Is QM Absurd?

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

This is another attempt to start a dedicated topic for discussion of Alexei’s point of view.

Richard

[Richard Gill]

Mark tried to start this topic with the following message:

Dear Alexey,

No need to repeat your historical view with each message. I'm trying to find simple things that we agree with.

We agree that QM makes correct probabilistic predictions, that's a good start.

I claim that I can use QM to make those predictions without adding any absurdities. I just use it as a novel probability function and calculate the probabilities. I use maths which is self consistent and not absurd. I don't add any physical assumptions. This is called a pragmatic approach (NOT to be confused with an instrumentalist approach which is quite different). I also claim that this pragmatic approach is consistent with special relativity.

Lots of people add absurdities to QM. I don't

Do you agree that it is possible to use QM to calculate probabilities without introducing absurdities? 

Cheers

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Chantal replied:

Hi Alexey,

I agree with you that a lot is absurd.

I am wondering what *your* solution is to all this - what is your "best guess" for all of it?
(Bell and QM in general?)

And what do you think we should do in order to find out if this is correct or not?

Best wishes,
Chantal

To which Alexei replied:

Dear Chantal,

Thanks for your questions. We should first of all stop blindly
believing and begin to understand quantum mechanics in order to find
out what is correct or not. Quantum mechanics has always been for most
scientists a religion they believe in rather than a scientific theory
they understand. I admire the genial prophecy of Einstein, who wrote
to Schrodinger in 1928: "The soothing philosophy—or religion?—of
Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that for the present it
offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which they are not
easily chased away. Let us therefore let them rest….This religion does
damned little for me".

Numerous interpretations and different, often opposite understandings
indicate that quantum mechanics is a religion, not a scientific
theory. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics are different
confessions of a religion. Different confessions in religions such as
Christianity are justified by the fact that the subject of Christian
faith is not accessible to understanding for our reason. Quantum
mechanics, like any theory, is created by our (humans) reason. Any
scientific theory should be understood unambiguously and should not
have interpretations. Quantum religion, which has interpretations and
is understood in different ways, is idolatry, since the theory is
created by our reason.

Scientists should abandon idolatry, start treating quantum mechanics
more critically and finally understand what and how quantum mechanics
describes, instead of inventing new interpretations to justify quantum
religion. First of all, we must understand that different quantum
phenomena are described by quantum mechanics non-universally. When
describing most quantum phenomena, the realistic interpretation of the
wave function proposed by Schrodinger is used, and only for describing
a small number of quantum phenomena, quantum mechanics uses the Born
interpretation. This fact is obvious but idolaters do not want to
recognize it.

Ten years ago, a publisher invited me to write a chapter for a book
“Advances in Quantum Mechanics Research”. I wrote a chapter “The
quantum mechanics is a non-universal theory. The realistic
Schrodinger's and positivistic Born's interpretation of the wave
function” [1], but the reviewers did not recommend publishing it. I
draw attention in this unpublished chapter that Richard Feynman noted
correctly in his famous Lectures on Physics that the Schrodinger
interpretation of the wave function is used for the description of
macroscopic quantum phenomena. Feynman did not understand the
importance of this fact, since he, unlike Hugh Everett, did not
understand Born's interpretation entangled physics with psychology.

Many people know about the multi-world interpretation proposed by
Everett in 1957 [2]. But few people know that Everett proposed this
interpretation to eliminate psychology from physics, although it is
written in the beginning of the article [2] that Process 1 cannot be
described outside the domain of psychology. Richard Feynman and Hugh
Everett were doctoral students of the same doctoral advisor - John
Archibald Wheeler. But their understanding of quantum mechanics was
fundamentally different. If Richard Feynman understood what Hugh
Everett understood, then the majority's understanding of quantum
mechanics would be fundamentally different. At least publications,
quite numerous, about the contradiction of quantum mechanics to
macroscopic realism could not be possible. Blind faith in quantum
mechanics and its universality led to the publication in Nature
Physics [3], the author of which claims that experiments with
superconducting qubits proved that the moon does not really exist.

Quantum mechanics uses not only different interpretations of the wave
function, but also different Hamiltonians to describe different
quantum phenomena. I noticed this amazing fact thanks to the co-author
of the article [4] and Anthony Leggett. When my co-author asked me in
2014 “Why the energy of magnetic moment in magnetic field is not taken
into account in the theory of flux qubit?” I asked this question to
Anthony Leggett. He answered: “When we go over to the Hamiltonian
formalism by the standard "canonical" procedure, the total Hamiltonian
(1/2m)(p-eA)^2 turns out to be just the kinetic energy mv^2/2! Where
has the "magnetic" energy gone? Perhaps our naive tendency to identify
the Hamiltonian with the "energy" is (as in some cases involving
time-dependent forces) misleading?”

It's funny that I was not able to understand myself without the Nobel
prize winner that only the kinetic energy can be deduced from the
kinetic energy. But I understood something that no one had understood
for many years: different quantum phenomena, such as the Zeeman effect
and the Aharonov–Bohm effect, cannot be described without a
mathematical error using the same definition of the Hamiltonian. Such
mathematical mistakes are made in the description of the Zeeman effect
in Quantum Mechanics by Landau and Lifshitz [5] and other textbooks on
quantum mechanics. The mathematical mistake became possible in [5]
because Landau and Lifshitz following to the Dirac book [6] in the
description of the Zeeman effect the in the paragraph 113 ”An atom in
a magnetic field” did not notice that Dirac used non-canonical
Hamiltonian from which the energy of magnetic moment in magnetic field
can be deduced, in contrast to the canonical Hamiltonian used in [5].

When I notice another mistake in generally accepted theories, I am
always surprised by their evidence and the fact that no one has
noticed them before. Believers in quantum religion do not want to
admit the inconsistencies of quantum mechanics even when they are
pointed out in publications. They do not want to admit, for example,
that quantum mechanics should use a different definition of
Hamiltonian for the description of different quantum phenomena,
although this important fact is indicated in an article [7] published
seven years ago. Therefore, my best guess is to stop blindly believing
in quantum religion and admit the obvious mistakes and contradictions
of quantum mechanics. When all the mistakes and contradictions will be
revealed by critical thinking, it may be possible to create a theory
free at least from these mistakes and contradictions.

[1] Alexey Nikulov, The quantum mechanics is a non-universal theory.
The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic Born's interpretation of
the wave function. ArXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4760 .

[2] H. Everett, ’Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454-462 (1957)

[3] J.E. Mooij, Quantum mechanics: No moon there. Nature Physics 6,
401–402, (2010).

[4] V.L. Gurtovoi and A.V. Nikulov, Energy of magnetic moment of
superconducting current in magnetic field. Physica C 516, 5054 (2015).

[5] Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M., Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic
Theory, 3rd edn, vol. 3. Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1977

[6] Dirac, A.M.: The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford
University Press, New York (1958)

[7] Alexey Nikulov, Could ordinary quantum mechanics be just fine for
all practical purposes? Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3, 41-55 (2016)

With best wishes,
Alexey

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Thanks!

Dear Mark,

I have to repeat the history about mass delusion, because you do not
want to understand that it was Born's proposal to calculate the
probabilities of observation that led to absurdity and mass delusion,
in particular regarding quantum computing. I have tried to explain to
you why Born's proposal is a trick that is misleading and leads to
absurdity. But you don't want to understand it. I try once again:

Most physicists, except Einstein, Schrodinger and a few other critics,
agreed with Born's proposal, because it created the illusion of
solving the problem of wave-particle duality. In order to describe the
transformation of a wave - a non-localized object into a particle - a
localized object we must postulate an instant and non-local change of
the wave function. We cannot think that a real density can change
instantly and non-locally whereas we know from our everyday experience
that a probability of observation changes at the first observation
instantly and non-locally. The faith of most physicists was so blind
that they did not understand that probability changes instantly and
non-locally in the mind of the observer. Schrodinger, in contrast to
most physicists, understood that his wave function according to Born’s
proposal describes the knowledge of the observer about a probability
of different results of upcoming observation. Therefore he defined in
1935 the EPR (Einstein - Podolsky Rosen) correlation as entanglement
of our knowledge.

You wrote: “Lots of people add absurdities to QM. I don't”. There is
no need to add absurdity to quantum mechanics, since it is based on
absurdity.

You claim that you can use QM to make those predictions without adding
any absurdities. Your claim is obviously wrong. You cannot predict a
probability of a result of the second observation of the same
dynamical variable, for example a coordinate of a particle, without
the Dirac jump, i.e. without an instant and non-local influence of the
mind of the observer on the state of the quantum system. I draw your
attention once again that Einstein, even before Dirac, in 1927, drew
attention to the fact that the need for the Dirac jump logically
follows from Born's proposal. Quantum mechanics would predict the
observation of a single particle in several places at once, i.e. the
obvious absurd without the Dirac jump.

I do not know what you call a pragmatic approach and how this approach
differs from an instrumentalist approach, but with any approach,
postulating the influence of the mind of the observer on the state of
a quantum system leads to absurdity, if only because observers may be
more than one. Two observers, having free will, can create different
states of the same particles, see section 6. “The Rejection of Realism
Results to the Absurd” in my paper [1].

[1] Alexey Nikulov, Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found.
Phys. 53, 51 (2023)

With best wishes,
Alexey

пн, 15 мая 2023 г. в 17:10, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/efce2cfd-9070-4c00-9bf1-22f372e6dd6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Alexey,

My QM calculations don't use a Dirac jump. It is an absurdity. I'm not adding that. Some people talk about, but it's an unnecessary embellishment that leads to problems. 

I do the calculations. I treat the wavefunction/state vector/state operator as a probability function and I calculate the probabilities.

Using Trace(rho P)

I don't use the mind of an observor in my calculations. I calculate where a needle on a macroscopic measuring device would go if a measurement is made. Measurements don't require minds, just a macroscopic measuring device. 

My calculations are correct. They are confirmed by experiment. 

If you don't t agree with me, then you can suggest one simple experiment and I'll show how I calculate the probabilities without adding any absurdities. 

A pragmatic approach says that QM is a tool for calculating probabilities. 

An instrumentalist says that is all that matters, an underlying explanation is meaningless. I don't think that. I believe it is vital to find an explanation. We just don't have one yet. In the meantime I'm pragmatic. 

Cheers

Mark 

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

A simple experiment: spin projection of a particle with spin 1/2 in
the eigenstate along the x-axis is measured two times along the
z-axis. Calculate the probabilities to observe ‘spin up’ at the first
and second measurements.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пн, 15 мая 2023 г. в 19:45, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

OK, where is the second measurement made? In the top beam, the bottom beam or are the beams recombined?

Cheers

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

You may calculate all cases.

пн, 15 мая 2023 г. в 20:17, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

I've tried to typeset the result.

Jan may notice some errors, he is more reliable than me:

>
> On Mon, 15 May 2023, 18:11 Алексей Никулов, <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mark,
>>
>> A simple experiment: spin projection of a particle with spin 1/2 in
>> the eigenstate along the x-axis is measured two times along the
>> z-axis. Calculate the probabilities to observe ‘spin up’ at the first
>> and second measurements.
>>
>> With best wishes,
>> Alexey

groups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

This is in reply to your QM calculation in response to Alexey's question.

I agree with your S-G measurements, and I get these in my gyroscope model.  One difference is that in my gyroscope model when you recombine the beams to get a+ and a- it is not identical to the initial beam.  But subsequent measurements cannot detect this difference. I note that Feynman also recombines beams in his Part III volume.  There is no problem as subsequent measurements are unaffected.

I think that my gyroscope model bypasses Alexey's complaint, without needing retrocausality.  It is only a problem if the wavefunction is ontic/real and is defined everywhere in the universe immediately before measurement.

If the physics is only probabilistic I, at first, thought that would rule out quantum computers.  But even if only probablistic I now think they could work, but maybe only if there is retrocausality at particle level.

Austin

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:38:37 PM UTC+1 sunshine...@googlemail.com wrote:

I've tried to typeset the result.

Jan may notice some errors, he is more reliable than me:

......

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

You use P+ and P− the projectors onto the z direction. Projection
operators describe the Dirac jump. You use projection operators
describing the Dirac jump and claim that your QM calculations don't
use a Dirac jump since it is an absurdity. Do you call this trick a
pragmatic approach?

It is impossible to understand from your expressions that particles in
the eigenstate along the x-axis are being measured. What will be your
expressions if the angle between the direction of measurement and the
direction of the eigenstate is not \pi/2, but has an arbitrary value
‘f’?.

The sum of the operators is equal to the number 1 in your expression
(3). How is this possible? What sense can expression (3) have?

I have to say that your calculations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пн, 15 мая 2023 г. в 21:38, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

There is no jump in the real world. The "quantum state" is a mathematical tool.

/Jan-Åke

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

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

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Åke,

If the "quantum state" is only a mathematical tool that describes nothing in physics, then why is it needed in physics? If the quantum state is only a tool, then what does quantum mechanics describe? Doesn't quantum mechanics describe the change of a quantum state in time between observations as a real process?

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 16 мая 2023 г. в 11:06, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Not necessarily. Don't confuse the mathematical tools you use to predict experimental outcomes with physical reality.

/Jan-Åke

[Mark Hadley]

Dear ALexey,

I'll write responses below. I claimed to use QM to calculate the probabilistic result of measurements without absurdities. I have done that. It is self consistent and compatible with relativity. Your response is good, you have asked interesting questions.

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:06 AM Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mark,

You use P+ and P− the projectors onto the z direction. Projection
operators describe the Dirac jump.

If YOU introduce the concept of a Dirac jump, then YOU will have problems. I don't use the term. It is a dangerous term to use. It might help some students picture what is going on, but will confuse others. Most important of all, it is a concept that does not withstand scrutiny.

Your most significant issue is that you suggest I am describing something. I am not. I am doing a calculation. Nobody, nobody at all, can describe what is going on in quantum theory. Those that try have problems. They might elucidate one aspect but at the cost of introducing absurdities elsewhere.

You use projection operators

describing the Dirac jump and claim that your QM calculations don't
use a Dirac jump since it is an absurdity. Do you call this trick a
pragmatic approach?

 

I am not describing anything. I am calculating experimental outcomes. 

It is impossible to understand from your expressions that particles in
the eigenstate along the x-axis are being measured. What will be your
expressions if the angle between the direction of measurement and the
direction of the eigenstate is not \pi/2, but has an arbitrary value
‘f’?.

in other directions, I would use a projection operator for a different angle. The components of the projection operator would depend upon the angle used.

The maths is simple to visualize for angles in the x-z plane, we don't need complex numbers for that. Projection operators do what they say. They project a vector onto an axis.

The sum of the operators is equal to the number 1 in your expression
(3). How is this possible? What sense can expression (3) have?

They sum to the Identity operator. All this says is that you can write a vector as the  vector sum of X+ and X- components. But you could also rotate the axes and write it as Y+  and Y- components or any other axes. For orthogonal axes they add to the same vector.

It's slightly complicated because you have 3D rotation space for the experiment, but the measurement space is +.- which is two dimensional and complex. 

I have to say that your calculations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

This is quantum mechanics. It uses elements of a complex vector space to correctly calculate the probabilistic results of experiments. 

I'd like to talk to you about what this means, about the underlying physics. But first it is important that you can accept that this pragmatic approach to QM works consistently and without absurdities. I think you will then see how much we agree on.

Cheers

Mark

[Mark Hadley]

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:02 AM Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jan-Åke,

If the "quantum state" is only a mathematical tool that describes nothing in physics, then why is it needed in physics?

It is needed to predict the results of experiments. It is the only way we know to do that and it is invaluable. 99% of physicists use it and need to use it regardless of what it means. 

If the quantum state is only a tool, then what does quantum mechanics describe?

That's the big question. It's one that BI helps us to answer. But no point talking about BI, until you accept that QM can consistently calculate results of experiments, without absurdities. 

Doesn't quantum mechanics describe the change of a quantum state in time between observations as a real process?

NO, Definitely NOT. There is no known description. So far, every attempt to regard the quantum state as being real has overwhelming problems. 

With best wishes,
Alexey

[Richard Gill]

Alexei

Quantum mechanics very successfully describes the very real statistics of the very real outcomes of very real experiments.

Why and how has been a mystery for 100 years.

But then maybe why and how Maxwell’s equations are what they are, is somehow also a mystery. It’s just a mystery we have got used to, and of course we are very happy with all the technology they have brought us.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 May 2023, at 11:02, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Åke,

I don't confuse the mathematical tools we use to predict experimental outcomes with physical reality. I wrote many times that the Heisenberg proposal to use mathematical tools for the description of experimental outcomes rather than physical reality is a trick which has misled several generations of scientists, including you. The trick is obvious and even naive. Heisenberg proposed to describe results of observation without any description of the observation process. This trick allows us to hide all difficulties which do not allow us to describe some quantum phenomena as a manifestation of reality in the process of observation.

Erwin Schrödinger, Arthur Eddington and a few other critics understood that the proposal of Heisenberg and Born is a trick. Even Bell understood that such notion as 'observation' should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory. But most people and you do not want to understand that quantum mechanics is the trick because of the success of this trick. Richard writes that “Quantum mechanics very successfully describes the very real statistics of the very real outcomes of very real experiments”. But if quantum mechanics had not been successful, then no one would have believed in such an obvious trick and quantum mechanics would not have become a religion for most physicists in which they believe, but do not understand.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 16 мая 2023 г. в 12:10, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

According to present day quantum information theory, “the quantum state” is a compact mathematical object from which all probability distributions of all outcomes of all possible measurements can be calculated. It doesn’t necessarily have to be more than that. The outcomes of measurements are real. After a measurement has been done, if the quantum system is still available, of course its “state”, using the word *in the sense just given*, has changed. 

The abstract mathematical formalism works very well to describe numerous different physical systems and kinds of experiments. Bell showed that a local hidden variables theory could not mimic certain predictions of QM (the EPR-B thought experiment). We now have had experiments of which the observed statistical results cannot be mimicked by a local hidden variables theory; at least, according to many researchers working in this field, though obviously not according to everyone in this group.

I agree with you that QM is absurd, so my conclusion is that physical reality is absurd too. We got deluded by the achievements of modern science especially in the 19th century into thinking that we could understand everything. Pride comes before a fall. I think we should now be realistic and realise that some things may never make sense to us. On the other hand, if mathematical tools and structures can be found which help us to predict and sometimes even control parts of the natural world, that’s fine. Personally I think that we could make progress if we would accept that irreducible randomness is one of the building blocks of the physical world. But I know that this is a minority view, and goes against the instinct of most physicists.

Richard

On 16 May 2023, at 11:02, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chantal Roth]

Alexey,

So... what do you propose :-)?

How do *you* think this all works?

Please share your ideas - it is totally ok to speculate, we all know that nobody really knows :-)
(and 50 years from now, people will probably laugh at almost everything we discuss here :-)

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/CAKiL4iJkVaYyTiL%2BEgX8%3DqF%3D9pC-p63bHy%2B-Dwu1E2WDGWYQmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Alexei

You can call it a “trick” if you want to. I would say that it is a daring and exciting move.

Indeed, Bell did not like it at all.

It is also true that most physicists don’t think about it and do not question it. Obviously it is a dogma for many (I wouldn’t call it a religion). 

Whatever you do in mathematics of physics you have to start with some assumptions as a kind of platform on which to build further. QM is a very successful platform in that sense.

I understand that you have no alternative. You have no constructive advice for young ambitious researchers, except that they should go back and read Kant and Aristotle?

Richard

[Mark Hadley]

I think this debate  is heading in a good direction.

If Alexey can agree that QM calculates experimental results consistently and without absurdities. 

Then, and only then, we can move on and ask or explore what it means. 

Unlike you, I don't see QM as being the end game. I'd say we need an explanation. Some underlying model. 

I also don't accept that QM can redefine probability. That's like an experimentalist telling a mathematician that integration is wrong. 

Cheers

Mark

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No. I am being very specific. Don't confuse quantum mechanics with a theory that describes "the world". It makes no attempt to do so. It seems you have difficulty understanding that.

There is no trick. Bohr would write "It describes what can be described: probabilities of outcomes" (although he would never have written anything this clear). Nothing more, nothing less.

Quantum mechanics itself is not absurd, when taken as a mathematical tool. It only becomes absurd if you attempt to use it as a description of the world. But that is your own doing.

I would rather you would answer Mark's question: Do you, or do you not, believe that quantum mechanics makes correct predictions?

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Inge,

It is not right that I am not to be willing to have any religion at all. But I am against confusing science with religion. Religion deals with the realm of the hidden for our reason, while any science is created by our reason. I cannot agree with you that one can adhere to different versions of quantum mechanics since our reason must understand unambiguously what it has created, even if it is not a scientific theory, but a trick. Quantum mechanics has many different interpretations because most scientists do not want to admit that it is a trick rather than a physical theory. Every interpretation is just an attempt to justify the trick that is believed as a scientific theory.

There is no need to explain paradoxes like Schrodinger's cat. Schrodinger, who considered quantum mechanics a trick, only demonstrated the absurdity of quantum mechanics more clearly with his paradox. In this case, the reason for the absurdity is the rejection of causality. According to logic, if a theory denies the cause of an event in Nature, i.e. outside the mind of the observer, then the cause of the event in this theory is the mind of the observer. Heisenberg and Carl von Weizsacker did not understand this logic when Greta Herman tried to convince them that quantum mechanics, abandoning the determinism in nature, cannot be considered a scientific theory:

"In Kant's philosophy, the causal law is not an empirical assertion which can be proved or disproved by experience, but the very basis of all experience-it is part of the categories of the understanding Kant calls 'a priori.' … The causal law is a mental tool with which we try to incorporate the raw material of our sense impressions into our experience, and only inasmuch as we manage to do so do we grasp the objects of natural science. That being the case, how can quantum mechanics possibly try to relax the causal law and yet hope to remain a branch of science?" [1].

The rampant fantasy about quantum mechanics became possible because modern scientists not only do not understand, but also do not want to understand that a scientific theory should correspond not only to empirical data, but also to our a priori knowledge, such as realism and determinism. Contradiction with a priori knowledge results logically to the scandal of the conflict of our reason with itself. ‘Cultured’ men about 1750 were concerned about avoiding the conflict of reason with itself. But many modern scientists fantasize without worrying at all about this conflict. An example of the conflict of the reason with itself is the prediction by quantum mechanics of the creation by two observers of different states of the same particles, see section 6 The Rejection of Realism Results to the Absurd in my paper [2].

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

[2] Nikulov, A. Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found Phys 53, 51 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 16 мая 2023 г. в 19:10, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

As I see it, one can adhere to different versions of quantum mechanics. A simple version is one where we limit the 'pure state' concept to ket vectors that are eigenvectors of some physically meaningful operator. This version can be 'understood', and paradoxes like the Schrödinger cat can be easily explained in this version.

However, believing in some version of QM can be likened to religion. Unfortunately, nobody seem to be able to agree on a particular form of religion. Alexei and others seem not to be willing to have any religion at all. This is a feasible standpoint. Personally I cannot escape having a relation to some form of religion. It seems like, taking as a basis simple religious postulates, and doing quite a lot of mathemathics, a simple version of QM results. Another result is that the results of the Bell experiment can be 'understood' by referring to our general limitations.

This is the point of departure of my topic 'Conceptual variables and quantum foundation'. One might be interested in such an approach, or one might not be interested in it. Some referees of physical journals have seemed to be interested.

Inge

---

From: 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 16 May 2023 17:41:28
To: Richard Gill
Cc: Алексей Никулов; Jan-Åke Larsson; Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations; Austin Fearnley
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Is QM Absurd?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo3FmPdezdShyGMB8tu%2BPp1b0fzMGM5rqTn%2BPLrr0SK1_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Jan-Åke,

Quantum mechanics is misleading because most scientists, being naive realists, use this theory as a description of the world. The authors of the well-known book on quantum computation [1] are one of numerous examples of the naive realism. They write correctly what tempts in the idea of quantum computing: “More generally, we may consider a system of N qubits. The computational basis states of this system are of the form and so a quantum state of such a system is specified by 2^N amplitudes. For N = 500 this number is larger than the estimated number of atoms in the Universe! Trying to store all these complex numbers would not be possible on any conceivable classical computer. Hilbert space is indeed a big place”.

It is correct that a multidimensional Hilbert space is a big place. But the multidimensional Hilbert space can describe either a reality of multiple universes, or the observer's knowledge about the probability of the results of upcoming observations of N qubits. The reality of the only universe we know is described by the three-dimensional space. But the authors of the book [1] are sure that the multidimensional Hilbert space may describe Nature: “In principle, Nature manipulates such enormous quantities of data, even for systems containing only a few hundred atoms. It is as if Nature were keeping 2⁵⁰⁰ hidden pieces of scratch paper on the side, on which she performs her calculations as the system evolves. This enormous potential computational power is something we would very much like to take advantage of”.

David Deutsch is realist but he is not naive in contrast to the authors [1] and most ‘creators’ of a quantum computer. Deutsch connects the progress in quantum computing with the existence of multiple universes: “Quantum computation, which is now in its early infancy, is a distinct further step in this progression. It will be the first technology that allows useful tasks to be performed in collaboration between parallel universes. A quantum computer would be capable of distributing components of a complex task among vast number of parallel universes, and then sharing the results” [2].

David Deutsch invented the idea of the quantum computer in the 1970s as a way to experimentally test of the "Many Universes Theory" of quantum physics - the idea that when a particle changes, it changes into all possible forms, across multiple universes, see https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/?currentPage=all . He insists on the need of numerous parallel universes for the reality of quantum computer in the Chapter "Quantum computers" of the book "Structure of Reality”: “For those who is still inclined to think, that there is only one universe, I offer the following problem: explain a principle of action of the Shor’s algorithm. I have no in a kind, predict, that it will work, as for this purpose it is enough to solve some of the consistent equations. I ask you to give an explanation. When the Shor’s algorithm has a factorized number, having involved about 10⁵⁰⁰ computing resources which can be seen, where this number was factorized? In the whole universe exists about 10⁸⁰ atoms, the number is negligibly small in comparison with 10⁵⁰⁰. Thus, if this single universe was a measure of a physical reality, the physical reality could not contain resources, sufficient for the factorization of such big number. Who then has factorized it? How and where the calculation was carried out?” [2].

Numerous ‘creators’ of a quantum computer and most authors of publications about quantum computing are sure, in contrast to David Deutsch, that vast number of parallel universes are not needed for the creation of a quantum computer precisely because that they are sure, as authors [1], that quantum mechanics describes the world rather than only probabilities of outcomes. The rejection of realism by the creators of quantum mechanics led to the degradation of physical thinking, primarily because almost all scientists are naive realists, even authors who refute realism. I draw attention in the paper [3] that the authors of the GHZ theorem are naive realists who consider as real even eigenstates of entangled particles although they cannot be real according to mathematics.

[1] M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[2] D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality. The Penguin Press, 1997.

[3] Nikulov, A. Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found Phys 53, 51 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 16 мая 2023 г. в 21:16, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se>:

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey,

I thought we were making progress, avoiding long rants and homing in on the detail. 

Most scientists use QM as a reliable tool. Like my mother driving a car without the slightest interest in how it works. If you replace "trick" with "tool" there might not be much disagreement between us.

Do you agree that QM predicts the probabilistic results of experiments? Consistently? Compatible with relativity? And without any absurdities?

As a mathematical tool it works. And as a starting point, it makes no other claim. 

I'm waiting for you to accept this or question me more. Then we can move on to the interesting stuff. 

Cheers

Mark

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Alexey,

Like you, I am against confusing science with religion. But science depends on our mental models, and some of these models may also have links to religion. Let me try to explain my own mental model. I think that we all, scientists and non-scientists are in a constant process of trying to achieve knowledge. In doing so, we have variables in our minds, what I call conceptual variables.

The conceptual variables in our minds may be accessible or inaccessible. An accessible one is one where we in principle are able to find as accurate values as we want in some future by doing the right actions.

My mental model is always tied to a concrete context. It can be relative to a single actor or to a group of communicating actors.

Here is my main postulate: There exists an inaccessible variable phi such that all the accessible variables can be seen as functions of phi.

Using this postulate, and making some weak symmetry assumptions, I am able to derive essentially all of quantum theory. That is, to derive Born's formula, I have to assume more properties of the variable phi.

For simple accessible variables like spin, phi has a simple physical interpretation. Concretely, in the spin case we can let phi be the full spin vector.

In my latest paper, arXiv 2305.05299, I simplify my theory in the case where all the accessible variables take a finite number of values. In this case, it turns out that I need no additional symmetry assumptions.

What about the more general case, a general person seeking knowledge? In this case I think that I may related phi to the subconsciousness of this person. It is inaccessible to the person himself/herself, but a friend, bing wise enough, can be able to know parts of phi.

Then I have to come back to religion. As I said, to derive Born's formula, I have to assume more properties about phi. Specifically, in my model, which can be discussed, I assume that phi is related to all the ideals of the actual person. And in addition, to be able to understand my own model here, I model all these ideals in a single abstract being D, who is perfectly rational in the sense made precise by the Dutsch book principle.

I mean that, in order to function as human beings in relation to other humans, we have to have some mental basis. This basis can be explicit or implicit. Most humans do not have an explicit basis in the form formulated as a mathematical model, but to me it has been crucial. To me this model has been as above. It is a fact that quantum theory may be mathematically derived from this model, but in some sense this is of secondary importance to me. Personally, it is more important that this mental model in some sense makes me whole as a human being.

Then to the discussion of interpretation. This is a confusing issue, but in my opinion, the discussion of quantum foundation should come first, then afterwards the discussion of interpretation. The interpretation derived from my mental model is a general epistemic interpretation, for which QBism is a special case. It can also be related to other interpretations, likr Rovelli's interpretation. Even the many world's interpretation is related: Of the many worlds, just one is accessible, the others are inaccessible, and add nothing to our understanding.

I disagree with you on your views on modern scientists. Modern scientists have used different, explicit or implicit mental models in order to try to understand quantum theory. I have described my own approach. Common to these models is that we in certain contexts may have to sacrifice what you call a priori knowledge, particularly realism and determinism.

As a statistician, I know that Bayesianism is only one way to understand the scientific process of going from empirical data to scientific knowledge. And our priors are only of value when we act as Bayesians. I want to be more general, and approach the world without any prior bias, but with a sound mental model.

I hope that we can understand each other better now.

With best wishes

Inge

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 17 May 2023 19:17:42
To: Inge Svein Helland; Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Cc: Richard Gill; Mark Hadley; Jan-Åke Larsson; Austin Fearnley

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJT%2B3SvPBXMuAQu5ZOA%2B0yBDEQma_Ega908c0O7Uix_4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Responding to Inge’s response to Alexei:

I would say that we have *concepts* in our minds, not "conceptual variables”. The biggest problem I have with Inge’s approach is his terminology.

The word “variable” is the most mis-used and ambiguous word in science and in mathematics. I think he has to tighten up hill language. 

I will post this also in the thread on his approach, with further discussion, next week.

Richard

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

Because we are so fascinated by quantum absurdity, several of us are planning to be at the Växjö meeting, starting just over two weeks from now: myself, Marian, Inge, Jan-Åke ... any other group members?

https://lnu.se/en/meet-linnaeus-university/current/events/2023/konferenser/qip23/

In the mean time, next week I am zipping down to Zurich to have a short chat with the guys of the latest Bell experiment. (I see no women on the team of 24 authors. Oh well, that's experimental physics for you.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05885-0

Yours

Richard