On 11 Feb 2023, at 21:32, Jarek Duda <dud...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Colleagues,
Thank you very much for great talks and discussion. The recordings should be available in a day or two on youtube - till the end of last of talk, let us know if somebody doesn't want to be there so we will cut.
Marc,
This was slide 2 of https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8yqfabq3gxsjth/Bell%20mini.pdf
Sergey article: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202210.0478/v1
From evolution equation (3) he gets this super simple up/down alignment condition (25):
Looks nice, but I doubt it is sufficient for Bell violation (?)
Generally, bispinor encodes 3D spin direction (a,b,c) below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispinor#Construction_of_Dirac_spinor_with_a_given_spin_direction_and_charge
So non-polarized particles with spin I basically imagine as tiny magnets pointing a random direction (?)
In external magnetic field tiny magnets have tendency to align - e.g. in Stern-Gerlach.
With this alignment there should come difference in energy (kinetic of Larmor precession) and angular momentum (toward spin) - which should be radiated.
Precessing magnet is cylindrically symmetric kind of antenna - so I would expect the differences are radiated as cylindrically symmetric EM impulse (delocalized in contrast to optical photons).
The big question is if such EM impulse could be observed?
I think it should turn into random noise - heat ... we had some exchange with Sergey and he agreed.
Best wishes,
Jarekps. Another big question we have started discussing (also with John Bush) is if electron's de Broglie clock/zitterbewegung is static (always ticking), or only an effect of resonance (normal mode)?
The "always ticking" way has problem of propulsion (pendulum has tendency to calm down to zero).
The resonance way should lose its strength with distance e.g. in Mach-Zehnder, what is not true (?)
-- dr Jarosław Duda Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nature of time" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nature-of-tim...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nature-of-time/2041549c-bc53-1fb6-2322-da3bcbcb338c%40gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/E875412C-E1A3-47CC-ABB9-CE7FBD29B9F7%40gmail.com.
Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se |
Well that's disappointing.
This idea is not even all that new, it's formally equivalent to my 1999 paper.
Best
Jan-Åke
On 2023-02-12 18:21, Richard Gill wrote:
Dear all
After some email exchanges with Tim Palmer I think I understand at last what he is doing.
He restricts QM to a "thin subset” of states and (joint) measurements which is everywhere dense but which does not violate Bell inequalities in the sense that at least one of the four precise sub-experiments is forbidden. If Alice wants to use angles a and a’, and Bob wants to use angles b and b’, then at least one of the joint experiments (combining one of Alice’s with one of Bob’s angles) does not exist.
The theory is by design incompatible with Bell's LHV concept! It does allow classical (deterministic) description with local and real hidden variables. There is lambda and there are functions (A(a, lambda), B(b, lambda)) but the pair is not defined on a whole Cartesian product of sets of settings a, settings b, and hidden variables lambda. The allowed settings come from a dense subset and the allowed pairs from another dense subset.
I think that this theory is irrelevant to the evaluation of actual Bell experiments. We do not "assume QM" in order to evaluate such experiments. We assume LHV and show the data is incompatible with LHV. We do not assume anything concerning angles or quantum states, when we analyse the data from such an experiment. Of course, we try to engineer according to our usual QM picture. That's allowed, is it not? So Palmer’s model escapes Bell’s theorem by not describing the experiments which Bell is interested in. Palmer's theory does not say anything whatsoever about the data actually observed in actual successful Bell experiments (which does turn out to be compatible with ordinary QM, but not with LHV).
One cannot simulate data according to Palmer’s model in a local realistic way since Alice's measurement angle is restricted by Bob's (or vice versa). Of course, one can simulate from a close-by model if Alice’s chosen setting is allowed to “nudge” Bob’s chosen setting by a tiny amount. That does require one bit of near instantaneous communication from Alice to Bob’s place (or vice versa), if we suppose that Alice and Bob have already agreed to perform something very close to a usual QM experiment for pre-chosen a, a’, b, b’. If they are planning to use many more angles, then much more communication will be needed.
Thus the model can describe EPR-B data to any required degree of accuracy, but in order to do this, action at a distance has to be used.
Richard
PS you can find Tim’s talk here https://youtu.be/lZP0EFTNPu0
,
On 11 Feb 2023, at 21:32, Jarek Duda <dud...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you very much for great talks and discussion. The recordings should be available in a day or two on youtube - till the end of last of talk, let us know if somebody doesn't want to be there so we will cut.
Marc,
This was slide 2 of https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8yqfabq3gxsjth/Bell%20mini.pdf
Sergey article: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202210.0478/v1
From evolution equation (3) he gets this super simple up/down alignment condition (25):
<O8tLBgdNZXkatbMP.png>
Looks nice, but I doubt it is sufficient for Bell violation (?)
Generally, bispinor encodes 3D spin direction (a,b,c) below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispinor#Construction_of_Dirac_spinor_with_a_given_spin_direction_and_charge
<ip2f0lMxBZq9EjAG.png>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/E2A1A948-514D-4CA7-8999-C59AA2E69F41%40gmail.com.