Remaining open problems with Bryan Sanctuary’s approach

[Richard Gill]

Nobody responded to this remark by me: I mentioned that in Bryan’s video he seemed to suggest that whether a particle pair ended up having their polarizations or their helicities measured depended on the measurement setting(s). It seems to me that this would have to be a nonlocal process. However, the papers and the simulation don’t have any information about this at all. The simulation does not simulate a single Bell type experiment. It simulates two, one for the helucities, one for the polarizations, then adds the correlations. (Everyone but Bryan thinks this is nonsensical.)

Maybe I’m the only one who watched the video?

Overall, the present situation is that nobody in the group is actively supporting Bryan. If I remember correctly, Mark Hadley asked him if he knew of any scientists who agreed with his analysis and/or were building on it. We never got an answer.

PS Austin Fearnley asked for a new thread on Bryan Sanctuary’s model. So this could be it!

Actually Austin’s problem would disappear if, when replying to an email from the group, people would not quote the previous email, with a quote of the previous at the end,, with a quote of the previous …)

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I certainly did not watch the video.

Bryan's claimed violation is just a calculation error that would cause him to fail the exam in Probability 101, badly.

His whole "theory" is built on that error. No need to spend time on that.

/Jan-Åke

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f1dc13f1-59b5-4678-ab96-717fd1c39eefn%40googlegroups.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

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

[Richard Gill]

PS. I believe that any group member can start a new topic; just go to our Google groups webpage https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations  , will probably work best on Chrome and if you use a gmail account. You don’t have to ask the managers (me and Alexandre) or the owner (Alexandre). If you think you are getting too many emails, just ask to only get a weekly digest. There are many more features. Take a look! Take control!

[Richard Gill]

I agree with your remark about Probability 101. I don’t think there is any scientific need to spend any time at all on Bryan’s model. It is based on several serious misconceptions and on elementary logical errors. However I have a scientific interest in finding out why very intelligent people are so good at fooling themselves and why they can dedicate their lives to a science fantasy.

[Mark Hadley]

I have not watched the video. Bryan has given no explanation of how he can avoid the conclusion of Bell. Claims that Bell is classical or cannot account for complementarity are just nonsense. There are no such assumptions in the derivation of CHSH.

When presented with claims to explain QM I don't usually even read the papers unless they give a succinct credible explanation of how it relates to BI.

Bryan, just for the record the E is the expectation value of the correlation. It is defined as (N_eq - N_ne)/N_tot. That is a definition. The experimenter counts the ticks in each box and does that simple sum. The fact that you do soe manipulations are get a different equation is proof that you have a calculation error. YOu are luck that people have studied your work well enough to find the error for you.

CHeers

Mark

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/b7ee2316-1c7e-36fc-71a2-28ed60599833%40liu.se.

[Mark Hadley]

It is very common for scientists to hold onto their pet theories despite mounting contrary evidence. I'm doing that myself to some extent.

They deny the facts or modify their theories. 

It's been said that scientific revolutions don't happen because people change their minds. But rather that old ideas die with their supporters. 

Having an alternative idea to work on is probably the best exit route. 

Cheers

Mark 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/754a431f-94a6-402e-b38b-f97aac921c08n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Richard

I should point out that the latest discussion is not used in my papers.   It was a recent idea to see what people thought and if it will work,  I agree that it does not work, so I will put that idea aside and go back to what I did in the paper, and just add the two correlations..

Although I very much appreciate the comments and discussion we just had, please note that Richard's title, "remaining problems with my approach..." does not recognize that my theory works, is consistent from QFT up, answers the questions,  and resolves old problems.  Except for this last point we just discussed, no objective problems have been raised which show my approach is wrong, in fact the opposite.  I get a mechanism for the correlation which makes a lot of sense.   Rather than the disingenuous comment about "remaining problems.." I suggest there is only one problem and you guys should help by trying to answer that, rather than throw up your hands and kill the whole theory because we are not yet clear on how the data can be rationalized.  

Although some say the two correlations should not be added, it appears to me that that is exactly what Nature is telling us.  Again I bring it back to complementarity.  The question, how much correlation is there in a complementary system might be answered like this.  We have two independent properties.  At the max settings in CHSH (45 degrees) one attribute gives a correlation of CHSH = 2 and the other gives a correlation of CHSH = 1, and so the maximum correlation in the system is the sum of the two.  I note that correlation is added in the CHSH formula from four experiments, so what prohibits adding correlation from two complementarity attributes?  I also note the BI are not violated in my work since neither pol nor coh exceed CHSH = 2.  Bell's work does not consider complementarity.  He says the max correlation from pol equals two and the extra is due to non-locality. I find it comes from coherence which exactly accounts for the violation. 

I would be interested in your views of this. 

Bryan

--

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Mark

Well I do not hold onto pet theories.  I am flexible and let the ideas evolve.  I change as logic dictates. 

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo0UJqSQT-77mF9qbxnGztUX6w_ODJbz15OkAwUPe%2BJ1Jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

About what I was saying about whether helicity or polarization is observed:

Look at Bryan's video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQdtBRxL8Mk

Notice the links in the ”info” at a couple of places:

29:44 SPIN DECOUPLING

38:16 The simulation. Different filter positions favour polarization or coherence

Here Bryan is saying things which he didn't write in his papers. If he would implement these ideas for a *pair* of particles at two separated detectors he will run into a problem. He wants either both particles' helicities to be measured, or both particles' polarizations to be measured. But he also wants this to depend on the two relative filter positions which the particles encounter.

Bryan's ideas and Bryan's maths are not in sync. He has graphic ideas about what is going on, expresses them in (for physicists) emotive words and phrases, but can't connect them faithfully to maths.

I'm not a physicist. I don't take much notice of the imagery, I can't use the associations with fundamental physics concepts and relations between them. I have to look carefully at the mathematical definitions and look carefully at the mathematical relations and derivations. It is totally irrelevant what "complementarity" ought to mean, or what all kinds of famous (and now mostly, dead) guys said about it. Successful physics gets mathematized and axiomatized. That is not going to happen with Bryan's theory.

[Richard Gill]

Correlation is not *added* in Bell-CHSH. Three correlations are added and one is subtracted. The 8 one-sided Bell-CHSH inequalities delineate the sets of four correlations which are allowed by theories which can be expressed as local hidden variable theories. Sets of correlations which violate any of these inequalities cannot be generated by a local hidden variables theory. Sets of four correlations which satisfy all of them (together with the no signalling equalities on the marginal distributions of outcome given both settings) can be generated by. LHV. Quantum mechanics allows, theoretically,  sets of correlations which cannot be produced by ab LHV theory. These results have been known for getting on for 60 years, but Bryan is blissfully unaware of them. This is a bit like someone starting completely afresh, inventing a new theory of planar geometry, ans who has only the vaguest of ideas what Pythagoras theorem is about and confident that it will not be true in his theory. It's a bit ... foolish.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

For clarity: You do emphatically *not* generate a new correlation from any of the expressions used in Bell inequalities. You add particular correlations to form Bell expressions that are bounded by Bell inequalities.

Also, Bell's inequality is the triangle inequality of Local Realist models.

/JÅ

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ef983dce-3d0e-480e-a862-4d5b11002d8cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Bryan

As I noted previously, one does not need to average correlations, instead accumulate the paired counts and find the overall correlation in one step.  If the model cannot give S = 2.8 overall than it has fallen behind real experiments which far exceed S= 2 overall.  That is irrespective of separate correlation coefficients for coh and pol.

Hi Richard

I have looked again at the video where you have indicated.  I learned a touch of GA to cope with Joy's model but dropped out when he moved to quaternions.  That means I am not trying to cope with Bryan's quaternions.  It seems to me though that Bryan is merely pointing out under what condition (i.e., differences in a-b vectors) one gets clicks dependent on coh or pol or some combination.  And the fact that the simulation uses both coh and pol correlations means that Bryan is not manipulating a and b vector settings to enhance his results via dependence of particle properties on detector settings?  

Hi Mark

You have given me an interesting target to link e and h.  Thanks.
My starting point is that according to my preon model and to my string theory learnings from Susskind, electric charge lives in its own 4D space (actually 12D).  This is the Kaluza-Klein fifth dimension.  We can only access that independent 4D space by clicks (rather like S-G measurements are clicks).  That explains a lack of precision so we cannot delve within a click.  This is also because the contents of the KK dimension are moving at relativistic speeds compared to our 4D.

Also, Ahranov has papers where he says that his TSVF model completely recovers QM.  And (if I remember accurately) he has a paper using TSVF to model two-slit interference patterns using particle at a time.

You suggest an alternative idea for Bryan's to target.  I suggest that the model be  used to simulate Malus's Law and S-G measurements.
   
Austin

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

You said you would be interested in my views on the idea of adding correlations from experiments in which complementary variables are measured. 

My view is that I see no point to it at all. No experimenter ever did it. The experimenters who observed statistically significant violations of Bell inequalities did not do it. So your idea doesn’t solve any existing problem. Does not predict anything exciting. Does not change our understanding of physics. Does not contradict any existing theory.

Why don’t you take a break and contribute to some other threads? 

e.g. Let me hear *your* views on the Marian Kupczynski - Richard Gill arguments. My paper with Justo Pastor Lambare https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00702  is held up for an editorial investigation by Quantum Reports (MDPI). 

Or on Inge Helland’s ideas.

Or - in a new thread - on my new paper on optimal statistical analysis of Bell experimental data. It’s on arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00702 , I’m currently correcting the proofs for its publication in an MDPI journal called Applied Mathematics.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Richard

The link to your paper with Justo is not correct as it duplicates the other link.

I briefly looked at the other link and found a typo on page10, section 6.3, line 3, where 'my' should be 'by'.  Sorry, not much help!

I am glad you commented on meaningful significance, which is preferable to mere p value significance.

I did not read closely as that would take me a very long time, and so am very unclear how in principle your work identified anything about time drift?

Best wishes

Austin

[Richard Gill]

Dear Austin

Here is the missing link - my. long paper with Justo on one of Marian’s works:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09930

History: we wrote this first and submitted it to Frontiers. It was refereed and accepted but Frontiers is much too expensive for us. So we wrote a very short version for Frontiers, which we could just afford.

But: I had been given an invitation for an APC free article in MDPIs Quantum Reports, so we sent the long version there. It got three referee reports, two were very positive, one was very negative. It was accepted and we submitted a revision. But the revision has got held up because the editors received a complaint, presumably from the reviewer who submitted the “minority report”. C’est la vie. 

The time drift issue is subtle. If both the parameters of the setting choice randomisers, and of the whole internal stuff of the experiment (source, transmission times, and detectors), drift over time, then one can see violation of no-signaling. That means that deviations from the no-signalling equalities are large. Now these deviations are also correlated, if the theoretical perfect symmetry of the four 2x2 tables is disturbed, with the sampling error in S.  Reducing the error by least squares makes it much smaller and makes its variance much smaller and hence makes the statistical test of S .le. 2 more powerful. Hence, in experiments which are blemished by these drifts, the improvement which my methodology gives can be large. If on the other hand an experiment has no appreciable drifts and moreover if the four tetranomial distributions exhibit the ideally expected symmetries, and the four sample sizes are all equally large, then the least squares procedure does not change the p-value at all. Moreover, it turns out to be the same as the p-value of the martingale test based on the Bell game. 

Ie when the experiment is perfect, the Bell game martingale p-value and the p-value based on the standard error of CHSH computed in the usual elementar way are more or less the same. 

The martingale test protects you from drifts. It needs less assumptions. But it does not lose statistical power!

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear all,

On the Bell experiment, I can only recommend Richard's latest papers, my own commentary just posted, and my recent contribution arXiv:2305.05299 [quant-ph]. For those that really want to go into the mathematics of my views, there is a longer paper on arXiv: 2305.06727 [quant.ph].

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: 12 May 2023 22:13:42
To: Austin Fearnley
Cc: Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Remaining open problems with Bryan Sanctuary’s approach

 

--

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/A015DDBB-6755-4FBF-8AE0-C4BBF5F7CDBE%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Inge

I would be delighted to report my own opinions on pros and cons of your innovative and interesting approach. How about you start a new topic dedicated to it? Start off with the key references and an "executive summary". And a nice topic title.

Richard

[Bryan Sanctuary]

On the LHS we have, say, N_eq with a max of the total number of EPR pairs (one coincidence per pair).  When these are separated into N^pol_eq + N^coh_eq they add to 2N_eq, twice as many particles as you really have.  So Jan-Ank needs to learn to count rather than dismiss my work by stating I do not understand simple probabilities.  You can use crayons to prove this.  

So with that factor of one half, the Pol and Coh correlations are added, not averaged.  This is consistent with complementarity, something perhaps along the lines of change of ensemble.

Bryan

Bryan

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/b7ee2316-1c7e-36fc-71a2-28ed60599833%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No they don't.

According to your own claims, the data you count is just one data point per pair, not two.

EITHER polarization OR coherence, you said so yourself.

Then N^pol_eq+N^coh_eq add to N_eq. Not 2 N_eq.

One count per pair is also what experimenters have. They never count two pairs in a single timeslot.
These counts are then used to calculate a point estimate of the correlation.

/Jan-Åke

[Mark Hadley]

N is the number of measurements not the number of particles.

The correlation value is the difference of eq and ne  divided by the sum

Jan makes perfect sense. And agrees with Richard and myself. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwO0gZxqRN8cLJWU9aaEHZ2VYW_fc4XfpuArx5y3ug65g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan is attempting to count each pair twice, once as coherent and once as polarization.

Experimenters count each pair once.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan, are you never going to learn how to spell Jan-Åke’s first name correctly?

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to learn how to spell as well as how to count

[Are you by any chance dyslectic?]

Richard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwO0gZxqRN8cLJWU9aaEHZ2VYW_fc4XfpuArx5y3ug65g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Jan-Åke

Clearly you do not follow my argument. You simultaneously count a click from Pol and a click from Coh so the sum is 2N_eq unless you put in some restrictions which you don't.. 

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No I am following the argument. It is just that it is self-contradicting.

With your logic 1=2.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan, your argument cannot be followed because it depends on two mutually contradictory assumptions.

Seems you must have had a lot of practice in believing impossible things. Remember Alice in Wonderland? "I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”

Richard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwMmn8yrmW4VvmAK-7swgFpcCH9mz0U05vAP3yMXgE77w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

How about a trivial example?

Bryan, what numbers would you put in here?

(Left ist before the experiment. Right after measurement)

We have 2 sets of entangled photons (pair P1 and pair P2)

The first pair registers a Pol click.

The second pair registers a Coh click.)

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Bryan Sanctuary]

no I say that 1 = 1/2 x2

[Chantal Roth]

Bryan,

What about the counts in this example (maybe we can all agree and then move on :-))? 

There are 2 pairs of photons (total 4).

The first pair registers as pol.

The second pair registers as coh.

What are your click counts?

What is your total in this case?

Best wishes,

Chantal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YztnNNHQh1PjNtzpemN_Sgh0PZ6xYaObd2Oav6MuJWoAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Chantal, are the settings held constant in your example? And what are the possible outcomes on each side?

Are you taking them to be elements of the Cartesian product  {-1, 0, +1} x {pol, coh} ?

Maybe Bryan can give us a list of all possible outcome pairs which he envisages for Alice and Bob

There are clicks +/-1 for each party and they may be “pol” or “coh” clicks

Alice and Bob either both have a pol click or both have a coh click

Since Bryan never gives a clean mathematical description of his model nobody can ever say that his analysis is correct or incorrect because it is simply incomplete

I believe that it is wrong because it cannot be completed in a coherent way.

On 24 May 2023, at 06:53, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com> wrote:

Bryan,

What about the counts in this example (maybe we can all agree and then move on :-))? 

There are 2 pairs of photons (total 4).

The first pair registers as pol.

The second pair registers as coh.

What are your click counts?

What is your total in this case?

<image.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9cbae5f8-2b07-4c5f-a4c7-e74c88fac753%40app.fastmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Richard,

This is the simplest possible (I think) toy example :-). Can't get any easier :-).

So yes, fixed settings.

Yes, -1, 1 or 0 (no click).

And yes, both have pol measurement, or both have a col measurement (XOR)

[Richard Gill]

OK, thanks Chantal! So we do have the same guess as to what Bryan is thinking the data would look like, if one could experimentally distinguish “pol” from “coh”

It seems that he has the weird idea that as it is not yet possible to do that, we should double all correlations. I would say that by his own logic he should halve them, and then give those numbers as the correlation coming from each of his imagined sources.

I don’t see this idea catching on

[Pierre Leroy]

Hi,

By noting:
p => event of type 'pol'
c => event of type 'coh'

With one emitted pair, the possibles combinations of states are as
follows: (some may be impossible, it's to Bryan to say it)

+p +p
+p -p
+p +c
+p -c

-p +p
-p -p
-p +c
-p -c

+c +p
+c -p
+c +c
+c -c

-c +p
-c -p
-c +c
-c -c

The types of possible experimental measurements are:

+ +
+ -
+ 0
- +
- -
- 0
0 +
0 -
0 0

(noting 0 => no detection)

It is enough that Bryan define for each type of possible experimental
measurement, the states of the first list which can produce the measurement.

example:

+ +   +p +p / +c +c / ..
+ -   ..

It should be clearer after that.

Pierre

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan Ank is wrong. I am saying the opposite, to count each event once, not twice, the way experiments are done.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Chantal,

How many particles are there in your example? The total number of coincidence clicks from all sources cannot exceed the total number of EPR pairs-- one coincidence per pair, one click per particle.  In your example it seems you get 4 clicks from 2 particles.

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9cbae5f8-2b07-4c5f-a4c7-e74c88fac753%40app.fastmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard said

Since Bryan never gives a clean mathematical description of his model nobody can ever say that his analysis is correct or incorrect because it is simply incomplete

This is  disingenuous. There is nothing wrong with my math, and your comment shows your bais since you don't want to lose and therefore attack me to obfuscate and discredit when you have no other recourse. 

Where is my math dirty?

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/2A594A5C-835F-4ED8-8FBD-A4354DC4FD35%40gmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Bryan,

Yes, there are 4 particles in total.

2 go to A, 2 go to B.

(2 pairs each)

Best wishes,

Chantal

Attachments:

• image.png
  

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard

What is weird about conserving the total number of particles?

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/377BA67A-F066-46C1-A9C6-C0D9814F1F23%40gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No.

Each outcome is counted only once.

If there is an outcome from the "coherence" property, that is counted once and will contribute 1 to either N_eq^c or N_ne^c, and also 1 to N_tot

If there is an outcome from the "polarization" property, that is counted once and will contribute 1 to either N_eq^p or N_ne^p, and also 1 to N_tot

Therefore N_tot=N_eq^c+N_ne^c+N_eq^p+N_ne^p

You are claiming N_tot=(N_eq^c+N_ne^c+N_eq^p+N_ne^p)/2
This is wrong.

/Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, you asked “What is weird about conserving the total number of particles?” That’s a weird question, in view of Bell’s theorem and the question of whether or not the physical world can be explained in a local realistic way.

John Bell’s answer was that particles have nothing to do with it. He wrote:

“You might suspect that there is something specially peculiar about spin-half particles. In fact there are many other ways of creating the troublesome correlations. So the following argument makes no reference to spin-half particles, or any other particular particles. Finally you might suspect that the very notion of particle, and particle orbit, freely used above in introducing the problem, has somehow led us astray. Indeed did not Einstein think that fields rather than particles are at the bottom of everything? So the following argument will not mention particles, nor indeed fields, nor any other particular picture of what goes on at the microscopic level. Nor will it involve any use of the words ‘quantum mechanical system’, which can have an unfortunate effect on the discussion. The difficulty is not created by any such picture or any such terminology. It is created by the predictions about the correlations in the visible outputs of certain conceivable experimental set-ups.”

— Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy by J. S. Bell
https://a.co/bwV0fXT

He went on to explain the set-up he was talking about.




Sent from my iPad

> On 24 May 2023, at 12:35, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

I did not say your math is dirty, I said it is incomplete.

I object to your ad hominem claims that I obfuscate and discredit because I have no recourse. I could say the same about you but I do not operate in that way.

I do not decide whether or not I win our wager. Our peers will decide by looking at your arguments and your maths.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 24 May 2023, at 12:28, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Pierre Leroy]

Hi,

I propose a solution to define the measures produced by the pol/coh states.
It allows to interpret Bryan's equation E.
It requires to use the notion of detectable states that I mentioned before.


The list of experimental measurements can be produced by the following pol/coh states:

+ +   +p +p / +c +c

+ -   +p -p / +c -c
- +   -p +p / -c +c
- -   -p -p / -c -c
+ 0   +p +c / +p -c / +c +p / +c -p
- 0   -p +c / -p -c / -c +p / -c -p
0 +   +p +c / -p +c / +c +p / -c +p
0 -   +p -c / -p -c / +c -p / -c -p
0 0   +p +p / +p -p / -p +p / -p -p / +c +c / +c -c / -c +c / -c -c

=> The same experimental measurement can be produced by different pol/coh/detectability combinations.


A combination of pol/coh states can produce two types of experimental measurement depending on whether pol or coh is detected:

States / exp. measures

+p +p   ++  00
+p -p   +-  00
+p +c   +0  0+
+p -c   +0  0-

-p +p   -+  00
-p -p   --  00
-p +c   -0  0+
-p -c   -0  0-

+c +p   +0  0+
+c -p   +0  0-
+c +c   ++  00
+c -c   +-  00

-c +p   -0  0+
-c -p   -0  0-
-c +c   -+  00
-c -c   --  00

If the detectable state is 'pol' we measure:

+p +p  ++
+p -p  +-
+p +c  +0
+p -c  +0

-p +p  -+
-p -p  --
-p +c  -0
-p -c  -0

+c +p  0+
+c -p  0-
+c +c  00
+c -c  00

-c +p  0+
-c -p  0-
-c +c  00
-c -c  00

If the detectable state is 'coh' we measure:

+p +p  00
+p -p  00
+p +c  0+
+p -c  0-

-p +p  00
-p -p  00
-p +c  0+
-p -c  0-

+c +p  +0
+c -p  +0
+c +c  ++
+c -c  +-

-c +p  -0
-c -p  -0
-c +c  -+
-c -c  --


During an experiment, there are 16 possible pol/coh states:
   => 4 produce a pair measurement.
   => 4 produce no measurement.
   => 8 produce singles

However, during an experiment, we do not measure only 25% of pairs.

The experimentally measured rates depend on the proportions of the pol/coh states of the particles which is not 50% / 50%.

These proportions must depend on the interactions with the filters.

This makes the theoretical equation E difficult to define if we want to include the states pol + coh + detectability with mutually exclusive combinations.


The equation of the form E = (Neq-Nnq)/(Neq+Nnq) used in experiments can give a useful result only if we assume that everything is detectable.

Otherwise, it expresses the result of a mixture.

If we consider non-detectable states, we should write E in the following form.

Noting:
a = Neq detectable
b = Nnq detectable
a' = Neq not detectable
b' = Nnq not detectable

then:

E = ((a + a') - (b + b'))/((a + a') + (b + b'))      (1)

We can then split the equation into two parts.

E = (a - b)/(a + a' + b + b') + (a' - b')/(a + a' + b + b')    (2)

As the part on the right is not measurable (a' - b') = (0 - 0), we only have

E = (a - b)/(a + a' + b + b')

If the detectability state is random with a pol,coh rate of 50%,50%, then probably a = a' and b = b' (to be established)

It will allow to write

E = (a - b)/(a + a + b + b)

We find Bryan's equation

E = (1/2)(a - b)/(a + b)

So according to me Bryan's equation has only an incomplete form because it expresses only what is measurable with respect to what is emitted, but should produce correct results.

The full form is (1).

Pierre

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No. The experimenter will write down one detection per pair, not two.

--
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/6d281b89-5bcf-091a-1e5e-4e0cb5e39855%40gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I should probably write

No. The experimenter will write down one pair of detections per pair, not two.

N_tot=N_eq+N_ne=(N_eq^p+N_eq^c)+(N_ne^p+N_ne^c)


/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/66fc74f0-d7be-7b6e-a152-0d4d36e7a21c%40liu.se.

[Pierre Leroy]

Hi,

To define a pair detection it is necessary to detect two particles, therefore two detections (events).

Two events produce a single pair measurement.

N_tot=N_eq+N_ne=(N_eq^p+N_eq^c)+(N_ne^p+N_ne^c)

Agree, it is the expression a + a' + b + b' at the denominator in equation (1) if we replace a,a',b,b' with what is defined in "Noting"

Pierre

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/b8dc1014-c701-7273-c891-3bf2a99cafe7%40liu.se.

[Chantal Roth]

Jan-Åke,

Totally agreed - Pierre just wanted to "spell it out" to be super clear (since this has not been moving forward much, it is worth trying something else :-)).

So this makes it perfectly clear what N_eq+ means etc....

Bryan, do you agree with this? (First column: measured, second: possibilities)

(N_eq+ =  + +

N_eq- = - -

etc)

+ +   +p +p / +c +c

+ -   +p -p / +c -c

- +   -p +p / -c +c

- -   -p -p / -c -c

+ 0   +p +c / +p -c / +c +p / +c -p

- 0   -p +c / -p -c / -c +p / -c -p

0 +   +p +c / -p +c / +c +p / -c +p

0 -   +p -c / -p -c / +c -p / -c -p

0 0   +p +p / +p -p / -p +p / -p -p / +c +c / +c -c / -c +c / -c -c

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hello

I made a new video  which is descriptive only, i.e. non mathematical

https://youtu.be/i-4qqwRDrCQ

Below is my answer to the problem of adding or averaging the correlations from polarization and coherence.

Your comments are welcome

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Bryan,

Your formula (still) suggests the total correlation is a weighted average the "coherent" and "polarization" correlations.

But to generate the correlation you claim, you then add them together.

Could you please decide on one alternative only?

/Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Jan Ake

I think my document is clear.  It shows a boolean distinction between the two complementary attributes and which shows that this is consistent with the usual definition of the correlation.  I do not have anything more to add.  Please note the complementary nature of Eq.(9)

Eq (31) shows that it is a weighted sum, via p_p and p_c as you seem to want, but the boolean feature of complementarity shows that the two add. 

I believe it is all consistent.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, I don’t understand your equation (31). What are delta_p and delta_c?

Since our bet has to be decided in half a year from now, I remind you what exactly it was:

https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/

You recall that what I wrote down in my blog was the culmination of an exchange of emails between us. You agreed to this formulation.

On 26 Jun 2023, at 19:26, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jan Ake

I think my document is clear.  It shows a boolean distinction between the two complementary attributes and which shows that this is consistent with the usual definition of the correlation.  I do not have anything more to add.  Please note the complementary nature of Eq.(9)

<image.png>

Eq (31) shows that it is a weighted sum, via p_p and p_c as you seem to want, but the boolean feature of complementarity shows that the two add. 

I believe it is all consistent.

Bryan

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:01 PM Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:

Dear Bryan,

Your formula (still) suggests the total correlation is a weighted average the "coherent" and "polarization" correlations.

But to generate the correlation you claim, you then add them together.

Could you please decide on one alternative only?

/Jan-Åke

On 2023-06-26 18:51, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

Hello

I made a new video  which is descriptive only, i.e. non mathematical

https://youtu.be/i-4qqwRDrCQ

Below is my answer to the problem of adding or averaging the correlations from polarization and coherence.

Your comments are welcome

Bryan

<image.png>

<image.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzEv2%2B%3DB4qNb%2BJSUaP%2BqDGRnHj%3DwFTp0ZQe6srmZ1HYPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Binary values, if one of them is =1 the other is =0. They are the (maybe hidden) value that tells you whether the pair is "coherent" or "polarization".

Bryan, this just shows your confusion.

These two dichotomic values should not be in (31), they are what generates p_p and p_c. The average value of delta_p is p_p, and the average value of delta_c is p_c. This is why the formula should be a weighted average.

You are not going to convince anyone like this.

/Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

Thanks

The formula therefore makes no sense at all.

delta_p and delta_c belong to one trial. But the formula ia about averages based on data from N_tot trials.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I agree: delta_p and delta_c belong to one trial. But the formula ia about averages based on data from N_tot trials.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Sometimes I get confused because some words are used with a different meaning from my own use. For example, Bryan wrote in the “section” “Determining the correlation”:

“Polarization and coherence are complementary properties which means that they are not manifest simultaneously” … “…, if one contributes to the coincidences, the other does not.”

 

In my understanding coherence may have some meanings like, if two beams have a similar behavior they could interfere, or if photons have the same phase they can interfere, and so on. Photon coherence also means photon indistinguishability. Polarization is independent of coherence. No complementary aspects exist. A polarized beam may be coherent or not, there is no exclusive aspects involved – and even less “…, if one contributes to the coincidences, the other does not.”

 

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Skype: geraldo.a.barbosa

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YyVe1KZbP3gYjVY1kMNdUs4G8ybpTZwq6uFDtKT2ntj%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

These are just words that Bryan chose for the sub-ensembles.

Let's wait until he has the calculations right and ONLY THEN start discussing the names.

/Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Jan-Åke

You are misinterpreting the formula.  I have nothing I can add to clarify it more than it already is.  Either you accept it, or you find the error.

Bryan

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:01 PM Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I've told you the error.

Perhaps you understand if I write it like this:

The complementary distinction says one of them is =0 and the other one is =1.
In your formula,
- if delta_c=0 then delta_p=1 and E(a,b)=E^p(a,b)p_p
- if delta_p=0 then delta_c=1 and E(a,b)=E^c(a,b)p_c
Not the sum E^p(a,b)+E^c(a,b), even if I use your formula.

The correct expression is what used to be in your paper
E(a,b)=E^p(a,b)p_p+E^c(a,b)p_c
Although you never used that formula yourself.

You are not going to convince anyone like this.

/Jan-Åke

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,
Either your formula applies to experiments one by one. A single pair. Then you can use the deltas. Then

E(a,b)=E^p(a,b)delta_p+E^c(a,b)delta_c

Or your formula applies to the whole sequence of experiments. Then the probabilities p_p and p_c express that over the experiment, a certain proportion are "pol" and another proportion is "coh"

E(a,b)=E^p(a,b)p_p+E^c(a,b)p_c

You have to choose one of the two. You never combine p_p and delta_p in the same formula.

/Jan-Åke

On 2023-06-26 22:31, Bryan Sanctuary wrote:

So Jan-Ake

Complementary outcomes occur randomly from a random source and so, one click at a time, they build up the usual statistical formula from the two complementary properties.  At each detection, we have either delta_p or delta_c, and a contribution to the correlation from either.  The probabilities, p_p and p_c simply express that over the experiment, a certain number are pol and a certain number is coh.

You are right, I never use this formula because I do not know the probabilities.  However the formula expresses that two sources of clicks add the two correlations and agrees with the usual expresson for the correlation.  I see nothing wrong with me.

Think of one click at a time.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hello All

I have been doing other stuff for a while .  

Going back, fundamentally you are saying that my work cannot be correct because of Bell's Theorem. Consider, however, that my quantum theory leads to a (classial) visualization in my mind which I cast into the simulation.  The simulation is basically the interactions between classical vectors.  I have three axes and I get a CHSH = 1 per  axis.  

There is a paper attached by Arto Annila and Marten Wikstrom called Quantum entanglement and classical correlation have the same form. It is short and clear.

My simulation generates classical correlation which agrees with quantum entanglement.  Their paper says this is not ruled out.  Hence your argument that I cannot violate Bell's theorem does not stand up  for classical correlations.

Comments welcome of course,

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

I am saying your work is not correct because it does not generate data with the right values and probability distribution.

Bell’s theorem says it can’t, you should have known in advance that it can’t.

Richard 

Sent from my iPad

On 18 Aug 2023, at 00:40, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



<AnnilaWikstromEPRCorrelation.pdf>

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan, 

No. 

Primarily we are saying that your work is WRONG it has mathematical errors. They fundamental and totally negate your conclusion.

We have read your papers line by line and a few people found the same critical error. 

It is true that we did not need to read the whole paper to know it was false. Because you had not identified any coherent way to avoid BI. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yw_97wY6sA3FkfrVZ3nd0LhjuA6t9twU6f8CpmbCK7O5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No Bryan,
We're saying that your calculations are wrong. I've pointed this out in detail over and over again and also attempted to explain how the calculation should be done.

You should not add correlations. You should use a weighted average.

Best regards,
Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yw_97wY6sA3FkfrVZ3nd0LhjuA6t9twU6f8CpmbCK7O5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Jan-Åke and Richard,

I neglected to add the authors of the paper I attached to my last email.  So here I introduce Arto Annila and Marten Wikstrom who wrote  Quantum entanglement and classical correlation have the same form.

I have answered the question about the weighted average: here shows I can sum the two:

This also answers Richard who said I cannot generate the EPR data.  The above shows I can. More importantly, beyond this, the main reason raised to say I am wrong is to hold up Bell's Theorem.  

It is on this point that Arto and Marten make the point in their title:  Quantum entanglement and classical correlation have the same form. I pointed out that my simulation is not QM but a classical model suggested by QM.  My violation is an example of their statement.  

I think their paper goes beyond helping me.  It challenges Bell.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of 7 murders and numerous murder attempts. I am going to be intensively occupied for probably 7 years in the fight to get her a fair re-trial. If she survives (which one may doubt) I’ll be close to 80 then. I’m not doing quantum mechanics till then. Who would be interested in taking over my job as co-manager of the group? Obviously this must be approved and implemented by the owner of the group, Alexander de Castro.

 Regarding your post:

You have to know what I (and everyone else) means exactly by EPR-B data (you said EPR). You have never listened, so you still don’t know.

Your paper does not challenge Bell, which is about EPR-B data.

Our bet is to be settled by canvassing our peers in early January. Do a majority believe you have challenged Bell and resolved (or even abolished) the mystery of entanglement? I am looking forward to your €5000, it is badly needed to support the pro-Lucy campaign, which slowly starting now. I am building a campaign website science4lucy.nl We are a Foundation established under Dutch law. That has already cost a fair amount of money, which I don’t have.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 19 Aug 2023, at 01:44, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,

That formula is wrong and will not convince anyone. If you bothered to insert your numbers into it you would realize that you yourself cannot recreate the numbers you claim to have from that formula. The reason is the following:

Look at the final row
1) if delta_p=1 then delta_c=0. Then (N^p_eq delta_p - N^p_nq delta_p)/N_tot=(N_eq-N_nq)/N_tot
1) if delta_p=0 then delta_c=1. Then (N^c_eq delta_c - N^c_nq delta_c)/N_tot=(N_eq-N_nq)/N_tot

The expression (N_eq-N_nq)/N_tot does not depend on the deltas. So if (25) holds, then N^p_eq-N^p_nq=N^c_eq-N^c_nq. That is not what your claimed numbers say, nor what you wanted.

I repeat, the correct form of (25) is either for experiments one by one, or a whole sequence of experiments.

If the formula applies to experiments one by one, a single pair, then you can use the deltas. Then

   E(a,b)=E^p(a,b)delta_p+E^c(a,b)delta_c

This expresses that in a single experiment, the actual correlation is either that of the coherent ensemble or that of the polarization ensemble.

If the formula applies to the whole sequence of experiments, then the probabilities p_p and p_c are the average of the delta_p and delta_c and express that over the experiment, a certain proportion are "pol" and another proportion is "coh"

   E(a,b)=E^p(a,b)p_p+E^c(a,b)p_c

You have to choose one of the two. You never combine p_p and delta_p in the same formula.

The people you are trying to convince will spot the error immediately, they will typically stop reading at your claim that combining two distributions with low correlation can give high correlation. You will lose the bet.

/Jan-Åke

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan, 

It's nonsense. As Jan says the use of the deltas does not make sense.

You would realise that if you put some numbers in and worked through some examples. 

Nobody is objecting to your work in order to uphold BI. Pay attention to what is being said. Your maths is wrong.

Your model satisfies the requirements for BI so it will satisfy BI. 

Good try, time to move on. 

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yz3iCNM-PdQszckky%3D8ALguLsGqxf34Q3gNEAKXdOsyfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard

I imagine you are distraught over the verdict and sentence of Lucy Letby.  I have not followed the case but I imagine your reasons are strong and you now have a long fight in front of you.  Good luck on it all.

I wrote earlier with something new, that paper by Arto and Marten, which I think is important.  You ignored it I guess. Rather you jumped to the bet like you usually do.  You will not be able to declare yourself the winner by fiat by quoting Bell.  We might have trouble finding fair and impartial peers.  People like Mark and Jan-Ake are out.  To lose, I will require a definite fatal error, and you have not succeeded in my opinion.  If it comes to peers, I will have requirements, but that is for later.

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yz3iCNM-PdQszckky%3D8ALguLsGqxf34Q3gNEAKXdOsyfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan wanted us to read a preprint by two Finns, Arto and Marten.

They say "Thus, as long as the spins retain their orientations relative to each other, the measurement of one spin in a chosen frame of reference also discloses the opposite orientation of the other in that frame.”

Seems they believe in action at a distance. I wonder where they will get their paper published

On 19 Aug 2023, at 01:44, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jan-Åke and Richard,

I neglected to add the authors of the paper I attached to my last email.  So here I introduce Arto Annila and Marten Wikstrom who wrote  Quantum entanglement and classical correlation have the same form.

I have answered the question about the weighted average: here shows I can sum the two:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yz3iCNM-PdQszckky%3D8ALguLsGqxf34Q3gNEAKXdOsyfw%40mail.gmail.com.
<AnnilaWikstromEPRCorrelation (1).pdf>

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

I don't know why you question my impartiality ( or Jan's).

Like you, and unlike Richard, I think QM and it's correlations should be explained with a realist theory.

I've found mistakes in your paper. As has everyone who has studied it. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxA9rkFgG%2B%2BVQZGuRdBVqq7j1uXGzS6GWNQpHqFKTp0Kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

You can test the equation yourself. Get two distinct packs of cards a "P" and a "C" pack. Check for each one the probabilities of red, or clubs or a seven etc. Then shuffle the two packs together and check the new probabilities.

For my other criticism, you can also test it yourself: find a derivation of BI. CHSC derivations are simple. Write it out line by line and identify any steps that don't apply to your model.

Cheers

Mark

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, 22:09 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxA9rkFgG%2B%2BVQZGuRdBVqq7j1uXGzS6GWNQpHqFKTp0Kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Presse]

May I recommend something very concrete assuming both Richard and Bryan agree. 

We may need something like this if Bryan's 3 manuscripts cannot go through conventional refereeing channels to settle the bet. 

Treat the bet as a refereeing exercise. In other words:

1) you should both agree on 1 impartial Editor (someone with a faculty position in physics, who has previously served as editor/guest editor, has published in quantum though not necessarily in quantum foundations. For example it can be someone in condensed matter).

2) Make a list of referees to be excluded by the Editor. Cap it at 5 each (journals rarely accept very long lists of referees to be excluded). The Editor promises not to send Bryan's 3 manuscripts out for evaluation out to these referees.

3) Treat this like a journal submission. Bryan's 3 manuscripts cannot be edited post submission. The Editor (not Bryan) takes the feedback from all referees and determines whether a fatal flaw has been identified. Unlike other referee work, the referees are specifically asked to identify flaws (and not comment on stylistic issues, sufficient citations, formatting etc...). The referees can remain anonymous if they wish.
4) The Editor is to be identified by Sep 15th. The 3 referee reports are due back Dec 1st. The Editor's final decision is due Dec 31st. The money order to be sent by Jan 15th.

5) The winner may agree to donate 100 euros to each of the referees for their volunteer work.

I am sure there are other minor issues to iron out. But this is a solid start.

[Austin Fearnley]

I am merely an amateur, but I have thought from day one that you will lose the bet.  You should have listened when Richard said that you have zero chance of winning, and that he doesn't like to bet if there is any chance at all of him losing.  Why anyone would want to risk a large sum of money on a cutting edge physics problem is beyond belief.

I have always thought that your model is something like my gyroscopic model where a particle has a static polarisation vector and a dynamic phase vector in gyroscopic rotation about the polarisation vector.  I made a spreadsheet simulation of this and found this model failed to beat the classical limit of correlation of 0.5.  It is easy to create random values for the static polarisation vector but not quite so easy to make random values for the dynamic phase vector.  I am not sure if your helicity vector is static or dynamic and how you managed to create random values for it in your simulation.  Your method also appears to play the winner of polarisation versus helicity in getting the best correlation.  So maybe that idea trumps my method where in my method only the phase creates the correlation.

I agree with everyone else about your calculation of the correlation.  I do not use CHSH in simulations, and my choice of that method puzzles Richard. I am happy with using a=0 and b=45 degrees for detector setting angles in a simulation.  That will make the calculation of the correlation easier as you need to beat r=0.5 rather than beat S=2.0.   But you also have two separate correlation calculations for polarisation (p) and helicity (h).  It may be interesting to calculate the two separate correlations but the success of the experiment should only depend on the overall correlation value of p and h combined.

Rather than calculate the two separate correlations and then combine them, I suggest you only produce one overall correlation direct.  I would use a spreadsheet to generate, say, a manageable small population of 100 pairs of particles and then get results of +/-1 on each particle, irrespective of p and h, and directly calculate the overall correlation.  100 pairs are not enough to prove to others that you are correct, but should be enough to convince you that you are wrong.

My retrocausal method obtains r=0.707 but convinces no one.  It is local within two-way time directions at microscopic level but appears to be non-local when viewed in the one-way macroscopic time direction.  My retrocausal method does not beat Bell's Theorem because the paths of the particles do not conform to a one-way time flow.  It actually conforms to a Malus experiment, which is not at all mysterious.  The Bell Inequalities are bypassed rather than beaten.

Richard wrote:

"Bryan wanted us to read a preprint by two Finns, Arto and Marten.

They say "Thus, as long as the spins retain their orientations relative to each other, the measurement of one spin in a chosen frame of reference also discloses the opposite orientation of the other in that frame.”

Seems they believe in action at a distance. I wonder where they will get their paper published."

This seems to me to be the standard QM explanation of the 0.707 correlation.  The two spins always maintain their relative orientations.  If the second particle maintains its relative orientation after the first particle is measured then that is action at a distance.  But, just as in my retrocausal method, this scenario also devolves into a Malus experiment situation.  So QM is not really breaking Bell's Inequality either.  If the first measurement is +/-1 along vector a, then the second measurement is of a particle with polarisation vector -/+ a being measured at detector setting vector b.  That is pure Malus, not involving Bell's Inequalities.

IMO no method will ever defeat Bell's Inequalities except by bypassing them through some form of non-locality.  Classical particles cannot do that, not even my gyroscopic model travelling in a one-way time direction.  But two time directions makes all the difference.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Steve

Something like this sounds to me like a reasonable approach.

Note that the bet concerned Bryan’s claim to have disposed of the myth of spooky action at a distance. Quantum entanglement exists, but rapidly decays with distance according to an inverse square law. The 2022 Nobel prizes should be retracted as well as numerous papers of Zeilinger and others.

Secondly, should I lose, there is no way I could give away 5000 Euro. Bryan has told me that the same would be true for himself. So unless for instance our supporters are willing to back us, I can only bet 50 Euro, or at a punch, 100.

Ceteram senseo Lucia [EN: Lucy] inocens est

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Aug 2023, at 17:26, Steve Presse <spr...@asu.edu> wrote:

May I recommend something very concrete assuming both Richard and Bryan agree. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f1f9381c-ffbc-4169-9b30-639fd0c78c3en%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear friends

Bryan is a bit like the police investigating Lucy Letby. Four medical specialists told them she had been killing babies. The police believed them. From there on: confirmation bias.

Bryan is like the police. He has a hunch that he is onto something really big. He wrote it up in three papers. (His three papers are now the analogues of the four medical consultants). Bryan now knows in heart and soul that he’s right, so: if *you* think he’s wrong, *you* must be biased. If you think he’s right, you are a reliable and unbiased scientist. His peers are the scientists in our field who are reliable and unbiased. Therefore it is clear that he has won his bet since in his terms his bet is unlosable. I hereby state that now I understand Bryan’s terms, I agree that Bryan won his bet long ago, but I will not give him any money. It was not the bet I agreed to. I recommend he tries crowdfunding in order to have others help recompense him for not getting € 5000 off me. If he gets enough money that way he can even get a lawyer and sue me for breach of contract. It won’t help him much. In Dutch we say “you can’t get a lot of feathers off a plucked chicken”. I don’t think it would be good for his scientific reputation, though.

Time to call it a day, in my opinion.

And: who wants to take over my job as co-manager of this Google group?

Cheers

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Aug 2023, at 10:37, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear all,
I agree.

• I am a professor in the field, at a Swedish university
• I have a PhD in math, have a position at an electrical engineering department, and publish in physics journals
• I have worked in the field for a quarter of a century, published around 80 papers, many on this exact kind of modeling, these have gathered some 3000+ citations
  
• I don't have a fixed opinion, I started in the field by producing local hidden variable models for particular experimental setups, and modified Bell's inequality for the kind of weaknesses I found in the tests
• I wrote what seems to be THE overview of loopholes in Bell inequality tests
• I would consider myself a peer of Bryan

However

• I found a fatal flaw in Bryan's paper
• I wrote down, in detail, what the error is
  
• Therefore Bryan does not consider me a peer anymore
  

I am not impressed by Bryan's behavior.

Sincerely,
Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Jan-Åke

Choosing peers has nothing to do with behaviour. It is like jury selection and we must agree on who.

You might be highly qualified but you have shown bias in your statements so i know how you will vote. Also you have not understood my treatment, and any peer must prove they do understand it, not just dismiss it by quoting a theorem.

Its not personal.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Strange,

What bias is Jan showing?

He found a mathematical error on your paper (same one independently found by others). That's not bias. 

Now Richard does have a conflict of interest. But not Jan or I. 

The academic referee system does not allow authors to dismiss experts who disagree with them. 

How about YOU finding one SINGLE academic who will support your paper and who can explain to the forum why your expectation formula is right. And who can explain how in principle your work avoids the limits of BI. 

 

[Steve Presse]

Richard you will not loose.

When you consider a joint probability distribution between two particles, with particles indistinguishable, then you necessarily recover entanglement.

This effect is what leads to the fringe patterns of Young’s to slit experiment, and what resolves the Gibbs paradox of statistical mechanics.

Adding an extra axis of precession and adding correlations in unconventional ways as Bryan does implies that every joint distribution between any two quantities would need a new hidden variable. Not just spins. This is silly. I can write arbitrarily high order joint distributions of any quantity. I would literally need an infinite number of these new hidden quantities. Occam’s razor.

Unfortunately, calling indistinguishability of variables in joint distributions “action at a distance“  (and awarding the Nobel for this) has been extremely unhelpful, and, in my opinion, has led people like Bryan astray.

Focusing on two photons moving apart misses the point of particle indistinguishability entirely.

Richard has already labeled me a ”shut up and calculate” type :) Richard may also think I am biased (I worked with Bryan as an undergrad). Bryan likely thinks I am biased. Jan and Mark may dislike the fact that, while I agree with them on technical issues, I think quantum foundations is a non-existent problem.

Do what you want, but I think your bet should move forward. I am happy identifying a list of serious (tenured/high h-index/etc) physicists who would be willing to serve as editors and have you evaluate them.

Let me know. Please be serious.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Steve,

Agreed. 

I don't dislike you having a different viewpoint. It's reasonable and logical. But not one I hold myself. 

The jury is still out. 

Cheers

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1f3ec6bd-41cc-4e07-8c4b-264f07fde472n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, suppose your treatment is wrong? I believe it is wrong. I am betting that it is wrong. 

It’s not personal. The bet is about the question of whether your treatment is right or wrong.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Aug 2023, at 15:58, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Steve Presse]

I should add: you would each submit a cover letter to the Editor. 

We follow NIH rules for paper and cover letter submission: no links to external websites allowed. The 3 papers (and cover letters) must stand for themselves.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Steve, I am not afraid to lose, but I simply do not want to bet 5000 Euros because if I lose I won’t be able to pay it. Bryan should not bet either, he already told me he can’t spare 5000. So: I propose we make it 50.

R.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Aug 2023, at 16:23, Steve Presse <steven...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard you will not loose.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1f3ec6bd-41cc-4e07-8c4b-264f07fde472n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

I am being serious! OK, I can agree to go ahead with your proposal. What about Bryan?

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Aug 2023, at 16:23, Steve Presse <steven...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard you will not loose.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1f3ec6bd-41cc-4e07-8c4b-264f07fde472n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard

Choosing peers, like Steve suggested, is along the lines I favour.  Now I note you are trying to back out again.   You are good at finding loopholes.You once suggested before we cancel the bet, and I said I would not but you could if you want.  Now, again, you want to cancel the bet or lower it.   I never said I could not pay, I only said that I have no research grant and would use the winnings for research travel.

It was Richard who suggested the 5K euros on his impossible two computer bet.  I reject those terms which would simply show Bell's theorem is classically correct and is unwinnable.  I suggested that I would have a theory which would show violation without non-locality.  I have done that.  Like Marian said in his Moon paper and Ario and Marten in theirs, the sum over all coincidences is nothing but a spreadsheet with N_tot entries of +1 and -1.  I assert to you that this sum will give a cosine similarity,

The experiments have been done (2022 Nobel prize) and they agree with the above, except they cannot yet distinguish pol from coh.  Therefore you cannot say this is wrong.

This is different from other complementary properties.  What does it mean to add position and momentum or to add energy and time?  Each is a totally different property and each is incompatible with the other.  For angle  angular momentum incompatibility using coincidences, the experiment only registers clicks, not pol or coh clicks.  It cannot distinguish pol from coh with coincidences. Hence the outcomes of angle angular momentum coincidence are added like in the equation above,  because the experiment cannot distinguish.

The very last thing I would ever do is hire a lawyer to go after you.  It has never crossed my mind and to do so would be inappropriate, hostile and poor taste.  If you do not want to pay, no problem. But if you are worried you are losing and want to modify the bet, the amount or anything else, let me know.

Bryan

If Richard wishes to back out because I want transparency with peers, then that is fine with me.  

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,
You have to understand that I am among the people in the field that are the most positive there is, to this kind of research.

Most people in the field ("peers") would refuse to read your paper outright. I have read your paper, in detail. I take your attempts seriously. These others would just point to Bell's inequality and then refuse to read the paper. I did not. I read (past and present tense) your paper.

Your problem is that I found a grave error in your paper, an error in your calculation that is independent of Bell's theorem. You need to correct your error before we can even discuss the model.

I am not biased. I am checking your calculations, which is essential to have your model being taken seriously.

/Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Steve

You say: "When you consider a joint probability distribution between two particles, with particles indistinguishable, then you necessarily recover entanglement."  

That statement is not true.  I agree that is the origin of the singlet state using SU(2) spin for example, but see paper 3

Sanctuary, B. Non-Local EPR Correlations using Quaternion Spin. Preprints 2023, 2023010570. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202301.0570.v5

 

and look at the section on page 15, the singlet state, you will see that particle indistinguishability doesn't give entanglement and shows the singlet can be written as a product.  You can see this also in the videos

53:07 THE SINGLET STATE IS AN APPROXIMATION 55:05 Separation of the singlet with Q-spins. 57:36 Lost correlation from the singlet state. 58:08 The eight ways an EPR pair can separate. 59:00 Forming Hermitian EPR pairs with opposite helicity. 53:46 THE MISSING CORRELATION IN THE SINGLET STATE.

(I thought you worked on that with me).  Adding the extra axis is not done by fiat but follows from the Q_8 group I use.  

I am interested in your list of peers.

Thanks

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1f3ec6bd-41cc-4e07-8c4b-264f07fde472n%40googlegroups.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Just a comment on Steve Press’ :

“When you consider a joint probability distribution between two particles, with particles indistinguishable, then you necessarily recover entanglement.

This effect is what leads to the fringe patterns of Young’s to slit experiment, and what resolves the Gibbs paradox of statistical mechanics.”

Fringe patterns occur because photons are within one coherence area of the field at the slits position. In other words, they are indistinguishable and, therefore, coherent.

Entanglement is something more and it happens, in case under discussion, over detection equipment separated by a large distance, not like the arrangement of close slits giving the fringe pattern.

Some extra detail may not be relevant at his moment, like the coherence area for an entangled pair is DIFFERENT from the coherence area for independent photons.

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1f3ec6bd-41cc-4e07-8c4b-264f07fde472n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark

Earlier on, Jan made at least two contradictory  statements.  For example he said there is no non-locality in his work nor in Bennett et al, and then proceeded to show the opposite.  

But that is not the point.  Both Richard and I have the right to reject peers that are not acceptable to us.  The Bell/non-local old boys' club is huge, and they will not risk their projects or grants by accepting my theory.  That constitutes unconscious bias, but definition.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Richard

I never said the 5K euros was too much for me.  If it was, I would not have bet. As I said, you frequently bring up the bet, which makes me think you are nervous.  I am open to your capitulations if that is what you want.  I do not want to cause you financial stress.  That is not my goal.

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/748095EB-F800-4DB7-8D96-19251BA6872A%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

Tell the members of this forum:

Have you actually spent 15 mins or more testing your equation against a typical data set.? 

If you have, then share with us. But if you are not prepared to check your own work, then stop wasting our time. 

I presume you know it is wrong and are teasing us. Is that correct?

The equations you sent this week with deltas are manifestly nonsense. Not just wrong. They put a value that changes with each tick into a formula that only applies to totals. It does not just give wrong results, it's impossible to use. This must be obvious to you. 

I agree with you about the bet (I thought it was £500) it should stand. It is time for you to gracefully concede and pay up. 

Cheers

Mark

[Mark Hadley]

Maybe I should reread the bet. I thought you promised to convince the community, not just a handful of selected friends. 

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Austin

Thanks for your detailed reply.  Interesting.  Spin, of course, is like a gyroscope and with time a gyroscope starts to nutate and lose its orientation.  It is like my model with the boson spin 1 nutating until one axis lines up and the other randomizes.

I only use CHSH as a quantitative measure of correlation. CHSH has nothing else to do with my theory.

"IMO no method will ever defeat Bell's Inequalities except by bypassing them through some form of non-locality."  Well that is the paradox innit? If you believe in logic, you must reject his theorem.  My work is motivated in finding what is missing that provides the missing correlation and it is the helicity.

You asked why one would bet.  My main purpose was to publicise  the EPR paradox and get interest.  I think that has worked.  Also, throughout history people in science have wagered, see Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager#:~:text=Notable%20scientific%20wagers&text=In%201870%2C%20Alfred%20Russel%20Wallace,to%20%C2%A351%2C000%20in%202019).

Best wishes

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1dbd91bd-fbd9-4348-967c-89556f6d20abn%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

He literally promised he would make the Nobel prize winners return their prizes. Good luck doing that with a glaring error in the calculation.

/Jan-Åke

[Steve Presse]

Yes Geraldo, I am aware. I have a large review out soon on optical microscopy where I discuss many of these diffraction effects. 

We can certainly write down in quantum the probability amplitude of passing through either slit. The intensity at any given distance from the slits is then given by a slice of the Poynting vector which is related to the probability amplitude of emerging from either slit.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan-Åke

I never said anything about returning the Nobel Prize.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  I said that non-locality is not needed, and therefore many papers that state it is, must be withdrawn, including 100's published in Nature, when my approach is accepted.  

You say I have glaring errors.  I say you are classically hung up and are using a property in your work which makes no physical sense. 

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Well, you did. Getting papers withdrawn with a glaring error in the calculation has exactly the same chance: zero.


Bryan, look at your formula.



If delta_p=1 then delta_c=0 so that the following MUST BE TRUE:

   (N^p_eq-N^p_nq)/N_tot = -cos(theta_a-theta_b)

Your model does not give that number. What is your response to this?

/Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, sorry. You said that Zeilinger and Gisin should retract their papers

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Aug 2023, at 18:16, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Steve Presse]

Bryan, on page 15 you say 

The initial entangled correlation is therefore distributed between a sum of the symmetric and anti-symmetric contributions originally seen in Equation (8).  

The way you achieve a product state is by postulating the above. That's great. But it breaks multiple other features of physics. Anyways, I prefer settling on the details of the bet and helping the process move forward rather than dwelling on the paper.

If I were to dwell, there are an infinite number of things to nitpick at in every equation, every sentence. For starters, your refer to the delta's in the key equation (the one Jan identified as incorrect) as delta functions. They are not functions. They are Kronecker deltas. My point is you use non-standard math/non-standard language (technically incorrect) and, for a non-expert in BI like myself, it is not readable. 

In any case, let's focus on parameters of the bet by first settling on an amount. 

 

 

[Richard Gill]

No, you said you did not have money to spare, because of various financial problems.

But let’s forget this aside too. We can stick with 5000.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:25, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Jan-Åke

If delta_p=1 then delta_c=0 you get a product state, -cos(a)cos(b) and not the -cos. If delta_p=0 then delta_c=1 you get the French mustache. 

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

But the formula claims you get =-cos(theta_a-theta_b) in both situations.
This is not the case


/JÅ