What if the solution is a preferred frame?

[ilja.sc...@gmail.com]

There are, roughly, two ways to solve the problem created by the violation of the Bell inequalities.  The first is to preserve Einstein causality (misnamed "locality" as if a theory with maximal speed of information transfer of 1000 c would be "nonlocal")  at all costs.  The costs are quite big, you have to give up realism, even in such a weak form as EPR realism, you have to weaken the notion of causality too, given that you have to reject the common cause principle. And one can reasonably ask if what remains after this - "signal causality" - is even worth to be named "causality".  

And there is the other solution - the acceptance of a "hidden" preferred frame.  

My impression is that there is a very strong prejudice against this solution, even on the emotional level. I think all of us (me too) have been impressed in childhood by the popular argumentation following Einstein in favor of special relativity, against those "common sense" ideas like absolute simultaneity.  And this was a positive impression - else we would have done something completely different, but not physics.  So, all the elements we need for strong emotional prejudices are present: Started in childhood, strong impression, emotional importance even for the choice of profession, what else is missed here?   All I can do here is to ask the reader to think about this - maybe his response is not that much rational but influenced by such emotional things?  

Whatever, I think in a group discussing Bell inequalities there should be some part discussing this particular possibility:  That there is a "hidden" preferred frame, and this hidden frame defines a classical notion causality (with common cause principle), some absolute contemporaneity (so that there will be a notion of realism restricted to what exists "now").  

The point is that many scientist will have objections against such a preferred frame which can be easily answered - but only if there is a place to discuss them.  So I think it would be useful to have some thread to discuss such all the imaginable objections against the preferred frame solution. 

In this starting post I will mention only one, but IMHO the most reasonable objection against a preferred frame:  That it would be problematic to extend it into the domain of general relativity.  This argument was correct for a quite long time, but today a generalization of the Lorentz ether interpretation to gravity is known:

Schmelzer, I. (2012). A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit. Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22(1), 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035.

It is a different theory of gravity, but very close to the field-theoretic variant of GR. One simply introduces a gauge-breaking term into the Lagrangian which enforces the harmonic gauge.  So, in the limit when this term goes to zero we obtain the Einstein equations in harmonic coordinates on a fixed background.  

What are other objections against the hypothesis of a "hidden" preferred frame?

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Instead of math, why not to propose experiments (e.g. "Michelson-type”) to test the idea?

--
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/69bd0162-1e4e-4b84-a948-b14eaf16512dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

I also wanted to ask: does Ilja’s framework also make predictions which differ from those of existing frameworks? Or does it only exactly reproduce what QM and general relativity each predict?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAMhtMsZONZvM6%3DVZ9nqZ407Ob-zTZNU%2BfMoFSDf%2BYTyeEc3NCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kupczynski, Marian]

Hi Ilya

As everybody knows relativistic invariance is the important underlying assumption of QED and the standard model, thus the relativistic invariance should somehow emerge from any Ether-based theory ?. The problem of the existence of Ether is an interesting topic by it-self and should be discussed. Perhaps Ether is somehow related to so called Vacuum state, which has complicated properties and has nothing to do with colloquially understood vacuum. Perhaps it could have something to do with the black matter etc.?


However as I try to explain in my papers the violation of Bell inequalities implies neither the rejection of the common cause nor the locality of Nature. One has only understand the active role of measuring instruments and contextuality. I will talk about it on November 26 (?).

Marian

________________________________
From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of ilja.sc...@gmail.com <ilja.sc...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 12:47:30 AM
To: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Subject: [Bell_quantum_foundations] What if the solution is a preferred frame?


[Externe UQO*]

--
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<mailto:Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/69bd0162-1e4e-4b84-a948-b14eaf16512dn%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/69bd0162-1e4e-4b84-a948-b14eaf16512dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

*ATTENTION : L’émetteur de ce courriel est externe à l’Université du Québec en Outaouais.
Évitez absolument de cliquer sur un hyperlien, d’ouvrir une pièce jointe ou de transmettre des informations si vous ne connaissez pas l’expéditeur du courriel ou si l’adresse courriel de votre interlocuteur vous paraît étrange. En cas de doute, n’hésitez pas à soumettre le courriel pour analyse à l’équipe de soutien technique via l’adresse courriel : inci...@uqo.ca.

[ilja.sc...@gmail.com]

> geraldoabarbosa schrieb am Sonntag, 7. November 2021 um 16:13:46 UTC+6:30:

> Instead of math, why not to propose experiments (e.g. "Michelson-type”) to test the idea?

Because the discussion is about metaphysical and methodological questions.   Not about agreement with observation. You gain realism and full causality, your "loss" is that you have to return to the original interpretation of SR, the Lorentz ether, which is much better compatible with common sense.  Essentially no loss at all.  

Richard Gill schrieb am Sonntag, 7. November 2021 um 16:39:50 UTC+6:30:

I also wanted to ask: does Ilja’s framework also make predictions which differ from those of existing frameworks? Or does it only exactly reproduce what QM and general relativity each predict?

The Lorentz ether is a framework where the realistic and causal interpretations  of QT, which use the non-relativistic formalism, in particular the Schroedinger equation i partial_t  \psi(q,t)  = \hat{H } \psi(q,t), can be used in the relativistic context too, simply by using absolute time of the Lorentz ether as t.  

It is not the Lorentz ether which makes additional predictions, but the Minkowski spacetime interpretation.  With causality and realism as given, the Minkowski spacetime allows to prove the Bell inequalities, but the Lorentz ether is too weak to prove it.  So, the Minkowski spacetime predicts the Bell inequalities, and is falsified by violation of the BI.  Usually end of discussion.  But, surprisingly, not in this case.  Here people are ready to throw away as realism, as causality just to save their purely metaphysical preference.  

I don't understand why.  

[ilja.sc...@gmail.com]

Kupczynski, Marian schrieb am Sonntag, 7. November 2021 um 19:41:44 UTC+6:30:

As everybody knows relativistic invariance is the important underlying assumption of QED and the standard model, thus the relativistic invariance should somehow emerge from any Ether-based theory ?

Yes, and it does.  BTW, the trick is quite easy.  In the Lorentz ether, the Strong Equivalence Principle does not hold, but the Einstein Equivalence Principle holds exactly.  And this is a proven theorem.  Moreover, the derivation is surprisingly simple:

Assume we have a completely non-relativistic theory on a Newtonian background. We assume a Lagrange formalism and translational invariance in background space and time. Then we look at the Euler-Lagrange equations for the preferred background coordinates. This gives Noether conservation laws for energy and momentum. Assume that the stress-energy-momentum tensor is symmetric. (Lorentz symmetry of the background allows to prove this but is not necessary - Galilean invariance and O(4) symmetry have symmetric stress-energy-momentum tensor too.) Then, define the "gravitational field" by this stress-energy-momentum tensor on the background: \( g^{ab}\sqrt{|g|} = T^{ab}\). Then change the variables naming all other variables beyond the preferred coordinates and the "gravitational field" "matter fields".  What can go wrong here is that the coefficients of the gravitational field are not independent, just because there are not enough independent degrees of freedom in the theory.  What else?

The Noether conservation law,  that means, the Euler-Lagrange equation for the preferred coordinates, is now by construction the harmonic condition.  It depends only on the gravitational field, not on the matter fields.  What follows now from "action equals reaction" (which is that we can change the order of functional derivatives in the same way as usual partial derivatives)?   The Euler-Lagrange for the matter fields also cannot depend on the preferred coordinates.  And this is already the EEP.  

However as I try to explain in my papers the violation of Bell inequalities implies neither the rejection of the common cause nor the locality of Nature. One has only understand the active role of measuring instruments and contextuality. I will talk about it on November 26 (?).

Contextuality is not sufficient to violate Bell's inequality over big distances without causal influences.  

There is a lot of contextuality in our everyday interactions.  Ask you friend about something, he does not know already, hi will think about it. this makes his answer already contextual. 

[sgl...@nist.gov]

In what sense does a preferred reference frame solve the problem created by Bell Inequalities?

[ilja.sc...@gmail.com]

sgl...@nist.gov schrieb am Montag, 8. November 2021 um 06:01:03 UTC+6:30:

In what sense does a preferred reference frame solve the problem created by Bell Inequalities?

 It allows for an explanation which is realistic and causal.  Not Einstein-causal, but classical causal, with classical causality defined in terms of the preferred absolute time t:  Causal influences into the past, that means, from time t_1 to time t_2 with  t_1 > t_2,  are forbidden, any causal influence from time t_1 to time t_2 requires t_1 < t_2.  

In this case, faster than light causal influences are allowed, and can be used to explain violations of the BI by causal FTL influences of the particle measured first on the other particle.  

[sgl...@nist.gov]

Thanks for explaining.  It seems to me that the possibility of faster-than-light influences, rather than the existence of the preferred reference frame, is doing the heavy lifting in providing a realistic explanation of Bell tests.  Is the motivation for the preferred reference frame that it preserves causal ordering, at least in that one reference frame?

I think that one can succeed in constructing a realistic (hidden variable) theory of Bell tests if the hidden variables can communicate with one another faster than light.

Like Richard, I think that most interesting questions would be about whether this theory makes any new, observable predictions or whether it makes the same predictions as standard quantum theory.

Scott Glancy

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Ilja,
I wrote June 27 that mass delusion about quantum mechanics is one of
the manifestations of the crisis of modern science, which is a
consequence of the degradation of European culture. Unfortunately, you
could not or did not want to understand what is the sense of the
degradation of European culture and how it is related to quantum
mechanics. In order to understand this sense it is needed to
understand why Martin Heidegger, the last philosopher of Germany,
considered Nietzsche's philosophy of the will to power as the
completion of European philosophy.
Your claim about only “two ways to solve the problem created by the
violation of the Bell inequalities” is a manifestation of the will to
power, at least will, not understanding. Your will prevents you from
understanding, first of all, that the violation of Bell's inequalities
has not created any new problems that would not have existed long
before Bell proposed his inequalities. Only a blind will could have
made you claim such nonsense as the possibility of realistic
interpretations of quantum theory, despite the contradiction of this
theory to realism.
Besides you, there are so many authors who offer their solutions to
the contradictions of quantum mechanics that their number cannot be
counted. I wrote June 27 about the authors from China. The fact that
the manuscript of these authors has not been published does not mean
that the ways to overcome the contradictions of quantum mechanics in
published articles are much better than the ways proposed by these
authors. The authors of both published and unpublished articles are
united by the fact that they offer different ways to overcome
contradictions without even trying to understand the reason for these
contradictions.
They could understand the reason for the contradictions of quantum
mechanics if they answered the first main question of philosophy:
“What can we know?” Kant stated that metaphysics answered this
question: we can know in Nature only what we ourselves have invested
in it, i.e. we can know only our ideas about Nature rather than Nature
as thing-in-itself. Most modern scientists and even philosophers
ignore and even despise metaphysics. Therefore, now there is a funny
manifestation of the will to power. Nietzsche considered philosophy
and science as the highest manifestation of the will to power. But he
certainly did not mean the manifestation of will, which takes place in
modern debates about quantum mechanics. Many scientists are sure that
even the definition of realism depends on their will and that
therefore they are so powerful that they can refute realism or defend
it. This is the point of the debate about Bell’s inequalities.
These scientists do not want to understand that we create our ideas
about Nature on the base of our not only empirical but also a priori
knowledge. A priori knowledge includes mathematics, logic, and the
regulative principles of our reason. The regulative principles, such
as realism and determinism determine the very possibility of
cognition. Ortega y Gasset had an unflattering opinion about modern
scientists: ”And now it turns out that the actual scientific man is
the prototype of the mass-man. Not by chance, not through the
individual failings of each particular man of science, but because
science itself the root of our civilisation- automatically converts
him into mass-man, makes of him a primitive, a modern barbarian”. Only
a modern barbarian can fail to understand that realism is the
regulative principles of our reason rather than a statement about
Nature that can be refuted experimentally. It is easy to understand
why realism is the regulative principle. Realism states that the moon
is there even if we don’t look at it. Therefore if we reject realism
we must explain how our mind creates the moon at the observation.
Einstein, who saturated himself with the Kant philosophy, understood
that realism is the “presupposition of every kind of physical
thinking” rather than a claim which can be disproved with any
experimental results. Therefore he said “I liked to think that the
moon is there even if I don't look at it” in order to explain why
quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory. Einstein was
understanding also that what is most amazing about Nature is its
cognizability. You don't understand what Einstein understood. That's
the reason why you can claim only two ways ignoring the most obvious
one: Nature should not be as amazing as Einstein thought.
The cognition of Nature consists in creating consistent ideas about
the causes of the observed phenomena. These ideas must not contradict
not only our empirical but also a priori knowledge. Quantum mechanics
contradicts not only such a priori knowledge as realism and
determinism but also logic. I must say that quantum mechanics could
have been created only because its creators did not know how to think
logically and constantly contradicted themselves. For example, Dirac
in the same book [1] postulated the contradiction of quantum mechanics
with the theory of relativity and proposed relativistic quantum
mechanics. Assuming in this book that ”after the first measurement has
been made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second”
Dirac postulated: ”In this way we see that a measurement always causes
the system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that
is being measured” [1].
The Dirac assumption is obvious from our everyday experience: there is
no indeterminacy in the result of the second observation since our
knowledge was changed after the first observation. Thus, Dirac
postulated a change in the quantum state under influence of the change
of the observer's knowledge. But Dirac misled several generations of
physicists by replacing the word "observation" with the word
"measurement". It was this false substitution that led to the need for
the EPR paradox and Bell’s inequalities. The ongoing debate about
Bell's inequalities indicates the inability not only of Dirac, but
also of most scientists to understand that no interaction with a
measuring device during the first measurement can provide the
certainty of the result of the second measurement.
The Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has been made,
there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [1] contradicts
not only our a priori knowledge but also the statement of Heisenberg
and Bohr that interaction with the device increases the uncertainty of
the result of the second measurement. This statement does not
contradict our a priori knowledge, in contrast to the jump postulated
by Dirac. But quantum mechanics would predict the possibility of
seeing one particle in several places, i.e. an obvious absurdity,
without the Dirac jump.
Einstein, back in 1927 during the discussion at the Fifth Solvay
Conference [2], three years before the publication of Dirac's book
[1], drew attention to the fact that the need for 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, unlike Dirac, understood that the instantaneous
and non-local jump postulated by Dirac [1] ”leads to a contradiction
with the postulate of relativity” [2]. Most scientists do not want to
admit that quantum mechanics is based on logical contradictions and
even obvious absurd since the will to power prevents them from
recognizing that Nature can be incognizable to our reason.
[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
Press, 1930.
[2] Einstein A. Electrons et photons. Rapports et discussions du
cinquieme Gonseil de physique- Bruxelles du 24 au 29 octobre 1927 sous
les auspices de 1’ Institut International de physique Solvay, p.
253256. Paris, Gautier-Villars et Gie, editeurs (1928).
With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 9 нояб. 2021 г. в 06:42, 'sgl...@nist.gov' 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/7d80a0fb-d0b8-436d-a966-667181fa6570n%40googlegroups.com.

[ilja.sc...@gmail.com]

sgl...@nist.gov schrieb am Dienstag, 9. November 2021 um 10:12:30 UTC+6:30:

Thanks for explaining.  It seems to me that the possibility of faster-than-light influences, rather than the existence of the preferred reference frame, is doing the heavy lifting in providing a realistic explanation of Bell tests.

Of course.  Realism/common sense/causality with common cause tell us that there should be some faster than light causal influence. 

 

  Is the motivation for the preferred reference frame that it preserves causal ordering, at least in that one reference frame?

Yes.  Your "at least" sounds like a little bit "not ideal, we would like to have more",  but this is simply the return to classical causality, so that I don't see a reason for such dissatisfaction. 

I think that one can succeed in constructing a realistic (hidden variable) theory of Bell tests if the hidden variables can communicate with one another faster than light.

Like Richard, I think that most interesting questions would be about whether this theory makes any new, observable predictions or whether it makes the same predictions as standard quantum theory.

I think it is quite satisfactory if it makes the same predictions.  Because we have other criteria if experiments do not help. Simplicity, beauty, compatibility with other principles (like realism and common cause causality).   And these other criteria have, in this particular situation, a very clear advantage for the preferred frame that any other decision asks for explanation.  And the only explanation I have found until now are those quasi-religious feelings caused by the impression created by Einstein's argument against absolute contemporaneity  in the minds of those young people who decided to study physics. 

Or can you give another explanation why a return to classical causality is so horrible that one is ready to give up realism as well as the common cause principle?  

[ilja.sc...@gmail.com]

nikulo...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 9. November 2021 um 16:21:45 UTC+6:30:

Only a blind will could have
made you claim such nonsense as the possibility of realistic
interpretations of quantum theory, despite the contradiction of this
theory to realism.

Such primitive personal attacks will not help you.  Realistic interpretations of QT exists, they differ (as theories) from QT even if they make essentially the same empirical predictions.  The minimal interpretation of QT is not realistic, but there is no contradiction between it and realism. These are just facts, if you doubt them present arguments instead of unjustified speculations about the authors of various interpretations. 

Kant stated that metaphysics answered this
question: we can know in Nature only what we ourselves have invested
in it, i.e. we can know only our ideas about Nature rather than Nature
as thing-in-itself. Most modern scientists and even philosophers
ignore and even despise metaphysics.

Whatever, most physicists, following Popper, clearly distinguish between reality and their theories about reality.  

 

These scientists do not want to understand that we create our ideas
about Nature on the base of our not only empirical but also a priori
knowledge.

And who cares about those strawmen who follow outdated empiricism instead of Popper's critical rationalism where much more, namely also all our empirical theories, are classified as being a priori?   Because there first has to be a theory, then we can derive empirical predictions from them, and only after this we can compare the theory with experiments. 

Quantum mechanics
contradicts not only such a priori knowledge as realism and
determinism but also logic.

There are such interpretations of QT.  

But there are others without these problems.  

 

The ongoing debate about
Bell's inequalities indicates the inability not only of Dirac, but
also of most scientists to understand that no interaction with a
measuring device during the first measurement can provide the
certainty of the result of the second measurement.

Unfortunately, it simply provides it. 

 

The Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has been made,
there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [1] contradicts
not only our a priori knowledge but also the statement of Heisenberg
and Bohr that interaction with the device increases the uncertainty of
the result of the second measurement.

Who cares about such informal talk?  

 

Einstein, unlike Dirac, understood that the instantaneous
and non-local jump postulated by Dirac [1] ”leads to a contradiction
with the postulate of relativity” [2]. Most scientists do not want to
admit that quantum mechanics is based on logical contradictions

There are no logical contradictions, except in your fantasy, at least you have not been able to present them here.  There are contradictions with some principles of relativity, that's all.  

[sgl...@nist.gov]

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:47:55 AM UTC-7 ilja.sc...@gmail.com wrote:

Or can you give another explanation why a return to classical causality is so horrible that one is ready to give up realism as well as the common cause principle? 

No, I can't.  I don't think that a return to classical causality would be horrible.  It is kind of strange to think that events that appear to me to be in my future can cause events that appear to be in my past, but that is no more strange to me than other features of quantum physics.

Scott Glancy

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Ilja,
You needlessly perceive the indication of the falsity of your logic as
personal attacks. You call theories (or rather attempts to create a
theory), alternative to quantum mechanics, as interpretations and on
this basis you claim that quantum mechanics does not contradict
realism. But this is absurd logic! According to your logic, not one
theory can contradict realism.
What you, following to the majority, consider as interpretations
cannot be considered interpretations, not because they have different
empirical predictions, but because they have different subjects of
description: quantum mechanics describes the effect of the mind of the
observer on quantum systems, while the realistic theory, that you call
interpretation, should describe reality existing independently of the
mind of the observer. It is nonsense to claim that the subject of
description of interpretation can differ from the subject of
description of the theory.
Attempts to create alternative theories have come to be called
interpretations for two reasons: 1) there has always been censorship
(primarily in the minds) on theories alternative to quantum mechanics
and 2) no one has managed to create a theory that realistically
describes all quantum phenomena. Therefore, there was such nonsense as
numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics. A theory, if it is
really a scientific theory and not a trick, cannot have
interpretations, since a scientific theory must clearly and
unambiguously say what it describes and how. Numerous interpretations
suggest that quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a scientific
theory. The trick is so obvious that it is surprising that only a few,
Schrodinger, Eddington and a few others were understanding that
quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a physical theory.
Einstein tried to convince young Heisenberg as far back as 1926 that
his proposal to describe ‘observables’ is wrong. Einstein was right!
But most scientists agreed with Heisenberg rather than Einstein
because Heisenberg's proposal allowed using a trick to describe
paradoxical quantum phenomena. Heisenberg's proposal allows to hide
all unsolvable difficulties in the description of quantum phenomena in
the act of ‘observation’. For example, on the question "Why are only
discrete values of projections of the magnetic moment of atoms
observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment?" one can answer "Because
this is a feature of the act of observation that is beyond our
understanding".
Any act of observation is indeed beyond our understanding. Einstein
said to Heisenberg that observation is a very complicated process.
Heisenberg ignored the Einstein remark, since he was not considering
it necessary to describe this very complicated process. The creators
of quantum mechanics did not limit themselves to the trick with
‘observation’, but replaced 'observation’ with ‘measurement’. This
substitution was obviously false, but created the possibility for a
theory of hidden variables, since Bohr had to postulate that the
measurement of quantum systems is also beyond our understanding. Only
therefore the variables can be hidden.
The dispute about Bell's inequalities is a dispute about the
possibility of replacing quantum mechanics with the theory of hidden
variables. But these theories differ only in a trick, and only
slightly: in quantum mechanics, unsolvable difficulties are hidden in
the act of ‘observation’, and in the theory of hidden variables in the
act of ‘measurement’. If you claim that there is a realistic
description of all quantum phenomena, which you call interpretation,
you have to say how to realistically describe at least the
Stern-Gerlach effect, without the trick not only with ‘observation’,
but also with ‘measurement’. Bell demonstrated how this effect can be
described using the trick with measurement.
In June I tried to explain to the authors from China that modern
European scientists have misled them about quantum mechanics because
of the degradation of European culture. Yesterday I wrote a review of
an article “Kochen-Specker theorem on the basis of binary logic in a
finite-precision measurement” submitted to a new journal of MDPI
“Foundations” in which I try to explain to the authors from Korea,
Vietnam and Japan that European scientists have misled them because of
their inability to think, see below.
I should say that you do not understand the sense of the difference
between empirical and a priori knowledge.
With best wishes,
Alexey

Comments and Suggestions for Author
The manuscript is a typical consequence of the mass delusion provoked
by the blind faith in quantum mechanics. The long history of this
delusion indicates that most scientists cannot think. The history
began in 1926 with Born's proposal to consider the Schrodinger wave

function as a description of the amplitude of the observation

probability. It is funny that only few scientists Einstein,
Schrodinger and few others understood that according to Born quantum
mechanics describes a knowledge of the observer about results of
upcoming observation. Einstein as far back as 1927 during the
discussion at the Fifth Solvay Conference [1] rightly noted that
Born’s proposal ”leads to a contradiction with the postulate of
relativity” since it is needed to postulate an instantaneous and
non-local jump in the state of the observed quantum system under an
influence of a change in the knowledge of the observer in order to
describe some paradoxical quantum phenomena.

The needed jump was postulated first by Dirac in the book [2]
published in 1930. Assuming that ”after the first measurement has been

made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” Dirac
postulated: ”In this way we see that a measurement always causes the
system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is

being measured” [2]. The Dirac assumption is obvious from our everyday

experience: there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second
observation since our knowledge was changed after the first
observation. Thus, Dirac postulated a change in the quantum state
under influence of the change of the observer's knowledge. But Dirac
misled several generations of physicists by replacing the word
"observation" with the word "measurement".

Neither Dirac nor anyone else could explain, if they wanted to, how
any interaction with a measuring device during the first measurement

can provide the certainty of the result of the second measurement.

Obviously, this explanation is impossible according to elementary
logic. The Dirac assumption that ”after the first measurement has been
made, there is no indeterminacy in the result of the second” [2]
contradicts not only elementary logic but also the statement of

Heisenberg and Bohr that interaction with the device increases the

uncertainty of the result of the second measurement. The statement of
Heisenberg and Bohr does not contradict logic, in contrast to the jump

postulated by Dirac. But quantum mechanics would predict the
possibility of seeing one particle in several places, i.e. an obvious
absurdity, without the Dirac jump.

The inability of most scientists to understand that the Dirac jump can
occur only under the influence of the mind of the observer, and not a
soulless device, is surprising. They could not understand this even
though Einstein, together with Podolsky and Rosen [3], used the
requirements of locality in order to explain that the Dirac jump
occurs under the influence of the mind of the observer, which is
non-local, and not under the influence of the measuring device, which
should be local. This EPR attempt to explain the obvious had curious
consequences due to the blind faith of most scientists in quantum
mechanics and their inability to think. The postulate about the Dirac
jump was extended to a distant particle of the EPR pair, which is not
only not observed, but is also located at an arbitrarily large
distance from the observer. This “spooky action at distant” became
known as the EPR (Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen) correlation although A.
Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen [3] did not permit the possibility
of such an absurdity in a scientific theory.

This absurdity of quantum mechanics is a logical consequence of
Heisenberg's proposal to describe ‘observables’. Einstein tried to
convince young Heisenberg in 1926 that his proposal is wrong: “But on
principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable
magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the
theory which decides what we can observe. You must appreciate that
observation is a very complicated process”, see Heisenberg's
recollection [4]. Heisenberg could not or did not want to understand
why it is wrong to describe ‘observables’. Most experts in quantum
mechanics still do not understand this. They agreed with Heisenberg's
proposal because it created the illusion of describing paradoxical
quantum phenomena. On the question, for example, "Why are only
discrete values of projections of the magnetic moment of atoms
observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment?" one can answer "Because
this is a feature of the act of observation that is beyond our
understanding".

As Einstein said to Heisenberg that observation is a very complicated
process. Any act of observation is indeed beyond our understanding.
But most physicists would hardly believe in quantum mechanics if they
understood that the Dirac jump postulates an instantaneous and
non-local influence of the mind of the observer on the quantum system.
Belief in quantum mechanics has become almost universal only because
its creators have replaced "observation" with "measurement". The act
of measurement should not be beyond our understanding. Therefore Bohr
had to postulate the unknowability of the act of measurement with the
help of the quantum postulate which ”implies that any observation of
atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of
observation not to be neglected” [5].

Most scientists could not understand that the substitution of
‘observation’ by ‘measurement’ is false, since no interaction with the
soulless agency of observation can provide the certainty of the result
of the second measurement. They also failed to understand that both
‘observation’ and ‘measurement’ is a trick that creates only illusions
of describing paradoxical quantum phenomena, hiding all unsolvable
difficulties in the act of ‘observation’ or ‘measurement’.

The authors of the manuscript, like many other authors, considering
hidden variables, do not even ask the question: "Why can variables be
hidden?" Although Bell answered this question in his first article
[6], which was not published for a long time: variables can be hidden
only thanks to Bohr's quantum postulate. Anyone capable of thinking
should understand that the sense of the no-hidden-variable theorem of
Kochen and Specker [7], as well as Bell's inequalities [8], consists
only in that in order to distinguish the trick with ‘observation’ from
the trick with ‘measurement’. The Kohen - Speaker theorem is
considered in the manuscript not because the authors understand its
sense, but because this theorem is famous. But the theorem is famous
only because most scientists could not understand that the trick with
‘observation’ cannot be replaced by a trick with ‘measurement’ since
no interaction with the soulless measuring device can provide the
certainty of the result of the second measurement. The importance of
the Kohen - Speaker theorem and especially of Bell's inequalities is
greatly exaggerated, since there is not much difference between where
unsolvable difficulties are hidden in the act of observation or in the
act of measurement. It is a trick in both cases.

I cannot recommend the publication of a manuscript whose authors do
not understand what they are writing about. I would advise the
authors, instead of engaging in senseless scholasticism, following the
misconceptions of the majority, to start thinking critically and stop
blindly to believe blindly even in generally recognized theories.
[1] Einstein A. Electrons et photons. Rapports et discussions du

cinquieme Gonseil de physique- Bruxelles du 24 au 29 octobre 1927 sous
les auspices de 1’ Institut International de physique Solvay, p.
253256. Paris, Gautier-Villars et Gie, editeurs (1928).

[2] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
Press, 1930.
[3] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description
of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935).
[4] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.
[5] N. Bohr, The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of
Atomic Theory. Nature, 121, 580-90 (1928).
[6] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum
mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966).
[7] S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in
quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967).
[8] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1,
195-200 (1964).

Comments for Editors.
Jose Ortega y Gasset (the great Spanish philosopher according to
Schrodinger’s opinion) had an unflattering opinion about modern
scientists. He was writing in his famous book ”The Revolt of the
Masses”: ”And now it turns out that the actual scientific man is the

prototype of the mass-man. Not by chance, not through the individual
failings of each particular man of science, but because science itself
the root of our civilisation- automatically converts him into

mass-man, makes him a primitive, a modern barbarian” [1].
The mass-man believes in what the majority believes and does not think
critically. Therefore the mass delusion about quantum mechanics has
become possible. This delusion testifies to the crisis of science
predicted Ortega y Gasset as a consequence of ”the barbarism of
’specialisation’” inherent contemporary scientists: ”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 satu-rate 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 the gravest crisis of its history, and
can only be saved by a new ’Encyclopaedia’ more systematic than the
first” [1].
The mass delusion about quantum mechanics would be impossible if
modern scientists understood, as ‘cultured’ men about 1750 understood,
that realism and determinism are the regulative principles of our
reason which determine the very possibility of empirical cognition
rather than than a claim which can be disproved empirical. One of the
main reasons for the crisis of physics, which Ortega y Gasset warned
about, is the unprecedented growth in the number of scientists. At the
end of the nineteenth century, there were no more than three hundred
physicists in the whole world, the number is negligible compared to
the number of modern physicists.
Ortega y Gasset wrote: “As if there were not numberless ingredients,
of most disparate nature, to be brought together and shaken up in
order to obtain the cock-tail of physico-chemical science! Under even
the most perfunctory examination of this subject, the evident fact
bursts into view that over the whole extent of space and time,
physico-chemistry has succeeded in establishing itself completely only
in the small quadrilateral enclosed by London, Berlin, Vienna, and
Paris, and that only in the XIXth Century. This proves that
experimental science is one of the most unlikely products of history”
[1]. Now scientists from various countries, whose culture differs from
European culture, are involved in experimental science. This fact
makes the need for a new ’Encyclopaedia’, which Gassett wrote about,
especially urgent. Such an "Encyclopedia" could at least define the
criteria of truth in science.

[1] J. Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (W. W. Norton and
Company 1994).

ср, 10 нояб. 2021 г. в 02:22, 'sgl...@nist.gov' 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/a11e3bd0-faea-4f56-b8bd-287939c9d6dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Alexei, your reasoning is wrong. You misunderstand Ilja. 

And, most importantly, you forget that we also have experimental confirmation of the empirical predictions of the conventional quantum mechanics formalism.

Any theory which can reproduce those predictions could sensibly be called “an interpretation”, if not a substitute, for QM. As far as I know, you have no alternative viable theory. Instead you keep repeating 19th century dogmas. 

By now we are in the 21st century. The philosophy of science did not stand still. Kant was fantastic, sure. But later generations also had much to offer. Maybe you should reconsider your position. A scientist should have an open mind and be careful to distinguish facts from fictions.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,
I agree with you that “A scientist should have an open mind and be
careful to distinguish facts from fictions”. Your confidence that “we

have experimental confirmation of the empirical predictions of the

conventional quantum mechanics formalism” is fiction for the most
part. For the most part, the conventional quantum mechanics formalism
was created in such a way as to correspond to experimental results.
For example, the quantum formalism created after 1925 did not predict
the Stern-Gerlach effect observed for the first time in 1922.
Sometimes the creators of quantum mechanics, like negligent
schoolchildren, adjusted to the answer, i.e., to the results of the
experiment.
Using different definitions of the Hamiltonian to describe different
quantum phenomena is one of the more obvious examples of the
likenesses of the creators of quantum mechanics to negligent
schoolchildren. Dirac used in the book [1] the non-canonical
definition of the momentum and the Hamiltonian since he understood
that the energy of the magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field
cannot be deduced from the canonical Hamiltonian and therefore it is
impossible to describe, for example, the Zeeman effect. But other
quantum phenomena, for example the Aharonov–Bohm effect, cannot be
described if the energy of the magnetic dipole moment in the magnetic
field is taken into account. Therefore the canonical Hamiltonian
became used in all textbooks on quantum mechanics, for example in the
well-known book [2]. L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz rewrote the
paragraph 113 ”An atom in a magnetic field” from the Dirac book [1].
But they did not notice that Dirac used the non-canonical Hamiltonian.
Therefore the energy of the magnetic moment is deduced from the
canonical Hamiltonian in the book [2] of L.D. Landau and E.M.
Lifshitz, although it cannot be done without a mathematical mistake.
It is funny but no one noticed the obvious mathematical mistake made
in [2] and other textbooks. Moreover, no one wants to notice this
mistake, although I drew attention to it in paragraph 4.3. “Quantum
mechanics cannot describe both opposite cases” of the paper [3], see
attached file. I noticed that different quantum phenomena cannot be
described using the same definition of the Hamiltonian thanks to
Anthony Leggett, who wrote to me in 2014 that the energy of the
magnetic moment cannot be deduced from the canonical Hamiltonian, see
p.2 in [4]. But Leggett doesn't want to admit that the creators of
quantum mechanics were adjusting to the answer, like negligent
schoolchildren. Such is the power of faith in quantum mechanics!
I think I understand Ilja. He claims that quantum mechanics does not
contradict realism because his theory makes sense only in this case. I
know a similar case. I wrote on September 14 that I noticed the
obvious mistake made by the superconducting community after 1933
thanks to the publications of Jorge Hirsch [5-7]. Hirsch is well
known as the author of the Hirsch index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index . And only specialists in
superconductivity know that Hirsch has been trying for more than
thirty years to convince the superconducting community that only his
theory of hole superconductivity is correct, and the conventional BCS
theory of Bardeen - Cooper - Schrieffer (Nobel prize 1972) is false.
Hirsch drew attention in publications [5-7] to the obvious
contradiction of the conventional BCS theory: on the one hand, this
theory is created within the framework of equilibrium reversible
thermodynamics, and on the other hand, it predicts Joule heating.
The contradiction is so obvious that it is surprising that no one has
noticed it for many years. I draw attention in the paper [8] that this
contradiction is the result of blind faith in the second law of
thermodynamics. The transition from the superconducting state to the
normal state was considered before 1933 as an irreversible
thermodynamic process during which the kinetic energy of the screening
current dissipates into Joule heat. It was quite a natural and even
obvious point of view. But according to this point of view then the
Meissner effect is experimental evidence of a process reverse to the
irreversible thermodynamic process during which Joule heat is
converted back into the kinetic energy of the screening current. Such
a reverse process cannot be possible according to the second law of
thermodynamics.
Therefore, after 1933, the superconducting transition became to be
considered as the phase transition, i.e. a reversible thermodynamic
process. Therefore the BCS theory was created in 1957 in the framework
of equilibrium reversible thermodynamics. But this theory cannot
describe dynamical phenomena in superconductors without Joule heating.
Hirsch drew attention to this contradiction of the BCS theory because
his theory, as he claims, can describe superconducting phenomena
without Joule heating. I tried to convince him in August that this
description doesn't make sense since Joule heating is observed
experimentally. He does not want to admit this experimental fact,
since his theory has no advantages over the BCS theory if Joule
heating is observed in superconducting phenomena.
Hirsch is wrong that his theory is better than the BCS theory. But he
is right that the conventional theory of superconductivity is
internally contradictory since it was created in the framework of
equilibrium reversible thermodynamics because of the mistake made by
the superconducting community after 1933. Hirsch compares in his
excellent article “Superconductivity, what the H? The Emperor has no
clothes” [9] the psychology of believers in the conventional theory of
superconductivity with the psychology of the characters in Andersen's
fairy tale ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’. This comparison also applies
to your confidence that “we also have experimental confirmation of the

empirical predictions of the conventional quantum mechanics

formalism”. Everyone who watched the procession of the Emperor
thought: "It can't be that the Emperor has really no clothes. Someone
would have said this. Apparently I'm stupid if I don't see the
Emperor's new clothes".
Your confidence is based on the faith of the majority in quantum
mechanics. This faith was provoked by the atomic bomb, i.e. the
progress of technology in the twentieth century. I often quote Ortega
y Gasset because he warned that progress in technology can be
accompanied and even cause a regression in science. This is exactly
what is being observed now. Most scientists have stopped thinking, at
least they have stopped thinking critically, because of the arrogance
provoked by the success of technology. Because of this arrogance, they
do not understand and do not even want to understand what ‘cultured’
men about 1750 understood and even what Einstein understood. This
arrogance has led to the mass delusion, in particular, about the
reality of a quantum computer. I draw once again your attention on my
reports “Quantum register cannot be real” and «Funny mistake of
Richard Feynman» available on ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey-Nikulov :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350754616_Quantum_register_cannot_be_real
and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350761689_Funny_mistake_of_Richard_Feynman
.
I explain in these reports quite clearly that quantum registers cannot
be real since any real device should exists in the real
three-dimensional space rather than in the Hilbert space. Richard
Feynman made a Funny mistake since he did not understand that the
complexity of computing increases exponentially with the number of
elements, not because the system is quantum, but because the
probability of observation is calculated.
[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
Press, 1930.
[2] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic
Theory, 3rd edn, vol. 3. Elsevier Science, Oxford (1977)
[3] A.V. Nikulov, Could ordinary quantum mechanics be just fine for
all practical purposes? Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3, 41-55 (2016)
[4] V. L. Gurtovoi and A. V. Nikulov, Energy of magnetic moment of
superconducting current in magnetic field. Physica C 516, 50-54
(2015); arXiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00468.pdf
[5] J. E. Hirsch, Inconsistency of the conventional theory of
superconductivity. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 130, 17006 (2020);
https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12786 .
[6] J. E. Hirsch, Joule heating in the normal-superconductor phase
transition in a magnetic field. Physica C: Superconductivity and its
applications 576, 1353687 (2020); https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07509 .
[7] J.E. Hirsch, Thermodynamic inconsistency of the conventional
theory of superconductivity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 34, 2050175 (2020);
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11273 .
[8] A.V. Nikulov, Dynamic processes in superconductors and the laws of
thermodynamics. Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications.
589, 1353934 (2021); https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00386 .
[9] J. E. Hirsch, Superconductivity, what the H? The emperor has no
clothes. APS Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter, January 2020, p.
4-9; arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09496
With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 11 нояб. 2021 г. в 16:02, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

When I said “we have experimental confirmation of the empirical predictions of the conventional quantum mechanics formalism” I only referred to the QM prediction of violation of Bell inequalities. I rely on Bell’s logic. Bell’s reasoning does not depend on QM! The experimental results violate local realism, full stop.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

> On 12 Nov 2021, at 19:13, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,

[Fred Diether]

It's a bunch of pure nonsense.  The Bell inequalities have never ever been "violated" or had their bounds exceeded.  It is mathematically impossible and a high school student could easily it figure out.  You Bell fans should really get with the program.  It has been one big hoax. :-)  All the experiment do is validate quantum mechanics.  They have absolutely nothing to do with the inequalities.  So, it is really time to move on from Bell.  His theory is pure physics junk.

https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/viewtopic.php?t=16

Best,

Fred

[Fred Diether]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-8 Richard Gill wrote:

Dear Alexei

When I said “we have experimental confirmation of the empirical predictions of the conventional quantum mechanics formalism” I only referred to the QM prediction of violation of Bell inequalities. I rely on Bell’s logic. Bell’s reasoning does not depend on QM! The experimental results violate local realism, full stop.

Richard

What a bunch of nonsense.  The QM predictions have NEVER EVER "violated" the Bell inequalities.  It is mathematically impossible.

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

The words 

What a bunch of nonsense.  The QM predictions have NEVER EVER "violated" the Bell inequalities.  It is mathematically impossible.

came from Joy Christian’s scientific collaborator and promotor Fred Diether (C. F Diether III). 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KfUq8ggAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra

https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/index.php

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/

I understand that he's been rather unwell lately. Get well and take care of yourself, Fred!

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/41649a29-fb5f-47b7-ad58-91df7f2f9024n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

"I understand that he's been rather unwell lately. Get well and take care of yourself, Fred!"  Typical sociopathic behavior from Gill.  He says it like we are friends.  Not even close.  Anyways, I'm plenty well enough to take down any Bell fans that think Bell was right.  Come on over and we will discuss it.

https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/index.php

There is way too much nonsense on this private google group for me.  10 million trials; one degree resolution. 

It is screaming -a.b at us.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Fred,

Please write your simulation in R, Python, or Julia, so that everyone, whether pro- or anti-Bell, can study your algorithm and draw their own conclusions.

Of course the graph is screaming -a.b

If one computes the difference, blows it up by the square root of sample size, and plots that, the trained eye will start to see certain anomalies.

Richard

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,
I agree with Fred that violation of Bell’s inequalities is
mathematically impossible. But I do not agree with Fred that “The QM
predictions have NEVER EVER "violated" the Bell inequalities”. There
can be no doubt that the conventional quantum mechanics formalism
predicts violation of Bell inequalities. You are right in this. But
the prediction by quantum mechanics of the violation of Bell’s
inequalities contradicts mathematics as well as the deduction of the
energy of the magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field from the
canonical Hamiltonian in textbooks on quantum mechanics, for example
in [1], contradicts mathematics, see [2]. Thus, quantum mechanics
contradicts mathematics.
This contradiction became possible since modern scientists, in
contrast to ‘cultured’ men about 1750, do not understand that our a
priori knowledge is more reliable than our empirical knowledge. This
misunderstanding is a consequence of the fact that many modern
scientists do not distinguish between empirical data and empirical
knowledge. The movement of the sun observed by us across the firmament
is empirical data that we cannot doubt. Empirical knowledge is the
movement of the sun around the earth or the rotation of the earth.
Empirical knowledge is unreliable because it changes, while such a
priori knowledge as 2 + 2 = 4 cannot change.
The debate about Bell's inequalities has been going on for a long time
precisely because the disputants do not distinguish between empirical
data and empirical knowledge. The Stern-Gerlach effect belongs to the
empirical data and we cannot doubt that only discrete values of
projections of the magnetic moment of atoms are observed in the
Stern-Gerlach experiment. But Bell’s inequalities cannot be deduced
from these empirical data. Bell’s inequalities are deduced from
quantum mechanics, or more precisely, from the trick used by the
creators of quantum mechanics.
You are wrong in claiming that “Bell’s reasoning does not depend on
QM!” Bell’s reasoning is based on the Bohr quantum postulate.
Variables could not be hidden without the Bohr quantum postulate that
the act of measurement of quantum systems is beyond our understanding.
Bell wrote about the necessity of the Bohr quantum postulate for a
hidden variable theory in his first paper [4]. Bohr used the quantum
postulate in order to justify the substitution of ‘observation’, in
which the mind of the observer affects the quantum system, with
‘measurement’ in which there is only the influence of a soulless
measuring device. This substitution was obviously wrong but most
scientists believed in it. Bell's inequalities appeared and became
popular only due to this inability of most scientists to think.
You claim that Bell’s reasoning does not depend on QM, because you, as
many others, do not distinguish between empirical data and empirical
knowledge. Bell's reasoning would be impossible without the
discreteness of the results of observations of projections. You
perceive discreteness as something ordinary, although this is the main
paradox that cannot be described realistically. The creators of
quantum mechanics did not even try to describe this paradox. They
limited themselves to describing the probability of observations of
different discrete values. This trick forced them to postulate the
influence of the mind of the observer on the state of the quantum
system since the probability of observations describes the knowledge
of the observer. The influence of the mind of the observer is
instantaneous and non-local. That is why quantum mechanics predicts
the violation of Bell’s inequalities.
Your claim that the experimental results violate local realism is
wrong since no experimental result can contradict realism. Only our
empirical knowledge but not empirical data can contradict realism and
even mathematics. Quantum mechanics contradicts both realism and
mathematics. But this does not mean that we should abandon realism and
mathematics, which relate to our a priori knowledge. One should
understand what Einstein, Schrodinger and other critics understood:
quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory, but a trick that is
misleading.
[1] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic

Theory, 3rd edn, vol. 3. Elsevier Science, Oxford (1977)

[2] A.V. Nikulov, Could ordinary quantum mechanics be just fine for

all practical purposes? Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3, 41-55 (2016)

[3] N. Bohr, The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of

Atomic Theory. Nature, 121, 580-90 (1928).

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

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

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

сб, 13 нояб. 2021 г. в 13:53, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/D00421FD-64B1-40E7-BB42-D77B65348317%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

This is wonderful. You put your finger on the sore point. 

You say that QM is the reason for the discreteness of the results of observations of projections.

But you don’t understand the experimental results, then. Discreteness is freely imposed by the experimenters! It’s a free choice! Whether or not QM predicts it, they can “force” it. By discretising (inside apparatus, electronics, whatever…) physical signals.

Now the task of physicists is to explain whatever any experimenter sees. Even if they chose to do crazy things! They did what they did! They reported what they did and what they saw. You try to explain the results by saying they were crazy. But that is no explanation for the statistics which they actually reported. Unless you accuse them of violating scientific integrity by cheating in their reports of their experimental results.

Please explain how the binary outcomes which they chose to register could possibly violate Bell’s conception of local realism.

You say that their choice was influenced by some crazy dogmatic principles. I say: so what? They saw what they saw!

Richard

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Fred,

I am looking at the simulation at https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf , at In[54] there is a Do loop that iterates over 20 000 items (using the parameters of the code). Each item generates a single quaternion q, the real part of each is plotted against the angle of that item. 

Am I to understand that you want to simulate 20 000 experiments?

Best regards
Jan-Åke

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard, 
I did not say that QM is the reason for the discreteness of the results of observations. Moreover I said that QM cannot even explain why the discreteness is observed. I understand the 
experimental results. Whereas you do not understand that the discreteness of the results of observations of magnetic moment projections is the result of the free will of God rather than 
of the experimenters. God's will is beyond our comprehension. We cannot know why God decided to show us that the possibilities of our reason in the cognition of Nature are limited. 
	
Bell explained very popular in [1] why  physicists can't explain the Stern-Gerlach effect which any experimenter can observed and wrote that “Phenomena of this kind made physicists 
despair of finding any consistent space-time picture of what goes on on the atomic and subatomic scale” [1]. The creators of quantum mechanics, instead of admitting that God decided to 
demonstrate the limitations of our reason, decided to use a trick in order to create the illusion of describing the Stern-Gerlach effect. They postulated an instantaneous and non-local 
effect of the mind of the observer on the observed quantum system. I draw your attention that the contradiction of quantum mechanics with local realism emerged much before  Bell’s 
inequalities. 
	
Bell, like Einstein, understood that the absurd postulate about the influence of the mind of the observer on the observed quantum system must not be in scientific theory. He argued  that 
the mind of the observer can be replaced by a soulless measuring device if the Bohr quantum postulate was used. The expression Fcos f/|cos f| (2) in [1] explains the binary outcomes 
observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. But this expression can be justified only by the Bohr quantum postulate, i.e. by the trick claiming that the process of measurement is beyond 
our understanding. 
	
I should note that Bell’s conception of local realism does not exist. This is a wrong invention of those who do not understand the meaning of Bell's inequalities. This conception 
appeared since only the requirement of locality can distinguish the trick with ‘measurement’ used in a theory of hidden variables from the trick with ‘observation’ used in quantum 
mechanics if both ‘measurement’ and ‘observation’ are beyond our understanding. Therefore Bell, following EPR [2], used the requirement of locality in order to distinguish the trick 
with ‘measurement’ which does not contradict realism from the trick with ‘observation’ which contradicts realism. Both tricks were used for explanation of the binary outcomes of the 
observations of spin projections. 
	
You, like others disputants, do not want to understand that Bell's inequalities allow to distinguish only one trick from another. But these tricks are not fundamentally different, since in 
both cases unsolvable difficulties are hidden in what is postulated as being beyond our understanding. The dispute about Bell's inequalities is a consequence of the arrogance of modern 
scientists who do not want to admit that the Stern-Gerlach effect is beyond our understanding. Therefore they interpret their inability to describe realistically the Stern-Gerlach effect as 
their ability to refute realism.   

[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality, Journal de Physique 42, 41 (1981).

[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 – 780 (1935).

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov 

сб, 13 нояб. 2021 г. в 19:20, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bb026eb8b83b26bd31a2fef314124eec84adc9ba.camel%40liu.se.

[Fred Diether]

No.  That simulation is not for experiments.  It is for validation of Joy Christian's product calculation that gives -cos(a-b) the same as quantum mechanics.  It is a Bell junk physics theory killer.

Best,

Fred

[Fred Diether]

Fred Diether

5:21 PM (now) 

to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-8 Jan-Åke Larsson wrote:

Dear Fred,

I am looking at the simulation at https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf , at In[54] there is a Do loop that iterates over 20 000 items (using the parameters of the code). Each item generates a single quaternion q, the real part of each is plotted against the angle of that item. 

Am I to understand that you want to simulate 20 000 experiments?

Best regards
Jan-Åke

Hi,

No.  That simulation is not for experiments.  It is for validation of Joy Christian's product calculation that gives -cos(a-b) the same as quantum mechanics.  It is a Bell junk physics theory killer.  You really should come over to the other forum.  The conversation threading is much much better.  You can post as a guest if you don't wish to sign up.

Best,

Fred

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-8 Jan-Åke Larsson wrote:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Jan-Åke

Indeed, that part of Fred Diether’s program does not simulate data from an experiment. It simply implements one of Joy Christian’s formulas using Joy’s rather original calculus rules for interpreting a mathematical limit. Joy does not use an epsilon-delta definition, he has a physical picture where “s” and “-s” moves physically in two opposite directions, where they meet the two detectors, and instantaneously “become” a and -b respectively. The “Limit” operation of Mathematica is superfluous. There is no variable with respect to which an epsilon-delta limit is taken. Fred already performed the instantaneous final substitutions. 

The basic formula is an if statement saying that: *if* a fair coin toss comes up heads compute the geometric product a b, otherwise compute b a. In both cases the real part is the a.b and Fred is simply plotting the arc cosine of a.b as a function of the angle between a and b. He also averages a lot of those products, and checks that the “un-real” part of it (which he obviously couldn’t plot anyway) is close to zero.

In the first part of the program, without plotting, he is implementing a rough and ready detection loophole algorithm with three free parameters which he has been wiggling about for a long time to get a close fit to the negative cosine. Those earlier plots did not generate a perfect asymptotic fit. With residual analysis one could see a small asymptotic bias. It was not visible to the eye when the simulated curve was plotted with line-width of a negative cosine and point “diameter” chosen to make the two indiscernible. One had to blow up the error by root N and smooth in order to “see” the asymptotic bias.

He could better have used the Pearle detection model in the first part since that gives an exact asymptotic fit. 

It’s all very ingenious. A lot of trial and error went into getting the results. 

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 14 Nov 2021, at 02:31, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/63118c28-bb0f-448a-8976-f65880c166f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Gill sure does like to make mistakes and spew nonsense.  You are talking about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with this validation of the product calculation.  This is all nonsense relative to what  Jan-Åke was asking about,

"In the first part of the program, without plotting, he is implementing a rough and ready detection loophole algorithm with three free parameters which he has been wiggling about for a long time to get a close fit to the negative cosine. Those earlier plots did not generate a perfect asymptotic fit. With residual analysis one could see a small asymptotic bias. It was not visible to the eye when the simulated curve was plotted with line-width of a negative cosine and point “diameter” chosen to make the two indiscernible. One had to blow up the error by root N and smooth in order to “see” the asymptotic bias.

He could better have used the Pearle detection model in the first part since that gives an exact asymptotic fit."

And there is no need to lie about Joy using the very well known simple replacement function of limits.  Joy's model is quite simple.  The left and right handedness of the original singlet is used to cancel out the imaginary parts or cross product parts leaving the real parts to be measured.

OK, I'm out of here for good.  Googlegroups is really lame compared to a professional forum.  Bye.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Fred, dear friends,

I did not lie about Joy’s model. Indeed, it is very simple! Utterly simple!

I understand Joy’s “math“ perfectly well. His definition of “limit” is just substitution: lim_{s to a} f(s) := f(a). And he has a novel definition: lim_{s to a, s to b} f(s, s) := f(a, b). No epsilons and deltas for him. Obviously you need deep physics insight to know how to use a tricky rule like the second one correctly. Which “s” is which?

You are also absolutely correct in your description: “The left and right handedness of the original singlet is used to cancel out the imaginary parts or cross product parts leaving the real parts to be measured.”

Joy announced to the world recently at the Brno Geometric Algebra conference that he is a physicist not a mathematician, and that he doesn’t care about mathematics or about what mathematicians think. He compares himself to Dirac and to ‘t Hooft. I think he over-estimates himself. He certainly is very original and I admire his obstinacy in pursuing his dream (as I admire yours).

Yours

Richard

Sent from my iPad

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Quantum mechanics gives you the outcome probabilities of the experiment. Joy's model does not. 

Your computer program of Joy's model only verifies that -cos(a-b) (as obtained from the quaternions) equals -cos(a-b) (the quantum-mechanical prediction). That doesn't kill anything.

Best
Jan-Åke

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I understand all of this, I was just going to give Fred a chance to explain.

(You don't need a simulation to support a mathematical identity, you need to explain how that simulation connects to the setup that we study here.)

He didn't take that chance.

Best 

Jan-Åke

[Alexandre de Castro]

The question is whether the Born rule and a local model of probability distribution are compatible with each other...

Alexandre

--
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/bbdbbceb539519ae4d92b4eef3268b08391e279c.camel%40liu.se.

[Richard Gill]

Alexandre

Well, that is the question which Bell investigated. His answer was: no.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 14 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPcOYakVrWf578B%2BpjvsevHJyV27YKT4DSuJYV9uE8yj9nTiqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexandre de Castro]

Richard,
I think the debate has focused on proving whether Bell is right or wrong, but we can’t answer this yes–no question in finite time because there will always be a logical hole in theory. There is a "hidden" facet that can be ignored but not refuted.

I have tried to draw attention to this issue because I believe the attempt to study this "hidden" facet can lead to the possibility of deterministic generation of (pseudo) randomness.

Alexandre

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

Thanks for your very revealing discussion contribution. So you think that we cannot understand reality because God does not intend us to understand it. Since I'm an atheist, I do not find your metaphysics useful for myself! Maybe this is also the reason why you find it hard to get your works published. Most scientists try to keep their religious beliefs independent of their scientific works, since of course, they want to communicate with scientists from all cultures and with all religions.

You wrote, "Bell’s conception of local realism does not exist". The conception does exist! It is moreover a very useful mathematical model. It applies, for instance, to computer simulations using ideal classical computers. I suppose you just wanted to say that you do not believe in local realism as a true picture of reality, in other words, as a physicist, you do not find it a good theory.

Richard

[Richard Gill]

Alexandre, of course there is always a logical hole in any theory. The always existing hole is: maybe, ordinary logic is wrong.

But in that case, we also cannot communicate with one another. You will be on your own, if that’s your solution!

Regarding pseudo-randomness: it already does exist. At least, under certain assumptions about one-way functions. And FAPP we use it already, every day.

The results of a coin toss or a toss of a die or the pick of a card from a well-shuffled pack or the spin of a roulette wheel are also only pseudo-random. If you believe the universe runs in a deterministic way.

Richard

[Alexandre de Castro]

Richard,
the point you have raised is very important. But, allow me to make a couple of very fundamental comments:

i. pseudorandom generators exist if and only if one-way functions exist.

ii. the existence of one-way functions is still an open conjecture.

However, if we find the conjunctive normal form A AND NOT(A) wherein we cannot deterministically decide A in polynomial time, then we have a one-way function. I've been thinking about it: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36199.09126

The incompatibility between the Born rule and local models of probability distribution can be experimentally proved and the compatibility between the Born rule and local models of probability distribution can be arithmetically proved.

I think Bell's theorem is a candidate for A.

Alexandre

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/11b3a01a-2112-433b-af20-913c9eefa0ffn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Alexandre,

I couldn’t find that DOI on your ResearchGate web pages. Did you mean this one?

True contradiction in Kolmogorov's probability theory

• January 2021

• DOI: 
• 10.13140/RG.2.2.36186.36805

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Nov 2021, at 00:19, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard, dear Alexandre, dear all.

In connection to the latest exchange I will point at my recent paper on the Bell experiment, attached here and submitted to Foundations of Physics.

The moral of that paper is that we all may be limited when making decisions. The result of the recent Glasgow summit illustrates that this also applies to politicians. The phenomenon of vaccine denials shows that it also applies to ordinary people.

I will also point at my Hilbert space paper published in revised version on arXiv:2108.12168 quant-ph today. Together with my revised Springer book this paper aims at giving a completely new foundation of (the epistemic aspect of) quantum theory. As I see this, it is all based upon what takes place in our minds. I am working on the ontological aspect.

Any comments to all this will be appreciated.

Best regards

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 16 November 2021 06:56:43
To: Alexandre de Castro
Cc: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] What if the solution is a preferred frame?

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/A72120CB-6628-4427-AF1C-050A5449B27C%40gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,
When I wrote that the discreteness of the results of observations of

magnetic moment projections is the result of the free will of God

rather than of the experimenters I meant only that the observation of
the binary outcomes in the Stern-Gerlach experiment does not depend on
my will and the will of any other human. I hope you will not dispute
this statement regardless of whether you consider yourself an atheist
or not.
I wrote on November 9 that it is needed to understand why Martin
Heidegger, the last philosopher of Germany, considered Nietzsche's
philosophy as the completion of European philosophy in order to
understand the reason for mass delusion about quantum mechanics.
Heidegger pointed out the fundamental difference of European
philosophy of New time from ancient philosophy, clarifying that the
sophist Protagoras referred his famous statement "Man is the measure
of all things" only to the realm of the non-hidden things. Protagoras
was saying that no man can judge the existence or absence of gods that
belong to the realm hidden for our reason. Modern European philosophy
began with Descartes, who was proving the existence of God with the
help of his reason. Therefore, the concept of the realm hidden for our
reason is absent in the thinking of modern scientists and most
philosophers. Heidegger designated this realm as “Nothing”.
Most modern philosophers, such as Karl Popper, and almost all
scientists are convinced that the realm of non-hidden things is
limited to the realm of our experience and only “Nothing” is outside
our experience. Karl Popper and most modern scientists follow Kant in
this conviction. But they did not understand why Kant had attributed
our ideas about Nature rather than Nature as a thing in itself to the
realm of non-hidden things. Many modern scientists do not understand
that the ideas created by our reason should belong more definitely to
the realm of things non-hidden for our reason than our experience.
Richard Feynman thought that he can safely say that nobody understands
quantum mechanics because of this misunderstanding. Numerous
interpretations of quantum mechanics were proposed also because of
this misunderstanding.
Numerous interpretations reveal that quantum mechanics is a trick
rather than a scientific theory since any scientific theory must
clearly and unambiguously say what it describes and how and therefore
it should have no interpretation. The creators of quantum mechanics
created the trick because of their conviction that all our experience
should belong to the realm of non-hidden things. This conviction was
shared by almost all modern scientists and philosophers, for example
Popper, although this conviction is based on nothing but induction,
which claims if it was possible to describe all the observed phenomena
consistently before, then it will always be so. Hume showed the
falsity of such induction claims more than two centuries ago.
I do not think that the difficulty with publications of my works is
connected with the fact that most scientists try to keep their
religious beliefs independent of their scientific works. Scientists
don't even need to try to do this in order to communicate with
scientists from all cultures and with all religions, since religion
belongs to the realm of hidden things whereas natural sciences belongs
to the realm of non-hidden things. When you say “I'm an atheist” you
state that the realm of hidden things is “Nothing”. Editors of most
journals rejected my articles since quantum mechanics is a religion
they believe in rather than the scientific theory they understand.
Einstein foresaw this mass belief as far back as 1928 when he wrote to
Schrodinger: ”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”.
I cannot believe or do not believe in local realism as a true picture
of reality since ‘local realism’ is not only no picture of reality but
also no notion. There is the concept of realism and there is the
requirement of locality, which Bell, following the EPR, used to
separate the trick of the creators of quantum mechanics with
‘observation’, which contradicts realism, from the trick with
‘measurement’, which does not contradict realism.

With best wishes,

Alexey Nikulov

вт, 16 нояб. 2021 г. в 09:53, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6e64c01405c5436d82c79c20c12c944e%40math.uio.no.

[Alexandre de Castro]

Thank you, Inge.

I'll read her manuscript, Inge.

Richard,

This: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332078980_Exponential_time_hypothesis

[Richard Gill]

*his* manuscript

Inge is a boy’s name in Norway

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Nov 2021, at 11:21, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Alexandre de Castro]

Thanks Richard.

Sorry, I mean: I'll read your manuscript, Inge.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

My email program decided this was spam, I only found it just now.

Fred, this does not help your cause.

Your "simulation" does not connect to the setup at all. It is simply invalid as a description of the setup. Joys "model" is also invalid, but in a different manner. Unless you rewrite your model so that it actually describes the situation, you simply have no argument. But you have been very clear this is not going to happen.

/JÅ

On sön, 2021-11-14 at 02:28 -0800, Fred Diether wrote:

I'm NOT going to try to explain anything here since these google groups are really lame.  BTW, Joy's model does in fact give you the outcome probabilities the same as QM.  Anyways good bye to the Bell fans that don't dare come over to a real professional forum and get shot down to pieces.  I guess Gill is the only non-coward here.  :-)

[Chantal Roth]

I really like Joy, he is super smart and you all know I don't "believe" the mainstream interpretation. In fact I helped Joy and wrote a simulation for him a while ago.

I have very strong sense of integrity and I cannot just ignore this any longer. The simulation is a clever mathematical trick, but it does not proof anything unfortunately.

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/a4da79add3a777578749676ae613fe5cbd0ff915.camel%40liu.se.

Attachments:

• smime.p7s
  

[Richard Gill]

I also really like Joy which is why I spent so much time and energy on his work. He is super smart but like many super smart people he has some blind spots. Maximally super smart people know about their blind spots, but Joy doesn’t want to know about his.

His mathematics is interestingly “pre-modern”. He does calculus by algebraic manipulations, has no awareness of epsilon-delta definitions of derivative, integral, limit. Instead he uses his physical intuition. But the epsilon-delta stuff, Cauchy and later measure theory and all that, were invented precisely because of contradictions which had arisen all over mathematical physics. In particular, applied engineering-use Fourier-theory was an enormous driver of axiomatisation and formalisation of calculus. First Riemann and later Lebesgue needed to fix blatant contradictions which could be got when doing important physics/engineering problems according to formal substitutions and intuitions. Similarly, probability theory a la Kolmogorov was invented because of the paradoxes which came out of treating probability in an intuitive, physics way. (It also came about because Kolmogorov in 1933 badly needed some Western cash, so solving one of Hilbert’s problems was a good way to get hold of some Western currency). Von Mises theory of collectives - defining probability as limiting relative frequency - died because of the contradictions it generated. Yet Joy does probability a la Von Mises and calculus a la pre modern era. Cantor, Boltzmann, Gödel, Turing. grappled with “infinity” because they felt it needed to be put on a secure footing in order to make mathematics secure. They all went more or less insane and all four effectively committed suicide. Cantor saw his intuitions about infinite sets as being given to him by God and he went insane trying to prove the continuum hypothesis. (His mathematical colleagues of the time already saw his work as insane yet it was the foundation of 20th century mathematics.)

What about Geometric Algebra, you may say? Isn’t it modern? Well, the bits of the theory which Joy uses is not modern at all. It’s about geometry and we have physical intuitions about geometry.

Kolmogorov was nearly finished by Stalin because probability theory was contrary to Marxist-Leninist scientific thought, which was a deterministic theory of the universe and in particular of society. Kolmogorov was called to explain to some Minister or other high communist party official. He pointed out that the regime did run a state lottery so apparently probability theory was OK. This got him off the hook.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bb6b5f68-bf5f-44aa-98e6-e1dc660a6a8e%40www.fastmail.com.