[Bell_quantum_foundations] Was the EPR correlation observed?

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You wrote June 23 that “There are reliable experimental confirmations
of the EPR-B correlation”. But you didn't give a single example. Does
anyone know about reliable experimental confirmations of the EPR
correlation?

You also wrote that “The whole idea of David Bohm was to bring EPR
closer to experimental investigation”. I must say that here you are
following the misconception of many authors who have not read either
the EPR paper [1] or David Bohm, or have read inattentively. Even a
hint of the miracle that Bohm postulated is not in the EPR paper [1].
EPR considered only knowledge. They wrote in the Abstract: “In quantum
mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by
non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge
of the other” [1]. We cannot know the exact values of the momentum and
coordinate of one particle in the same state, since the operators of
these physical quantities do not commute. But the operators can fail
to commute only if they act on the same particle. Therefore we can
know the exact values of the momentum of a particle A p_{A} and
coordinate of a particle B x_{B}. We can also know the total momentum
of particles A and B, for example p_{A} + p_{B} = 0. We can use the
law of momentum conservation in order to know the exact value of the
momentum of the particle B p_{B} = -p_{A}.

Thus, the EPR proposed a way to logically refute the symbols of faith
in quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the
Bohr complementarity principle. No miracles are postulated in this
method, since it is only about knowledge. And if we can talk about the
EPR correlation, then only as an entanglement of our knowledge, in
accordance with Schridinger's definition proposed in 1935: ”Maximal
knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total
knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated
from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at
all” [2]. Our knowledge about particles A and B is entangled when we
know their total momentum p_{A} + p_{B} = 0 and therefore can find out
the momentum of particle B p_{B} = -p_{A} by measuring the momentum of
particle A.

We can think that measuring the momentum of the particle A changes
only our knowledge. But we cannot think so in the case of the
measurement of spin projections, considered by Bohm, since the
projection can be measured in different directions. I draw once again
your attention on Fig. 1 in my preprint “Logical proof of the
absurdity of the EPR correlation“ available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation
. This preprint explains quite clearly and even popularly why we
cannot think that only our knowledge is changed at measurement of spin
projections. For this reason Dirac had to postulate in 1930 that a
change in the observer's knowledge leads to a change in the state of a
quantum system. Dirac postulated that only the system being measured
should jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being
measured. For this reason the orthodox quantum mechanics with its
Dirac jump cannot predict the EPR correlation in the results of
observations of two particles of the EPR pair, see section 3 “The
Assumption used at the Deduction of the GHZ Theorem Makes Impossible
the EPR Correlation” of [3].

The EPR correlation can be predicted only if we will postulate, as
Bohm did, that the observer's knowledge about the particle A can
change the state not only this particle A but also the other particle
B. I demonstrate in the section 6 “The Rejection of Realism Results to
the Absurd” of [3] that Bohm's postulate about the miracle leads
logically to the absurd: two observers can create different states of
the same particles. A reliable observation of the EPR correlation can
confirm the existence of not only miracles, but also the absurd.
Therefore, I would like to know if there is reliable experimental
evidence of the EPR correlation.

[1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935).
[2] E. Schrodinger, Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,
Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935).
[3] Nikulov, A. Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found Phys 53,
51 (2023). DOI:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y , the
article is available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370581308_Physical_Thinking_and_the_GHZ_Theorem
.

With best wishes,
Alexey

[Richard Gill]

Alexei, you can use Google yourself, I hope, and also understand experimental papers.

Take a look at Figure 5a in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05885-0

"Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits”

Storz et al 2023. 

You see a not quite full amplitude negative cosine correlation. The two qubits are 30 meters apart and the point was that this experiment contains a loophole free violation of Bell inequalities

Had they put those two qubits just centimetres apart then they would have found an almost full amplitude negative cosine, but naturally it would not have been a “loophole free” Bell experiment

The description of the figure is a bit misleading. There are three different settings for Alice, and for each of those, 17 for Bob. They plotted three curves. They should should be seen as 3 x 17 points on a surface

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

I can use Google and I not only understand, but also write
experimental papers. But I do not know where to look for experimental
evidence of the EPR correlation. You wrote that “There are reliable
experimental confirmations of the EPR-B correlation”. Therefore I
asked you June 23 to give me links to publications that describe
reliable experimental confirmations of the EPR-B correlation. I asked
about the EPR-B correlation rather than Bell’s inequalities. The EPR-B
correlation, rather than the GHZ theorem [1], should be called Bell's
theorem without inequalities. If measurements of the spin projection
of two particles or the polarization of two photons in the same
direction will give the correlation with probability 1, then this will
be experimental evidence not only a miracle, but also absurdity.

As for the article “Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with
superconducting circuits” to which you have sent the link, such
publications only discredit claims about the refutation of realism. I
am a specialist primarily in superconductivity. I know that no
phenomenon observed in superconductors forces us to abandon realism,
as the Stern-Gerlach effect does. Feynman in his Lectures on Physics
noticed that macroscopic quantum phenomena, unlike microscopic
phenomena, are described realistically. I know that the contradiction
of superconducting phenomena with macroscopic realism was invented by
Anthony Leggett without any reason. But most people believe the Nobel
Prize winner.

[1] Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Zeilinger, A., Bell’s
theorem without inequalities. Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131–1143 (1990)

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 12 июл. 2023 г. в 18:47, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

If you want to choose between local realism and QM then you don't need a loophole free experiment. Every EPR experiment confirms QM and gives results contrary to the local realist predictions.

Loophole free measurements play a different purpose. They are independent of QM. They don't test QM. They test nature against any possible local realist model. Even ones undreamt of. They are technically fascinating, but the results don't seem important to me. 

Cheers

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

Can you give me links to publications that describe reliable
experimental confirmations of the EPR-B correlation?

With best wishes,

Alexey

ср, 12 июл. 2023 г. в 21:01, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Alexey

Experiments never give perfect correlations, you should know that. Experiments might give strong statistical evidence of close to perfect correlations.

If your question is a rhetorical question then please just say so.

Richard



Sent from my iPhone

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Of course, I know that experiments never give perfect correlations.
The perfect EPR-B correlation cannot be observed at least because two
analyzers spaced apart in space cannot be oriented strictly in
parallel. But we can talk about confirming the miracle postulated by
Bohm if the correlation will be significantly higher than 0.5. The
loopholes that exist during the experimental verification of Bell's
inequalities, are absent in this experiment. Therefore, I do not
understand the meaning of Bell's inequalities and the long-term
disputes about their violation. I think these pointless disputes were
provoked by the theory of hidden variables, and the misunderstanding
that this theory is impossible without the trick with measurement.

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 13 июл. 2023 г. в 03:01, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

We already discussed that spatial orientations are irrelevant. The endless pointless discussions are a result of people using dogmas they learnt as physics undergraduates instead of careful thought.

Sent from my iPhone

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Your statement “that spatial orientations are irrelevant” causes
extreme surprise. What meaning can the EPR-B correlation and Bell's
inequalities have without spatial orientations? Bohm postulated that
the perfect EPR-B correlation should be observed when two analyzers
have the same spatial orientation. The angle ‘a’ and ‘b’ in
expressions (3) and (4) of the Bell 1981 paper about ‘Bertlmann's
socks’ describe different spatial orientations of two analyzers.

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 13 июл. 2023 г. в 11:37, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

You should not be surprised. We have discussed this before many times.

QM is an abstract framework. The EPR-B correlations are derived by using standard QM calculations from the QM description of two two-level systems in a certain entangled state. The observables of each system can be parametrised by the points on the unit sphere S^2. Those points do not need to represent physical directions in space.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

You surprise me more and more. You don't seem to understand the
meaning of the EPR-B correlation and Bell's inequalities at all, as
well as quantum mechanics. You do not understand that standard QM
cannot predict the EPR-B correlation and violation of Bell's
inequalities because of its principle that operators acting on
different particles commute. You do not understand that spin states of
entangled particles cannot mathematically exist in the real
three-dimensional space and can be created by the mind of the observer
at observation. I see that popularity has played a cruel joke on
Bell's inequalities. Most of those who write and argue about Bell's
inequalities do not understand their sense.

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 13 июл. 2023 г. в 12:38, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Mark Hadley]

Alexey,

What us the truck that you refer to? 

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Alexey,

The EPR correlations don't make assumptions about commutivity. QM does make predictions. And those predictions are confirmed by experiment. 

Also I don't think they require the non commutivity that you describe. 

Show us a calculation that you think makes a false commutivity assumption.

Cheers

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Sorry Alexei

You don’t surprise me at all, we have been over all this ground so many times before, and you quite simply do not understand the present day formalism of quantum mechanics. You wrote "You do not understand that standard QM
cannot predict the EPR-B correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities because of its principle that operators acting on different particles commute.” I do understand it very well. You are the only person I know who doesn’t.

Richard

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

I am glad that you understand that standard QM cannot predict the
EPR-B correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities. But I cannot
be the only person you know who doesn't understand this obvious fact.
Mark wrote that “Every EPR experiment confirms QM and gives results
contrary to the local realist predictions”. Moreover authors of almost
all publications are sure that Bell showed that quantum mechanics
predicts correlations that violate his inequalities. The only
publication, as far as I know, in which it is argued that quantum
mechanics cannot predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell
inequalities is my paper [1]. I demonstrate also in this paper that
the principle that operators acting on different particles commute
saves quantum mechanics from predicting an obvious absurdity.

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

available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370581308_Physical_Thinking_and_the_GHZ_Theorem

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 13 июл. 2023 г. в 14:12, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

I can understand it. It does predict it. You clearly haven’t even read the ETH paper.

You are talking nonsense.

Sent from my iPhone

[Thomas Ray]

Forum members,

I apologize in advance if my use of the "reply all" button causes problems.  I'm not familiar with the protocol.  I've been following this discussion off and on, and I'm not really able to fully participate.  However, if you are interested, Prof Gill and I have engaged on this subject before.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291697555_Special_Relativity_and_the_Origin_of_Probability_REV_1

I am still awaiting Prof. Gill's answer to my straightforward question:  What is the measure space of quantum theory?  Maybe one of you knows. 

You can skip pp 10-13 if you please, and go straight to the discussion section.  

Cheers,

Tom

--
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/B7D8E564-5996-4EE3-A7CE-15DE1B833818%40gmail.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Alex,

Religiosity may not mean just the belief on Gods:

“If measurements of the spin projection of two particles or the polarization of two photons in the same direction will give the correlation with probability 1, then this will be experimental evidence not only a miracle, but also absurdity.”

Could I invite you to recall the “Hong–Ou–Mandel” effect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong%E2%80%93Ou%E2%80%93Mandel_effect

 

Do you accept the “miracle” of two photons in the same direction and precisely in the same state, given by the HOM effect? Or would you say that these worldwide tested results were faked by everyone? Or, at least, mis-interpreted?

How does this fit into your vision? Can you admit you are wrong?

 

Geraldo

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

--
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/CAKiL4i%2BXg4JvjPZ5HQfFXWJFTYDGQ7XYgZNon1ZpJ_BXgk9GjA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

That's an interesting question.

The distinctive, we could say definitive, feature of QM is that it does not have a boolean measure space.

The measure space is context dependent. Once the context is defined it can have a classical measure. Outcomes are eigenvalues of the operator, usually discrete and the probability is from the quadratic expression. 

Does that make sense? And have I understood your question correctly?

Cheers

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Dear Tom, dear friends

You will have to wait a long time, because, as I told you many times before, I don’t understand your question.

It’s like asking me “when did I stop beating my wife?” The right answer is neither yes nor no. It is obviously (to me) a loaded question. It presupposes some common agreement about what various things mean. But we never established that common agreement.

All the best

Richard

PS I am presently rather pre-occupied with an alleged serial killer nurse in the UK. Lucy Letby. She’s been persecuted for 7 years or more, in what is clearly (to me) a present day witch hunt. The logic of the case is circular. She was always there when suspicious events occurred. But if you look carefully, those events were labelled suspicious because, and if and only if, she was there. No surprise that she was the only nurse who was present at *all* those 22 events. That is the principle evidence brought to the court by the prosecution. The defence has no clue; probably was already convinced she was guilty, and has been desperately trying to convince her that her only hope is to admit guilt. Indeed, it was clear in advance that any jury would likely convict her on the basis of this “evidence” (that’s why the public prosecution sanctioned the trial). The defence advice was therefore sensible.  But she did not take their advice and now everyone has a problem. First and foremost: the English tax payer. Aso the parents of the babies. And Lucy herself. The trial has now lasted 10 months and the jury is presents deliberating the 22 charges. Some people say “no smoke without fire”. If there are 22 charges she must have done something. I say: If there are 22 charges and no hard evidence it is most likely that something completely different is going on. I suspect the hospital consultants (medical specialists) and hospital management. I think they pressed the panic button in a collective subconscious conspiracy to avoid investigation of their own mis-behaviour.

The jury may only make use of what they saw and heard in the courtroom. With the emphasis on *only*. The defence made no attempt to defend their client. But in those last nine months, various independent scientists have found the scientific evidence which makes it pretty clear there is no case against Lucy Letby at all. But that evidence may not be brought into the trial. If you try, you get threats from the police. Next time I visit my mother (who worked for Turing in order to save England from fascism) I will get arrested as I pass the border (according to letters I’ve received from Cheshire constabulary).

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Geraldo,

I know that miracles are observed. I call a miracle something that our
reason cannot explain. For example, the Stern-Gerlach effect and the
interference of particles at two slits are miracles that our reason
cannot explain. The creators of quantum mechanics have provoked the
illusion, with the help of a trick, that our reason can explain the
miracles. From the trick used by quantum mechanics follows the
prediction of other miracles. For example, Zeilinger considered a
possibility of superluminal transmission of information with the help
of quantum telegraph in [1]. Zeilinger referred in his review article
to the Ph.D. thesis of University of Innsbruck [2] in which the
miracle predicted by quantum mechanics has been corroborated, see the
scheme of the experiment on Fig.1 of our article [3].

I cannot doubt that such miracles as the Stern-Gerlach effect and the
interference of particles at two slits were being observed. But I
doubt that the miracle observed in [2] really was observed, since for
twenty-five years, as far as I know, no one has repeated the
outstanding experiment described in the review article [2]. That's why
I'm asking if anyone knows reliable experimental confirmations of the
EPR correlation.

[1] Zeilinger A., 1999, Experiment and the foundations of quantum
physics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S288-S297 (1999).

[2] Dopfer B., Two experiments on the interference of two-photon
states. PhD Thesis, University of Innsbruck, (1998).

[3] Vitali V. Aristov, Alexey V. Nikulov, The reasons for doubts about
the reality of quantum computer, available at ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326832017_The_reasons_for_doubts_about_the_reality_of_quantum_computer?_sg%5B0%5D=8rSxiJUQAJQcde1vQaYCLuLxs6Sa5P8jzlum0wvuVzjEeK8uCul72k8gHkbIeoDasYr0dXHfevDmvsoDfhItiHmzsqskzrNhiZdvdiXj.OhoT1UnQefx7fHzUe30odsthByIHGC90l7LbwFnviplj7DM5sP29b5oqjX7voXzJrPJam95_K36WTrU2PZfT9Q.

With best wishes,

Alexey

сб, 15 июл. 2023 г. в 13:21, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

>
> Alex,
>
> Religiosity may not mean just the belief on Gods:
>
> “If measurements of the spin projection of two particles or the polarization of two photons in the same direction will give the correlation with probability 1, then this will be experimental evidence not only a miracle, but also absurdity.”
>
> Could I invite you to recall the “Hong–Ou–Mandel” effect?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong%E2%80%93Ou%E2%80%93Mandel_effect
>
>
>
> Do you accept the “miracle” of two photons in the same direction and precisely in the same state, given by the HOM effect? Or would you say that these worldwide tested results were faked by everyone? Or, at least, mis-interpreted?
>
> How does this fit into your vision? Can you admit you are wrong?
>
>
>
> Geraldo
>
>
> Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD
> KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC
> https://www.keybits.tech/
> 1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

> E-Mail: Geraldo...@keybits.tech

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

It seems that we have been agreeing all along! I too have been proposing, for a long time, in your terminology, that loophole-free Bell experiments are miracles. What happens there cannot be explained by our reason.

It is predicted by quantum mechanics. You call that a trick. I call it a mathematical formalism.

We can become familiar with the mathematics and we can be creative and imaginative with it. And that is the tast that is before us.

Richard

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Alexey,

You are trying to escape with argumentations. YOU asked a question about two photons and I gave you an answer that contradicts you beliefs. 

Again:

Do you believe that the HOM effect shows what you said it is a "miracle" (your words, not mine)?

I(we) am(are) still waiting for an opportunity for a relaxed conversation with you, maybe with a beer mug in a nice place.

Cheers

Geraldo

[Richard Gill]

I agree. QM has a different classical probability space for each experimental context, because it is a framework which describes probabilities of experimental results. It does not contain a mechanism for explaining the generation of those results. The word “mechanics” is a misnomer.

Probability can just as well be taken here in a frequentist or a subjectivist sense. To the working physicist it doesn’t make any difference. The standard axioms of probability follow either from counting arguments or from axioms for making decisions under uncertainty. The mathematical structures of quantum probability and quantum logic are alternative ways to name the objects studied in QM, and emphasize its similarities with classical probability and classical logic. But the fundamental difference is non-commutativity, or if you prefer contextualiseren. Technically, it is a generalization of those classical structures. One could also say it is a specialization of classical mathematical statistics and the field called design of experiments, which both study families of probability models.

Sent from my iPhone

On 15 Jul 2023, at 14:13, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Our reason cannot explain not only loophole-free Bell experiments but
even the Stern-Gerlach effect. Bell made two mistakes: 1) he falsely
decided that von Neumann's proof was false and even foolish; 2) he did
not understand that the EPR correlation was postulated by Bohm and is
not predicted by quantum mechanics. We cannot explain loophole-free
Bell experiments since we cannot explain 1) the Stern-Gerlach effect
and 2) how the mind of Alice can create the spin state of Bob’s
particle.

No mathematical formalism is in the trick used by the creators of
quantum mechanics. The mathematician von Neumann divided in 1932
quantum mechanics into the trick, which he called Process 1, and a
mathematical formalism, which he called Process 2. Process 1 is the
discontinuous change of quantum state at the observation which cannot
be described in any way. Process 2 is the continuous deterministic
change of the quantum state of an isolated system with time according
to a Schrodinger’s wave equation. The whole story of Bell's
inequalities became possible because scientists, with the exception
of a few, such as Hugh Everett, did not want to admit that Process 1
belongs to the domain of psychology rather than physics.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вс, 16 июл. 2023 г. в 19:13, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

I think you don’t understand maths. Bell did not make those two mistakes.

1) Von Neumann’s proof was indeed silly.

2) The EPR-B correlation *is* predicted by quantum mechanics.

I am afraid you are pretty much alone with these ideas.

Process 1 does not belong to the domain of psychology. It does belong to the domain of information theory, which has got nothing whatever to do with psychology.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Geraldo,

You have not answered my question. I asked about reliable experimental
confirmations of the EPR correlation postulated by Bohm. It seems to
me that you are trying to escape from the answer to the question "Do
you know reliable experimental confirmations of the EPR correlation?"
It may be that the HOM effect was observed. But the observation of one
miracle does not prove the possibility of observing another miracle,
even if this miracle is predicted by quantum mechanics, in contrast to
the EPR correlation. Quantum mechanics predicts the miracle considered
in the review article [1]. But this miracle was observed only by B.
Dopfer [2]. Therefore, I doubt that this miracle is really being
observed.

A Reviewer of my manuscript “Quantum register cannot be real” wrote
that “The majority of physicists working in quantum mechanics are
instrumentalists”. I am not sure that all these physicists understand
they are instrumentalists. But quantum mechanics can be valid only
according to the instrumentalist view, which claims that physical
theory should describe and predict only experimental facts. The
criticism of the instrumentalist view is in Chapter 1 “The Theory of
Everything” of the book “The Fabric of Reality” [3] written by David
Deutsch. Deutsch argued that a real device, for example an
interstellar spaceship, can be made on a theory explaining
experimental results rather than a theory which only predicts the
outcomes of experiments. But Deutsch did not take into account that no
outcomes of experiments can be predicted by a theory which only
describes the known outcomes of experiments rather than a reality.
Misunderstanding of this obvious logic is the main mistake of
Heisenberg and other creators of quantum mechanics, which led to a
mass delusion, manifested in particular in the idea of quantum
computing and the Nobel Prize in 2022.

[1] Zeilinger A., Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S288-S297 (1999).

[2] Dopfer B., Two experiments on the interference of two-photon
states. PhD Thesis, University of Innsbruck, (1998).

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

With best wishes,
Alexey

вс, 16 июл. 2023 г. в 15:11, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

1) Can you explain why von Neumann’s proof was silly?

2) How can quantum mechanics predict the EPR-B correlation if
according to its principle that operators acting on different
particles commute measurement of a particle A cannot change the
quantum state of other particle B?

Bell has also been much alone for a long time with his ideas about the
inadequacy of quantum mechanics.

If you do not agree with Everett that Process 1 belongs to the domain
of psychology, then you should explain how information theory, which
has nothing to do with psychology, can describe an instantaneous and
non-local change in the quantum state because of observation.

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 18 июл. 2023 г. в 11:29, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

I can, but I am not going to, because I am trying to correct a miscarriage of justice involving an alleged serial killer nurse, and I have learnt the hard way, that it is not possible to get maths across to you. Maybe somebody else would like to try.

You should try to learn the modern conception of what a quantum state is. You say that QM says that measurement of particle A does not change the state of particle B. The reduced state of particle B is indeed not changed by measurement of particle A. The joint state of particle A and particle B is changed by measurement of particle A. And the joint state of particle A and particle B given particle A was measured, and what the outcome of the measurement was, is something else again.

Maybe somebody else can try to explain to Alexei how most people nowadays understand the notion of quantum state, joint state, reduced state?

[Mark Hadley]

There is an unnecessary short cut in the maths which Alexey has seen and he has personally interpreted it as an absurd physical effect.

Many people are more comfortable using state vectors than state operators. And it is therefore convenient to write a state vector expression once the setting at A is known. It is not necessaryy to do that. It may mislead some people into thinking that A influences B.

If Alexey learns to use the state operator expressions he will see that the EPR correlations can be predicted without absurdity and without the non commuting operators that trouble him. 

Cheers

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

I know how most people nowadays understand the notion of quantum
state, joint state, reduced state. I demonstrate in the article [1],
first of all on the example of the GHZ theorem that the rejection of
realism by creators of quantum mechanics has resulted in the modern
degradation of physical thinking. The degradation of physical thinking
occurred primarily because almost all scientists are naive realists.
The naive realists are also the authors of publications, such as
[2,3], who refute realism, but consider, like you, the EPR correlation
as a consequence of a real existence the joint state of particle A and
particle B. They not only do not understand, but also do not want to
understand that the only possible definition of EPR correlation is the
definition given by Schrodinger in 1935, as the entanglement of our
knowledge.
I prove mathematically in the article [1] that the spin states of
entangled particles cannot exist in the real three-dimensional space,
since the rotation operators of the coordinate system cannot be
applicable to them. Misunderstanding of this mathematical fact is one
of the main mistakes not only of the authors [2,3] who thought that
entangled particles can have eigenstates.
I think you're claiming that von Neumann’s proof was indeed silly just
because you, like most people believe John Bell and David Mermin who
claimed this. You don't want to understand that they claimed this only
because they believed, without any justification, that the trick with
‘measurement’ is much better than the trick with observation.

[1] Alexey Nikulov, Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found.
Phys. 53, 51 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y
[2] Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Zeilinger, A. In: Kafatos, M.
(ed.) Bells Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe,
pp. 73–76. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1989) 39.
[3] Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s

theorem without inequalities. Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131–1143 (1990)

With best wishes,
Alexey

ср, 19 июл. 2023 г. в 16:26, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexei

If you are so smart, maybe you can help me solve this problem. On which I am concentrating all my attention at this moment.

Because I tried to do something about it, I will probably be arrested next time I visit my motherland (UK) where it is a criminal offense to speak the truth about certain matters.

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

I wish you a lucky outcome in the Lucy case.

[Richard Gill]

It has been going on for 7 years now. It will go on for another 7 at least, I am sure.

[2015: first “unexplained cluster" of cases. 2016: second “unexplained cluster" of cases. 2017: report of Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health strongly criticises management and hospital doctors but does not give a specific explanation for the apparent clusters; immediately after its publication, the four medical paediatric consultants at the hospital report LL to the police. Police investigations last a year or two. Have by now, 2023, cost millions of pounds. LL is arrested under suspicion of murder, and released after the maximum length of time, in three subsequent years. Finally she is arrested and charged but because of Corona, trial is postponed and postponed while she remains in custody. Autumn 2022, trial starts. Summer 2023, 10 months later, it is due to conclude within this month, July. The defence has made no attempt whatsoever to defend their client. It did not call any scientific witness. LL has essentially been left to defend herself. The prosecution relies on experts who are not experts and on the evidence of the four consultants themselves. Publicly exposing the scientific truth is punishable in the UK by a prison sentence and/or an enormous fine, since by law, the jury must determine their verdicts on the 22 charges (murders and murder attempts) on the basis of what they heard in the court and *only* on that basis]

<Lucy-Letby-at-new-years-party-with-friends.jpeg><Lucy-Letby-at-new-years-party-with-friends.jpeg>

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Officially what is our position in this case?

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

[Richard Gill]

I have no official role in this case. Independent scientists should keep their mouths shut for the duration of the case. After the verdict is known (22 verdicts) the judge will sentence. After that, anybody may say what they like in public. Basically, freedom of speech has been curtailed for 10 months. Unless you think that LL should be hung. Many people say that. But if you are a scientist and fear a miscarriage of justice you are silenced.

My personal position as a scientist is that the trial is grossly unfair.

My personal position as a human being is that LL is very likely innocent and that the four consultants and hospital management are probably guilty of numerous crimes. For instance: lying under oath. Also unauthorised euthanasias. I have communicated my opinions to the defence, to the prosecution, to the judge, to the director of public prosecutions, but they will all not interfere in the course of the trial. After the verdict we (I am one of a small group of concerned scientists) will be communicating with the newspapers, with the government, with members of parliament. We are creating a “foundation” which will work in order to disseminate true science about the case and more generally do similar work in other cases, too.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

That is very sad.

Without an official position, the jurors won't see the scientific opinion that your group has.

To announce it just after the jury certainly won't help the nurse.

Going public is the only option if the group has to have their voice heard by the jurors - by "echos".

How to go public? Will any newspaper help? Probably they are afraid as well.

How to announce it openly in another country? Does the UK's arm reach people abroad?

Quite a problem!

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

[Richard Gill]

There is no way to do anything till the jury comes out with their 22 verdicts. That wil happen within a couple of weeks. It may well be guilty. 

That doesn’t matter. After that we move to the next level: changing public opinion, providing data and pushing the authorities and the players for an appeal. A new and this time fair trial. After that, there can be an independent enquiry. This is all going to take up another 8 or so years.