even to

schoolchildren, I marked the spin projections in different directions

with different colors in Fig.1 of my preprint “Logical proof of the

absurdity of the EPR correlation”. Even smart schoolchildren should

understand due to Fig.1 that quantum mechanics cannot do without the

Dirac jump because the observable does not exist before observation.

The Dirac jump can provide the perfect correlation between the results

of the first and second measurement of the same dynamical variable,

i.e. spin projections in the same direction. But the Dirac jump cannot

provide the EPR correlation since Dirac postulated in 1930 that only a

measured particle should jump “into an eigenstate of the dynamical

variable that is being measured”.

You wrote that what I was saying is simply wrong. But what exactly is
variable that is being measured”.

wrong? Don't you agree that the Dirac jump can provide the perfect

correlation between the results of the first and second measurements

of a single particle, but cannot provide the EPR correlation? I am not

talking about an experiment, but about the fact that quantum mechanics

cannot predict EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities. If

you think that there is absolutely reliable experimental evidence for

the violation of Bell's inequalities, then you should conclude that

quantum mechanics is the wrong theory.

With best wishes,

Alexey

чт, 26 янв. 2023 г. в 13:19, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities

and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>:

> Department of Electrical Engineering

> SE-581 83 Linköping

> Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68

> Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68

> Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512

> Please visit us at www.liu.se

>

> SE-581 83 Linköping

> Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68

> Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68

> Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512

> Please visit us at www.liu.se

>

> --

> 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/db9a126c-c97d-74f9-3627-9915d866c231%40liu.se.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

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

Jan 26, 2023, 12:27:12 PM1/26/23

to Алексей Никулов, Bell inequalities and quantum foundations, Jan-Åke Larsson, Richard Gill, Inge Svein Helland

Dear Alexey,

Yes QM can calculate the correlations. It's done in the text books and is confirmed by experiment. It is the same rule that applies to any system. What more can I say?

Cheers

Mark

Jan 26, 2023, 1:11:58 PM1/26/23

to Алексей Никулов, Mark Hadley, Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com, Jan-Åke Larsson, Inge Svein Helland

Alexei

I think you should read some modern textbooks on quantum mechanics and find out what the postulates are which everyone else is using these days. They are used to compute theoretical correlations in the EPR-B model. Those same correlations are observed in rigorously performed experiments. There is no need to assume a Dirac jump. One needs only the Born rule for the statistics of measurements of commuting observables.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Jan 2023, at 18:12, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear Mark,

I think you should read some modern textbooks on quantum mechanics and find out what the postulates are which everyone else is using these days. They are used to compute theoretical correlations in the EPR-B model. Those same correlations are observed in rigorously performed experiments. There is no need to assume a Dirac jump. One needs only the Born rule for the statistics of measurements of commuting observables.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

>

> Dear Mark,

Jan 27, 2023, 8:54:13 AM1/27/23

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

I do not comment on Alexey's postulates but he seems to deny non-local change in a second particle caused immediately by a measurement on the first particle in an entangled pair. That fits* my backwards-in-time-antiparticles model or retrocausal model.

With this particular form of retrocausal assumption, each entangled particle is either polarised 'towards or away from' Alice's detector setting or 'towards or away from' Bob's detector setting. The entangled particle beams do not have random or unpolarised settings during a simple Bell experiment.

Other than the spookiness of retrocausal microscopic effects there is no spookiness in the correlation calculations. In fact, Malus's Law plus retrocausality is sufficient to produce the high correlations.

Susskind's online course on entanglement provided a QM calculation of a high correlation for a concrete example where theta = 45 degrees. Unfortunately the calculation was merely a Malus calculation as the random particle setting was aligned with Alice's detector setting. Then Susskind said that, since a correlation between two vectors is independent of the absolute orientation of either of the vectors, the same correlation applies to any incident random particle polarisation vector. To me that was hand-waving. So I tried to calculate, myself, the correlation for random incident particle polarisation vectors but failed. I have seen an abstract version of the calculation and presume it works. Nevertheless, in my retrocausal model there are no random particle polarisation vectors in a (simple two-particle) Bell experiment so the QM calculations are not necessary for my model. As I noted, Malus's Law suffices for my model.

* Although, if the backwards in time frame is denied than the communication appears to be instantaneous non-locally in a forwards-in-time-only frame.

With this particular form of retrocausal assumption, each entangled particle is either polarised 'towards or away from' Alice's detector setting or 'towards or away from' Bob's detector setting. The entangled particle beams do not have random or unpolarised settings during a simple Bell experiment.

Other than the spookiness of retrocausal microscopic effects there is no spookiness in the correlation calculations. In fact, Malus's Law plus retrocausality is sufficient to produce the high correlations.

Susskind's online course on entanglement provided a QM calculation of a high correlation for a concrete example where theta = 45 degrees. Unfortunately the calculation was merely a Malus calculation as the random particle setting was aligned with Alice's detector setting. Then Susskind said that, since a correlation between two vectors is independent of the absolute orientation of either of the vectors, the same correlation applies to any incident random particle polarisation vector. To me that was hand-waving. So I tried to calculate, myself, the correlation for random incident particle polarisation vectors but failed. I have seen an abstract version of the calculation and presume it works. Nevertheless, in my retrocausal model there are no random particle polarisation vectors in a (simple two-particle) Bell experiment so the QM calculations are not necessary for my model. As I noted, Malus's Law suffices for my model.

* Although, if the backwards in time frame is denied than the communication appears to be instantaneous non-locally in a forwards-in-time-only frame.

Austin

Jan 27, 2023, 9:00:25 AM1/27/23

to Austin Fearnley, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Austin

There is no spookiness in the standard correlation calculation following Born’s law as generalised to the case of joint measurement of two compatible observables. If you think Born’s law is unremarkable then there is nothing remarkable about the EPR-B correlations at all (except that it is nice that those correlations could not hold under local hidden variables). Since we see those correlations in the real world the conclusion is that the real world cannot be understood as following local hidden variables.

Richard

Jan 27, 2023, 11:48:35 AM1/27/23

to Richard Gill, Austin Fearnley, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Dear Richard,

The necessity of the Dirac jump follows logically from Born's

proposal. Therefore, anyone who thinks that it is possible to do with

the Born rule without the Dirac jump simply does not understand

quantum mechanics. Einstein drew attention to the need for the Dirac

jump as early as 1927, before Dirac postulated the jump in 1930.

Einstein considered a simple example during the discussion at the

Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927. A particle flying through a small

hole propagates further as a spherical probability wave, according to

Born’s proposal. Before the first observation, the probability is not

zero along the entire front of the spherical wave. But once we see a

particle at one point in space, the probability at other points should

instantly become zero. Otherwise, quantum mechanics will predict the

possibility of seeing one particle in several places at once, i.e. the

absurd. The jump in the quantum state must be instantaneous and

non-local, since the first and second observations can be made after

an arbitrarily small period of time. Therefore Einstein rightly noted

in 1927, that Born’s proposal ”leads to a contradiction with the

postulate of relativity”.

I draw your attention that Bell interpreted in his talk ”Speakable and

unspeakable in quantum mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting 1984

experimental evidence of violation of Bell’s inequalities obtained by

Alain Aspect in 1982 as conflict between quantum mechanics and

relativity theory: ”For me then this is the real problem with quantum

theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp

formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an

apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two

fundamental pillars of contemporary theory... and of our meeting”.

Dirac, in contrast to Einstein, did not understand that his jump

”leads to a contradiction with the postulate of relativity”. Therefore

he postulated a contradiction of quantum mechanics with the relativity

theory and proposed relativistic quantum mechanics in the same book

[1] published in 1930.

In addition, Dirac and other creators of quantum mechanics provoked

the famous EPR work [2], Bell’s inequalities and disputes about Bell’s

inequalities, which continue to this day, by false substitution of

’observation’ by ’measurement’. There is no need to assume the Dirac

jump for many modern authors since they believe rather than understand

quantum mechanics. Believers in quantum mechanics really don't like

the Dirac jump or the reduction postulate. Bell quoted in his famous

report "Against Measurement" [3] one such believer, Kurt Gottfried,

who said in 1989 that “the reduction postulate is an ugly scar on what

would be a beautiful theory if it could be removed”.

Kurt Gottfried and Bell understood that the ugly scar cannot be

removed. The authors of some modern textbooks on quantum mechanics,

which you read, do not understand this, which is another evidence of a

regression in understanding. I think you should read the Bell work

“Against Measuremen” [3] rather than some modern textbooks on quantum

mechanics. Bell perfectly explains how some textbooks are misleading.

Bell also said something that believers don't want to understand:

“Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I

think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden

business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of

fundamental theory” [3]. Einstein tried in 1926 to convince young

Heisenberg that his proposal to describe observables is wrong since

”observation is a very complicated process”. Einstein explained quite

clearly that Heisenberg’s proposal does not simplify, but complicates

the task of theory.

But it seems only John Bell understood this obvious fact. Einstein and

Bell are obviously right. But the task of the theory can be simplified

if we describe observables and do not describe an observation process.

In this case, all the difficulties that do not allow us to describe

paradoxical quantum phenomena as manifestations of reality can be

hidden in an observation process that cannot be described. That is why

quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a physical theory.

Unfortunately only Schrodinger and a few critics understood this

obvious fact. Numerous believers in quantum mechanics do not want to

understand this obvious fact up to now.

You have repeatedly written that Bell's inequalities prove the

inapplicability of the theory of hidden variables. But why can

variables be hidden? Bell explained in his first paper [4] that

variables can be hidden due to a trick with ‘measurement’. If we

postulate, as Bohr did, that the measurement process cannot be

described, as well as an observation process, then the requirement of

locality is the only way to distinguish the first from the second,

since the measurement process must be local, like any real process,

and the observation process, as unreal, can be non-local. A theory of

hidden variables differs from quantum mechanics in that it uses the

trick with ’measurement’ rather than the trick with ’observation’.

Bell understood that ’hidden variables’ should be ’hidden’ ”because if

states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be

prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate” [4]. But

for some reason he did not understand that the trick with

’measurement’ is no better than the trick with ’observation’.

Therefore Bell claimed in 1988 that ”The proof of von Neumann is not

merely false but foolish!”, see Mermin’s review article [5]. Bell

argued in 1966 [4] that the von Neumann proof is false since the trick

with ’measurement’ cannot be distinguished from the trick with

’observation’ without the requirement of locality. It is correct. But

the von Neumann proof can be considered false, unless von Neumann

understood that the substitution of ’observation’ by ’measurement’ is

false. Von Neumann obviously understood this, as Bell himself said in

1989: ”He dismisses out of hand the notion of von Neumann, Pauli,

Wigner that ’measurement’ might be complete only in the mind of the

observer” [3]. The ’measurement’, which might be complete only in the

mind of the observer, is ’observation’.

You should understand, although you hardly want to, that this story

with Bell's inequalities is a consequence of the delusion of most

physicists who believed rather than understood quantum mechanics. You

recommend that I read modern textbooks on quantum mechanics. I read

some of them and I am horrified by the regression in understanding

quantum mechanics. Books about quantum computing are especially naive.

Recently I submitted a manuscript “Quantum register cannot be real” in

‘Foundations of Physics’ in which I draw attention, in particular, to

the terrifying naivety of the authors of the well-known book M.A.

Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,

Cambridge University Press (2000). These authors are sure that the

Stern-Gerlach experiment gives evidence of the real existence of

qubits in Nature. They should have at least read the beginning of

Bell's article about Bertlmann’s socks [6] to understand that no

theory can describe this experiment and that the creators of quantum

mechanics refused to describe reality precisely because it was

impossible to describe such experiments realistically.

[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University

Press (1958)

[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum-Mechanical

Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,

777-780 (1935).

[3] J. S. Bell, Against Measurement. in the proceedings of 62Years of

Uncertainty, Plenum Publishing, New York (1989); Physics World, 3,

33-40 (1990).

[4] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum

mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966).

[5] N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).

[6] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal de

Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пт, 27 янв. 2023 г. в 17:00, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

The necessity of the Dirac jump follows logically from Born's

proposal. Therefore, anyone who thinks that it is possible to do with

the Born rule without the Dirac jump simply does not understand

quantum mechanics. Einstein drew attention to the need for the Dirac

jump as early as 1927, before Dirac postulated the jump in 1930.

Einstein considered a simple example during the discussion at the

Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927. A particle flying through a small

hole propagates further as a spherical probability wave, according to

Born’s proposal. Before the first observation, the probability is not

zero along the entire front of the spherical wave. But once we see a

particle at one point in space, the probability at other points should

instantly become zero. Otherwise, quantum mechanics will predict the

possibility of seeing one particle in several places at once, i.e. the

absurd. The jump in the quantum state must be instantaneous and

non-local, since the first and second observations can be made after

an arbitrarily small period of time. Therefore Einstein rightly noted

in 1927, that Born’s proposal ”leads to a contradiction with the

postulate of relativity”.

I draw your attention that Bell interpreted in his talk ”Speakable and

unspeakable in quantum mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting 1984

experimental evidence of violation of Bell’s inequalities obtained by

Alain Aspect in 1982 as conflict between quantum mechanics and

relativity theory: ”For me then this is the real problem with quantum

theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp

formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an

apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two

fundamental pillars of contemporary theory... and of our meeting”.

Dirac, in contrast to Einstein, did not understand that his jump

”leads to a contradiction with the postulate of relativity”. Therefore

he postulated a contradiction of quantum mechanics with the relativity

theory and proposed relativistic quantum mechanics in the same book

[1] published in 1930.

In addition, Dirac and other creators of quantum mechanics provoked

the famous EPR work [2], Bell’s inequalities and disputes about Bell’s

inequalities, which continue to this day, by false substitution of

’observation’ by ’measurement’. There is no need to assume the Dirac

jump for many modern authors since they believe rather than understand

quantum mechanics. Believers in quantum mechanics really don't like

the Dirac jump or the reduction postulate. Bell quoted in his famous

report "Against Measurement" [3] one such believer, Kurt Gottfried,

who said in 1989 that “the reduction postulate is an ugly scar on what

would be a beautiful theory if it could be removed”.

Kurt Gottfried and Bell understood that the ugly scar cannot be

removed. The authors of some modern textbooks on quantum mechanics,

which you read, do not understand this, which is another evidence of a

regression in understanding. I think you should read the Bell work

“Against Measuremen” [3] rather than some modern textbooks on quantum

mechanics. Bell perfectly explains how some textbooks are misleading.

Bell also said something that believers don't want to understand:

“Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I

think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden

business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of

fundamental theory” [3]. Einstein tried in 1926 to convince young

Heisenberg that his proposal to describe observables is wrong since

”observation is a very complicated process”. Einstein explained quite

clearly that Heisenberg’s proposal does not simplify, but complicates

the task of theory.

But it seems only John Bell understood this obvious fact. Einstein and

Bell are obviously right. But the task of the theory can be simplified

if we describe observables and do not describe an observation process.

In this case, all the difficulties that do not allow us to describe

paradoxical quantum phenomena as manifestations of reality can be

hidden in an observation process that cannot be described. That is why

quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a physical theory.

Unfortunately only Schrodinger and a few critics understood this

obvious fact. Numerous believers in quantum mechanics do not want to

understand this obvious fact up to now.

You have repeatedly written that Bell's inequalities prove the

inapplicability of the theory of hidden variables. But why can

variables be hidden? Bell explained in his first paper [4] that

variables can be hidden due to a trick with ‘measurement’. If we

postulate, as Bohr did, that the measurement process cannot be

described, as well as an observation process, then the requirement of

locality is the only way to distinguish the first from the second,

since the measurement process must be local, like any real process,

and the observation process, as unreal, can be non-local. A theory of

hidden variables differs from quantum mechanics in that it uses the

trick with ’measurement’ rather than the trick with ’observation’.

Bell understood that ’hidden variables’ should be ’hidden’ ”because if

states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be

prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate” [4]. But

for some reason he did not understand that the trick with

’measurement’ is no better than the trick with ’observation’.

Therefore Bell claimed in 1988 that ”The proof of von Neumann is not

merely false but foolish!”, see Mermin’s review article [5]. Bell

argued in 1966 [4] that the von Neumann proof is false since the trick

with ’measurement’ cannot be distinguished from the trick with

’observation’ without the requirement of locality. It is correct. But

the von Neumann proof can be considered false, unless von Neumann

understood that the substitution of ’observation’ by ’measurement’ is

false. Von Neumann obviously understood this, as Bell himself said in

1989: ”He dismisses out of hand the notion of von Neumann, Pauli,

Wigner that ’measurement’ might be complete only in the mind of the

observer” [3]. The ’measurement’, which might be complete only in the

mind of the observer, is ’observation’.

You should understand, although you hardly want to, that this story

with Bell's inequalities is a consequence of the delusion of most

physicists who believed rather than understood quantum mechanics. You

recommend that I read modern textbooks on quantum mechanics. I read

some of them and I am horrified by the regression in understanding

quantum mechanics. Books about quantum computing are especially naive.

Recently I submitted a manuscript “Quantum register cannot be real” in

‘Foundations of Physics’ in which I draw attention, in particular, to

the terrifying naivety of the authors of the well-known book M.A.

Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,

Cambridge University Press (2000). These authors are sure that the

Stern-Gerlach experiment gives evidence of the real existence of

qubits in Nature. They should have at least read the beginning of

Bell's article about Bertlmann’s socks [6] to understand that no

theory can describe this experiment and that the creators of quantum

mechanics refused to describe reality precisely because it was

impossible to describe such experiments realistically.

[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University

Press (1958)

[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum-Mechanical

Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,

777-780 (1935).

[3] J. S. Bell, Against Measurement. in the proceedings of 62Years of

Uncertainty, Plenum Publishing, New York (1989); Physics World, 3,

33-40 (1990).

[4] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum

mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966).

[5] N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).

[6] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal de

Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пт, 27 янв. 2023 г. в 17:00, 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/542C5DC6-1A54-4802-A715-296F0EE8C8E8%40gmail.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.

Jan 27, 2023, 12:21:22 PM1/27/23

to 'Scott Glancy' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

Hi Alexey,

I totally agree that this is an important topic! It seems to me, people prefer to be in denial about this or just "mask" the issue by using different names for it :-). I am glad you are not giving up:-).

Maybe you should present it in our seminar and we can discuss it in detail?

(I know you brought it up many times, and I also remember I commented on it a few times, but we really need to dig deeper on this I think, not sweep this all under the rug yet again :-).

What is YOUR solution to the issue?

And of course, how do you explain the EPR experiments?

(The "old" CHSH ones are obviously just due to the experimental setup, there is nothing at all special about them. The newer ones with the Eberhard inequality are a bit harder to explain).

(I haven't read the latest paper yet though, I will do that asap).

Someone recently said that people who don't "believe" this should prove it wrong, which is not how science normally works :-).

I mean, anyone who seriously thinks about this probably admits at some point that this "instant" collapse is kind of crazy, and that there are contradictions (or crazy explanations). It seems to me, the burden to prove it is on those who seriously believe that :-).

Best wishes,

Chantal

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iLcDjX18vEr0McieJuVEqsq%2BGtiyKfWJqxPaCCBn18pnw%40mail.gmail.com.

I totally agree that this is an important topic! It seems to me, people prefer to be in denial about this or just "mask" the issue by using different names for it :-). I am glad you are not giving up:-).

Maybe you should present it in our seminar and we can discuss it in detail?

(I know you brought it up many times, and I also remember I commented on it a few times, but we really need to dig deeper on this I think, not sweep this all under the rug yet again :-).

What is YOUR solution to the issue?

And of course, how do you explain the EPR experiments?

(The "old" CHSH ones are obviously just due to the experimental setup, there is nothing at all special about them. The newer ones with the Eberhard inequality are a bit harder to explain).

(I haven't read the latest paper yet though, I will do that asap).

Someone recently said that people who don't "believe" this should prove it wrong, which is not how science normally works :-).

I mean, anyone who seriously thinks about this probably admits at some point that this "instant" collapse is kind of crazy, and that there are contradictions (or crazy explanations). It seems to me, the burden to prove it is on those who seriously believe that :-).

Best wishes,

Chantal

Jan 28, 2023, 10:44:17 AM1/28/23