Bryan's "complementarity"

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I write this mostly to avoid having to wade through Facebook posts to recover my own example on how to calculate correlations in Bryan's model

Here is an explicit example that uses Bryan's "complementary" events and exactly the probability distribution he has in the paper:

If you have 500,000 "polarization" coincidences and of these 375,000 are equal and 125,000 are nonequal, the correlation E(a,b)_pol=(375,000-125,000)/500,000=0.5.

If you have 500,000 "coherence" coincidences and of these 301,777 are equal and 198,223 are nonequal, the correlation E(a,b)_coh=(301,777-198,223)/500,000=0.207.

These are *exactly* the numbers from Bryan's model. Bryan now wants to add these to get something close to the quantum prediction 0.707. He goes on and on and on how the properties are "complementary" and therefore the correlations can be added rather than averaged. (This is his whole argument. There is no further explanation.)

However, the actual total correlation is calculated like this: there are 500,000+500.000=1,000,000 coincidences of which 375,000+301,777=676,777 are equal, and 125,000+198,223=323,223 are unequal. So E(a,b)_tot=(676,777-323,223)/1,000,000=0.353 meaning half the quantum prediction.

You should add events, not correlations. Bryans calculation is wrong.

/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

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Perhaps I should add: the numbers give a point estimate from data (if you understand the terminology), not the actual correlation which is obtained from the underlying probability distribution. But the explicit numbers makes it easier to understand. It becomes obvious what the error is.

/JÅ

--
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/c19ed209-070c-4950-9c81-1cd993a12fd1%40liu.se.

[Austin Fearnley]

Yes, the overall correlation in this calculation is not 0.707.
For r = 0.707, the proportion 'same' is 0.854 and the proportion 'different' is 0.146, for example.
The proportion 'same' of 0.854 for electrons can be calculated from Malus's Law as cos^2(45/2).

This means that the 0.707 table of Bell results corresponds to Malus results, which are based on measurements of polarised beams/particles.  The simulation of a Bell experiment, however, does not have any reason to assume polarised beams are allowable.  When unpolarised beams are used, with fixed vectors for particle polarisations, the two proportions are 0.75 and 0.25 giving a correlation of 0.5.  My gyroscope model using precession and nutation gave Malus results when used on polarised beams on single detectors. But when used in a Bell simulation they gave a correlation of about 0.35.

On a polarised beam with one detector the precession gave the necessary variability to allow the correct calculation of the Stern-Gerlach outcomes.  But when used on unpolarised beams in a Bell simulation that extra variability beyond the fixed vector version drove the correlation below even 0.5.

QM can explain the presence of Malus calculations being at the heart of the Bell 2x2 table.  When A is measured as + or - 1, the partner particle instantly begets a polarisation of - or + a as it is measured by Bob.  These are the very conditions for Malus measurements.  The same polarisation vectors apply in my retrocausal method except the begetting is only apparently instantaneous in the laboratory frame. The begetting is local transmitted but in a reverse time direction by antiparticles.

In a model where space is closed as S^3, that space has double cover and similar effects apply as in a Moibus strip.  I apply the reversed metric to time rather than space in the double cover.  T'Hooft has something similar for a black hole where one passes through it and immediately emerges on the opposite side but with reversed spatial metrics.  Time spent travelling inwards is counterbalanced/cancelled by reverse time travelling outwards.  That seems to ignore difficulties in escaping from a BH. Also it ignores difficulties in transferring from a positive time direction to a negative time direction.  In my preon model, a particle/preon never changes its own time direction.  In Penrose's CCC model the universe collapses at the end of a time direction.  I am not convinced that the time direction in CCC is always in our arrow of time direction.  In my preon model the photons (all that remains) at the end of a cycle have all the necessary properties to re-start in any time direction.  New time direction would depend on the new symmetry breaking at the start of the new cycle.

Austin Fearnley

[Mark Hadley]

Just a detail, but a wormhole connects a white hole and a black hole. The time reversal of a black hole is a white hoke that radiates.

The metric for a bridge type structure has r as the radial coordinate, but inside the event horizon it has rotated into a time like coordinate and in the throat if a wormhole an incoming r coordinate becomes an outgoing r coordinate, but if they are time like that's where the reversal takes place. 

You might come out of a wormhole time reversed. Everyone else would see a time reversed version of you going into it. 

I did a beat  paper on the orientability of spacetime.

Cheers

Mark Hadley 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9726213b-fb77-40b5-9e0c-01478b89cc9bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Yes a typo.

It was a neat paper

Hadley, Mark J. (2002) The orientability of spacetime. Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 19 (Number 17). pp. 4565-4571. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/17/308

For others see:

https://drmarkhadley.com/publications/

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

I have been reading your 2002 paper 'The orientability of spacetime' and will need to read it further.

There is a lot to understand as it is a very interesting topic. I am interested in Peter Woit's idea that spacetime may be right-handed: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?m=202310 and
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/righthanded.pdf .  Anything that uses twistors, however, will leave me behind unless someone produces a useful video lecture expaining it.  I felt the same way about string theory until I followed Susskind's excellent online lectures.   It could be that a right-handed spacetime actually defines the orientation of time: someone (not me) asked that question in the comment section on Peter's blog but did not get confirmation.

It took me a while to understand the text in your Remark 2.1 as it seemed literally to be a non-sequitur to jump from spacetime always being locally orientable to orientability being a global property. But I now take it to mean that you can have local orientability at the same time as having global non-orientability.  So you need global orientability for confirmation.  Sorry to drag this out but it did take me a while!

This topic reminds me of my early learning about S3 and geometric algebra on Joy Christian/ Fred's websites.  Joy was consistent in denying (my interpretation of his view, anyway) that spin direction is a property of a particle.  In S3 and in a toy Moibus strip, the spin direction depends on where (in which of the two covers of space) the observer is sited.  My problem with this is that when you have chosen which cover the observer is in, you are stuck with that unless the observer subsequently travels to the far side of the spacetime.  Which is not easy or believable, and moreover measurements will change wholesale when the observer is on the far side of the closed spacetime.  T' Hooft made a similar point in one of his papers that you have to choose which side of the universe you are observing from.  This is relevant to my preon model where I have spin as a property of a preon and hence of a particle.  But I ought to have said in  that model description that this only holds in our side of the universe.  An observer on the far side of the universe could see electron and positron properties reversed: but this is not really stopping me from allocating a spin property to a particle in a lab locally or 'over here'.  

I can see that even if the universe is right-handed with a defined orientation of time's arrow, there presumably needs to be pockets of opposition to this overall effect in order to allow antiparticles to exist, assuming that the antiparticles are travelling backwards in universal time.

In my preon model, preons always travel in one direction in time.  A preon does not reverse its time direction.  But like in a chemical reaction the preons can be freed up and rearrange into different elementary particles.  This works because all elementary particles have both preons and antipreons in them so the preons do not change time direction but it can appear that the elementary particles have changed time directions.  Except they haven't really done that.  This also means that the antiparticles pre-existed.  

I will look further at your paper. Also will look at how behaviour of particles/antiparticles at wormholes might affect pre-existence of antiparticles.  At a micro level there is no precedence of matter over antimatter in my preon model.  There is an equal number of antipreons in a hydrogen atom as there are antipreons.  So I can't assume antiparticles did not pre-exist.

Regards

Austin

[Mark Hadley]

Any local region of spacetime is orientable. I mean local as mathematicians use the term.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/89c9ca00-be60-4baa-9e30-4626eac1eaf8n%40googlegroups.com.