ATTN Clark; Bell's Theorem and the Non-locality of the Universe

[Alan Grayson]

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

In your various discussions of Bell's theoem, you mention three properties, only two of which you claim can be true; namely, Determinism, Realism, and Locality (IIRC). But in Brian Greene's discussion, he concludes that Bell experiments demonstrate the Einstein Realism has been falsified; nothing more. So my question is this; how did you reach your additional conclusion? TY, AG

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 6:16 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brian Greene's discussion, he concludes that Bell experiments demonstrate the Einstein Realism has been falsified 

 And Greene is absolutely correct, the violation of Bell's Inequality proves that Einstein Realism is wrong, but "Einstein Realism" is just another name for "Local Realism", as I've pointed out many many times. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tmt

[Alan Grayson]

I know that, I remember that, but my question is about your three conditions, only two of which can be true, so you claimed. AG 

tmt

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 6:55 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>  And Greene is absolutely correct, the violation of Bell's Inequality proves that Einstein Realism is wrong, but "Einstein Realism" is just another name for "Local Realism", as I've pointed out many many times. 

John K Clark   

>I know that, I remember that, but my question is about your three conditions, only two of which can be true, so you claimed. AG 

Einstein also believed in determinism, although he was much more worried about non-locality than non-determinism. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

erw

[Alan Grayson]

If Einstein's Realism is ruled out by Bell experiments, does this imply non-determinism and/or non-locality? This is what you opined on authoritatively IIUC. Brian Greene doesn't affirm or deny these implications. TY, AG 

erw

[Jesse Mazer]

Are you saying that a non-deterministic theory that was local realist (i.e. probabilities for events at any point in spacetime only depend on events in the past light cone) could account for the statistics predicted by QM in Bell test experiments, or are you making a different point?

Jesse

 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

erw

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0Y4Qg7J9SpWwH6KzTJ3nD%2BES1A%2BRqdEUPPmMK6mM1htw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean non-locality is affirmed? And IYO does non-locality mean instantaneous transference of information, not merely exceeding the SoL? TY, AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

These discussions are pointless to begin with. Someone that understands consciousness doesn't even need these theorems.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Einstein also believed in determinism, although he was much more worried about non-locality than non-determinism. 

> > Are you saying that a non-deterministic theory that was local realist (i.e. probabilities for events at any point in spacetime only depend on events in the past light cone) could account for the statistics predicted by QM in Bell test experiments, or are you making a different point?

 

Objective Collapse theories can explain the violation of Bell's Inequality, and they are certainly non-deterministic and realistic, but there is some controversy about if they are local; some say they are non-local because the mathematics indicates that the entire wave function collapses instantaneously. However others point out, and I tend to agree with them, that the collapse only affects a localized region of the wave function, so it would be impossible even in theory, much less in practice, for an observer to tell the difference between the collapse happening instantaneously and the collapse propagating outward at the speed of light; so if you say Objective Collapse is local then you can be sure that there will never be an experimental result that proves you wrong.

For the same reason I'd call Many Worlds a local theory, but it's deterministic and unrealistic. Pilot Wave is realistic and deterministic but very definitely non-local. All these theories can explain the violation of Bell's Inequality, but Einstein Realism cannot.

Superdeterminism can also explain the violation of Bell's Inequality, and it's deterministic, realistic and local. But Superdeterminism has one other interesting characteristic that none of the others have, it is idiotic.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

2bb

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 4:13 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean non-locality is affirmed?

No.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

9u7

[Alan Grayson]

Then how do you account for the correlations? AG 

9u7

[Alan Grayson]

Is this the general consensus in the physics community, or is there none. Is this just your opinion? AG 

9u7

[Russell Standish]

It is the concensus, because the Bell inequality is a theorem, and the
observed violation of it is a violation of at least one of the three
assumptions (reality, locality and determinism). Only if you assume
both reality and determinism can you conclude that QM is non-local.

>
> 9u7

>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
> to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list

> /4e4cd7b1-0a4f-44a6-b1b8-4ec24e489275n%40googlegroups.com.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruce Kellett]

Clark is quite wrong about this. Neither realism nor determinism have anything to do with Bell's theorem. The theorem is entirely and exclusively about locality. This is spelled out fairly clearly in the review paper by Brunner at al. (arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849) If we assume locality, Bell's theorem states that certain inequalities must be satisfied. Quantum mechanics violates those inequalities. Therefore, quantum mechanics, in any interpretation, is non-local.

The proof is fairly straightforward. Informally, locality means that if we have two disjoint points, A and B, separated by some distance , either spacelike or timelike, then what happens at point A cannot affect what happens at point B, and what happens at point B cannot affect what happens at point A. This informal notion can be formalized by saying that the joint probability for outcomes a at point A , and b at point B, must factorize, so that the joint probability can be written as a product of two terms, one dependent only on factors local to point A, and the other dependent only on factors local to point B:

       Pr(a,b) = p(a)*p(b),

once all common causal factors have been taken into account.

We then consider the expression S = <a0b0> + <a0b1> + <a1b0> - <a1b1> for measurement settings 0 and 1 and outcomes a,b in the range (-1, +1). If the joint probabilities all satisfy the factorization condition associated with the locality decomposition, we then have that

    S = <a0b0> + <a0b1> + <a1b0> - <a1b1> <= 2.

This is the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. The details on the proof of this inequality, under the assumption of locality, is given in the Brunner et al. reference above.

This inequality depends only on the assumption of locality as implemented in the factorizabitity condition. It is easily shown that quantum mechanical correlations violate this inequality: S = 2sqrt(2) > 2. The conclusion is that quantum mechanics itself, in any interpretation or model, is non-local. This conclusion does not depend on any assumptions about realism or determinism.

I see that Russell Standish has a recent post that also states that Bell's theorem depends on assumptions of Realism and Determinism. Russell is just as wrong about this as is John Clark. Bell's theorem depends only on the assumption of locality, as proved above.

Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

Thank you. That's what I thought. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Thank you. That's what I thought. AG 

How is non-local defined? Does it imply instantaneous, or faster than light transference of information? AG

[Bruce Kellett]

I defined non-local above: whatever happens at A does not affect B and vice versa. It has nothing to do with faster-than-light transfer of information. If there was some FTL transfer between A and B, then the effect would be local. The idea that non-locality means FTL effects is a common confusion. That idea is totally wrong.

Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

It might be, as you write, a common confusion, but how else can a measurement at A not effect a measurement at B , and vice versa, and yet be correlated, without faster-than-light transference of information. It does seem to me that non-local implies denial of realism. AG 

[Bruce Kellett]

You just have to stop thinking about it in classical terms.

Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

If my interpretation is wrong, this is too classical, what's the correct interpretation? AG

 

[Bruce Kellett]

Instead of thinking in terms of a local Hamiltonian, depending on just one spacetime point; you have to think of a non-local Hamiltonian, depending on more than one spacetime point.

Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

Unfortunately, what you propose is above my head. Firstly, I forget how to apply a classical Hamiltonian to this problem of two separated events, and what a non-local Hamiltonian would look like and how it would be applied. I don't wish to burden you with the technical explanation, so maybe someone on this thread is up to the task. AG

 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:42 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean non-locality is affirmed?

>> No.

> Clark is quite wrong about this.

If you already knew the answer, or thought you did, then why did you ask the question? 

 

> Neither realism nor determinism have anything to do with Bell's theorem. The theorem is entirely and exclusively about locality. This is spelled out fairly clearly in the review paper by Brunner at al. (arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849) 

I am quite sure that you haven't read that paper, if you had you would have noticed that it says   "Bell also used the term local causality instead of locality. Local hidden-variable or local realistic models are also frequently used"

Before deriving his Inequality Bell assumed "local realism" and that means he assumed

1) locality:  Measurements on one particle cannot instantaneously affect the state of a distant particle.

2) Realism: A thing exists in one and only one definite state even if it has not been measured.

If both those assumptions are true and if you exclude superdeterminism (which you should!) then it's logically impossible for Bell's Inequality to be violated. But experiments definitively show that it is violated, therefore one or both of the above assumptions must be invalid.  

> I see that Russell Standish has a recent post that also states that Bell's theorem depends on assumptions of Realism and Determinism. Russell is just as wrong about this as is John Clark. Bell's theorem depends only on the assumption of locality,

I quote from Wikipedia:  

"Its [Bell's Inequality] derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties a0,a1,b0 and b1 exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

Bell's theorem

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

3e4

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:42 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean non-locality is affirmed?

>> No.

> Clark is quite wrong about this.

If you already knew the answer, or thought you did, then why did you ask the question? 

Because I wasn't absolutely certain. But although I agree with Bruce's words, that Bell experiments negate locality, I am now not certain of his meaning of non-locality. AG 

 

> Neither realism nor determinism have anything to do with Bell's theorem. The theorem is entirely and exclusively about locality. This is spelled out fairly clearly in the review paper by Brunner at al. (arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849) 

I am quite sure that you haven't read that paper, if you had you would have noticed that it says   "Bell also used the term local causality instead of locality. Local hidden-variable or local realistic models are also frequently used"

I haven't read it YET, but it's on my list, a long list BTW. I have a question for you; when will you cease being an a'hole? Did you notice? I showed on the long thread that simultaneity is NOT necessary to show the result of the car-garage problem. But you insisted otherwise! From the car frame, we can use the parameters of the problem along with the gamma factor, to show the car won't fit. Knowing the shorten length of the garage is SUFFICIENT to prove the car won't fit, from the car frame's pov for a large enough v. AG

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:10 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:42 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean non-locality is affirmed?

>> No.

> Clark is quite wrong about this.

If you already knew the answer, or thought you did, then why did you ask the question? 

 

> Neither realism nor determinism have anything to do with Bell's theorem. The theorem is entirely and exclusively about locality. This is spelled out fairly clearly in the review paper by Brunner at al. (arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849) 

I am quite sure that you haven't read that paper,

I have read the paper. The terms "local causality" or "local realistic models" might be used. But that does not mean that they are relevant.

if you had you would have noticed that it says   "Bell also used the term local causality instead of locality. Local hidden-variable or local realistic models are also frequently used"

Before deriving his Inequality Bell assumed "local realism" and that means he assumed

Bell did not assume realism.

1) locality:  Measurements on one particle cannot instantaneously affect the state of a distant particle.

2) Realism: A thing exists in one and only one definite state even if it has not been measured.

If both those assumptions are true and if you exclude superdeterminism (which you should!) then it's logically impossible for Bell's Inequality to be violated. But experiments definitively show that it is violated, therefore one or both of the above assumptions must be invalid.  

> I see that Russell Standish has a recent post that also states that Bell's theorem depends on assumptions of Realism and Determinism. Russell is just as wrong about this as is John Clark. Bell's theorem depends only on the assumption of locality,

I quote from Wikipedia:  

"Its [Bell's Inequality] derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties a0,a1,b0 and b1 exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism);

This is not assumed in the derivation of the CHSH inequality, as I proved. Wikipedia is not an authority, and you should stop using it as if it were absolutely true in all things.

Bruce

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 05:48:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:

> The proof is fairly straightforward. Informally, locality means
> that if we have two disjoint points, A and B, separated by some
> distance , either spacelike or timelike, then what happens at point
> A cannot affect what happens at point B, and what happens at point
> B cannot affect what happens at point A. This informal notion can
> be formalized by saying that the joint probability for outcomes a
> at point A , and b at point B, must factorize, so that the joint
> probability can be written as a product of two terms, one dependent
> only on factors local to point A, and the other dependent only on
> factors local to point B:
>
>        Pr(a,b) = p(a)*p(b),
>
> once all common causal factors have been taken into account.
>

-

>
> Thank you. That's what I thought. AG 
>
>
> How is non-local defined? Does it imply instantaneous, or faster than light
> transference of information? AG
>
>
> I defined non-local above: whatever happens at A does not affect B and vice
> versa. It has nothing to do with faster-than-light transfer of information. If
> there was some FTL transfer between A and B, then the effect would be local.
> The idea that non-locality means FTL effects is a common confusion. That idea
> is totally wrong.
>
> Bruce

It strikes me that for Bruce, "local" means factorisability of the
joint probability distribution. Which for most other people is what
"locally real" means, IIUC, ie the conjunction of a measurement
outcome depends only on physical things (reality) in the past light
cone (locality).

I'm not saying Bruce is wrong with his definitions, but he is in
the minority AFAICT.

BTW - I'm not claiming that MWI is a locally unreal theory, but it has
been claimed by eg Deutsch. But now I see why Bruce would say that any
"locally unreal" theory is "non-local", as his definitions are different.

[Bruce Kellett]

I thought it had been made clear that the factorization holds after all such common causal factors had been taken into account.

Reality does not enter into it. "Reality" is usually taken to refer to Einstein's idea of realism - namely that  a state has a definite value before any measurement. That idea of realism plays no role in the Brunner proof of non-locality.

I'm not saying Bruce is wrong with his definitions, but he is in
the minority AFAICT.

BTW - I'm not claiming that MWI is a locally unreal theory, but it has
been claimed by eg Deutsch. But now I see why Bruce would say that any
"locally unreal" theory is "non-local", as his definitions are different.

I think the fact that the CHSH inequality can be derived by assuming only factorizability as Brunner has defined it is sufficient for one to claim that quantum mechanics is non-local in the required sense. So any theory that reproduces the results of quantum mechanics  must be non-local. Claims by Deutsch and others that MWI is local are, therefore, spurious. Either MWI is not a full implementation of quantum mechanics, or it, also, is non-local.

Bruce

[Brent Meeker]

Which is almost never the case in QM.  Except for prepared eigenstates of the measurement, states have some probabilities of values.

That idea of realism plays no role in the Brunner proof of non-locality.

I'm not saying Bruce is wrong with his definitions, but he is in
the minority AFAICT.

BTW - I'm not claiming that MWI is a locally unreal theory, but it has
been claimed by eg Deutsch. But now I see why Bruce would say that any
"locally unreal" theory is "non-local", as his definitions are different.

I think the fact that the CHSH inequality can be derived by assuming only factorizability as Brunner has defined it is sufficient for one to claim that quantum mechanics is non-local in the required sense. So any theory that reproduces the results of quantum mechanics  must be non-local. Claims by Deutsch and others that MWI is local are, therefore, spurious. Either MWI is not a full implementation of quantum mechanics, or it, also, is non-local.

Bruce

There's a good explication of the clash between MWI and the Born rule: arXiv:1110.0549  On the origin of probability in quantum mechanics by Stephen D. H. Hsu

Brent

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:10 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

I quote from Wikipedia:  

"Its [Bell's Inequality] derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties a0,a1,b0 and b1 exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

The writer of this Wikipedia entry has made an elementary blunder. He has confused the results of single measurements (a0, a1, b0, and b1) with the expectation values. The proof of the CHSH inequality uses only expectation values, so any assumption of Einstein realism is irrelevant.

Bruce

Bell's theorem

[Alan Grayson]

What's confusing about this discussion is that it's more or less the general consensus among the physics community, that the results of Bell experiments disconfirm the assumption of hidden variables. And that their non existence denies Einstein Realism. You, Bruce, seem to have a private defintion of non-locality, so when Bell experiments deny locatity, you are sematically correct describe this as non-locality, but it has little correspondence to what I think this means -- possibly because of my alleged classical bias. AG

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 4:30 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bell did not assume realism.

I  humbly suggest that you ask the following question to Claude or ChatGPT or Gemini or Bing Copilot, and see what you get:

"Did John Bell assume reality when he derived his Inequality?"

 > Wikipedia is not an authority, and you should stop using it as if it were absolutely true in all things.

Nothing personal and I agree nothing is perfect, however I think that Wikipedia is closer to being absolutely true in all things than you are, or that I am.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

bjd

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:03 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> CHSH inequality uses only expectation values, so any assumption of Einstein realism is irrelevant.

It might also be wise to ask the following question to the AI of your choice:  

"In physics what are the key assumptions of the CHSH inequality, and what does its violation tell us?

Or:

"In physics does "realism" mean that before an object is measured it existed in one and only one state?"

Or.

"Does "local realism" mean realism and locality? "

Or

"As far as realism is concerned does "Einstein realism" and "local realism" mean the same thing?" 

or

"Does the CHSH Inequality assume reality, the idea that something exists in one and only one definite state before it's measured?"

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

hce

0oo

[John Clark]

Incidentally, if we're interested in reality, wondering if an object was in one and only one state before it was measured, then we should really be talking about the Leggett-Garg Inequality not Bell because it's a generalization of Bell's Inequality that was specifically designed to test reality. Very recently experimenters have found that like Bell Leggett-Garg is also violated. I wrote about that back in July and I repeat it now:

===== 

Reality says that a macroscopic object exists in one and only one state regardless of if it has been observed or not. In 1985 Anthony Leggett and Anupam Garg published an inequality that MUST be less than or equal to 1 if reality was true. It's similar to Bell's Inequality but Bell was about the relationship between two entangled particles, but Leggett-Garg is about if a microscopic object can be in more than one state at the same instant in time. 

In the June 24, 2024 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists tested the Leggett-Garg Inequality in an experiment with neutron beams, and they got a value of 1.20 +- 0.007. That is larger than 1. The Leggett-Garg inequality is violated. Reality is untrue.

Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality Using Ideal Negative Measurements in Neutron Interferometry

In their experiment they generated an intense neutron beam and then, using a perfect silicon crystal, they split it into two beams several centimeters apart. Then, using another crystal, the two beams are re-combine back in the one beam and then hit the detector. Each beam is made up of many millions of neutrons and thus is huge by quantum standards, and there are two ways the neutrons can travel from the source to the detector.  

The lead researcher says "The idea that maybe the neutron is only traveling on one of the two paths, we just don’t know which one” has thus been refuted." Mathematically there is simply no way the behavior of those neutrons can be explained by any conceivable macroscopically realistic theory.

Incidentally, Many Worlds is NOT a realistic theory.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

trn

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:37 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 4:30 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > Wikipedia is not an authority, and you should stop using it as if it were absolutely true in all things.

Nothing personal and I agree nothing is perfect, however I think that Wikipedia is closer to being absolutely true in all things than you are, or that I am.

I think one should exercise a reasonable degree of scepticism when Wikipedia makes egregious errors, as in this case. The claim is that each measurement reveals a property that the particle already possessed. The article then goes on to say that no single trial can measure the quantity of interest, so they consider the average over many trials, or the expectation value. Unfortunately for the writer of the article, the quantum expectation value does not depend on the physical properties existing independently of being observed or measured. So the assumption of realism is completely spurious. Wikipedia is not a reliable source......

Bruce

[Brent Meeker]

There seems to be an ambiguity in "one and only one state".  In the experiment there is a single Hilbert space vector describing a neutron which travels both paths.  So does "one and only one state" really mean one and only one classical state?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3EZq-8Z8XN9_JbM3z6DN%2BbhD41K-8sATfgi1dNbcAwAA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:23 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing personal and I agree nothing is perfect, however I think that Wikipedia is closer to being absolutely true in all things than you are, or that I am.

> I think one should exercise a reasonable degree of scepticism when Wikipedia makes egregious errors, as in this case. The claim is that each measurement reveals a property that the particle already possessed. The article then goes on to say that no single trial can measure the quantity of interest, so they consider the average over many trials, or the expectation value. Unfortunately for the writer of the article, the quantum expectation value does not depend on the physical properties existing independently of being observed or measured. So the assumption of realism is completely spurious. Wikipedia is not a reliable source......

OK let's recap, Wikipedia is wrong, Claude is wrong, GPT is wrong, Gemini is wrong, Bing Autopilot is wrong, and I am wrong. But you are right. Well... Maybe, but probably not.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

i..

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:32 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

There seems to be an ambiguity in "one and only one state".  In the experiment there is a single Hilbert space vector describing a neutron which travels both paths.  So does "one and only one state" really mean one and only one classical state?

If an object can be in more than one state at the same time then obviously that object cannot be a classical object. And since, as far as we know, everything can be put into more than one state at the same time, reality can not be classical.  

 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

efp

On 12/18/2024 11:45 AM, John Clark wrote:

Incidentally, if we're interested in reality, wondering if an object was in one and only one state before it was measured, then we should really be talking about the Leggett-Garg Inequality not Bell because it's a generalization of Bell's Inequality that was specifically designed to test reality. Very recently experimenters have found that like Bell Leggett-Garg is also violated. I wrote about that back in July and I repeat it now:

===== 

Reality says that a macroscopic object exists in one and only one state regardless of if it has been observed or not. In 1985 Anthony Leggett and Anupam Garg published an inequality that MUST be less than or equal to 1 if reality was true. It's similar to Bell's Inequality but Bell was about the relationship between two entangled particles, but Leggett-Garg is about if a microscopic object can be in more than one state at the same instant in time. 

In the June 24, 2024 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists tested the Leggett-Garg Inequality in an experiment with neutron beams, and they got a value of 1.20 +- 0.007. That is larger than 1. The Leggett-Garg inequality is violated. Reality is untrue.

Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality Using Ideal Negative Measurements in Neutron Interferometry

In their experiment they generated an intense neutron beam and then, using a perfect silicon crystal, they split it into two beams several centimeters apart. Then, using another crystal, the two beams are re-combine back in the one beam and then hit the detector. Each beam is made up of many millions of neutrons and thus is huge by quantum standards, and there are two ways the neutrons can travel from the source to the detector.  

The lead researcher says "The idea that maybe the neutron is only traveling on one of the two paths, we just don’t know which one” has thus been refuted." Mathematically there is simply no way the behavior of those neutrons can be explained by any conceivable macroscopically realistic theory.

Incidentally, Many Worlds is NOT a realistic theory.

trn

[Bruce Kellett]

What about a reasoned argument, rather than just venting spleen......

[Brent Meeker]

The difference is that Bruce has an explanation as to why he's right.  LLM's are just mining the internet for opinions.

Brent

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

i..

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1UhFuWx6wXCMLGncYMZOodg%3Ddv7d0Lni1gTc-UMtpFdg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/18/2024 2:40 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:32 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

There seems to be an ambiguity in "one and only one state".  In the experiment there is a single Hilbert space vector describing a neutron which travels both paths.  So does "one and only one state" really mean one and only one classical state?

If an object can be in more than one state at the same time

My question is about what "one state" means.  A superposition in one basis is a single state in another basis.

then obviously that object cannot be a classical object. And since, as far as we know, everything can be put into more than one state at the same time, reality can not be classical. 

What if each object is always in only one state, it's just not always a state we have a yes/no measurement for?  Is L-G just showing that here's an example for which we didn't think of a yes/no measurement.  Or is it that here's an example for which there's a measurement that's not yes/no

Brent

 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

efp

On 12/18/2024 11:45 AM, John Clark wrote:

Incidentally, if we're interested in reality, wondering if an object was in one and only one state before it was measured, then we should really be talking about the Leggett-Garg Inequality not Bell because it's a generalization of Bell's Inequality that was specifically designed to test reality. Very recently experimenters have found that like Bell Leggett-Garg is also violated. I wrote about that back in July and I repeat it now:

===== 

Reality says that a macroscopic object exists in one and only one state regardless of if it has been observed or not. In 1985 Anthony Leggett and Anupam Garg published an inequality that MUST be less than or equal to 1 if reality was true. It's similar to Bell's Inequality but Bell was about the relationship between two entangled particles, but Leggett-Garg is about if a microscopic object can be in more than one state at the same instant in time. 

In the June 24, 2024 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists tested the Leggett-Garg Inequality in an experiment with neutron beams, and they got a value of 1.20 +- 0.007. That is larger than 1. The Leggett-Garg inequality is violated. Reality is untrue.

Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality Using Ideal Negative Measurements in Neutron Interferometry

In their experiment they generated an intense neutron beam and then, using a perfect silicon crystal, they split it into two beams several centimeters apart. Then, using another crystal, the two beams are re-combine back in the one beam and then hit the detector. Each beam is made up of many millions of neutrons and thus is huge by quantum standards, and there are two ways the neutrons can travel from the source to the detector.  

The lead researcher says "The idea that maybe the neutron is only traveling on one of the two paths, we just don’t know which one” has thus been refuted." Mathematically there is simply no way the behavior of those neutrons can be explained by any conceivable macroscopically realistic theory.

Incidentally, Many Worlds is NOT a realistic theory.

trn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2fL15TT6Y9-_yGTbvFQ4A4HGLDErhCac4b68G23mtx1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:42 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately for the writer of the article, the quantum expectation value does not depend on the physical properties existing independently of being observed or measured.

They were not talking about expectations, quantum or classical, they're talking about the results of an experiment. If we assume that photons or electrons were in one and only one state before they were observed or measured, and we assume that two particles cannot influence each other faster than the speed of light, and we assume that superdeterminism it's too stupid to be worth considering, then it's logically impossible for Bell's Inequality to be violated. But experiment proves that Bell's Inequality IS violated! Therefore something must be wrong with one or more of our assumptions.  I've long thought it's reality, and the violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality confirms my suspicion.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

wvv

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:59 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What if each object is always in only one state, it's just not always a state we have a yes/no measurement for?

As I mentioned in my previous email the lead researcher already gave an answer to your question:

"The idea that maybe the neutron is only traveling on one of the two paths, we just don’t know which one” has thus been refuted."

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

83b

 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:11 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:42 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately for the writer of the article, the quantum expectation value does not depend on the physical properties existing independently of being observed or measured.

They were not talking about expectations, quantum or classical, they're talking about the results of an experiment.

The experiment is run over many trials on individual particle pairs, so averages or expectation values are the quantities of relevance. The Wikipedia article understands this, even if you don't.

Bruce

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/18/2024 3:17 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:59 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What if each object is always in only one state, it's just not always a state we have a yes/no measurement for?

As I mentioned in my previous email the lead researcher already gave an answer to your question:

"The idea that maybe the neutron is only traveling on one of the two paths, we just don’t know which one” has thus been refuted."

So it's in the one an only one state which is a superposition of traveling in the left path and traveling in the right path. Which is different than your formulation that it was shown not be in one and only one state.  So maybe we're not really interested in whether the particle is in one or only one state; we're just interested in whether it can be in a state such that the same measurement gives two or more different answers.

Brent

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

83b

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2pwVKYspXZ_SgcapvQTm5u4bvZWDyD%2B-Y81_c%3DKEsCZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 6:26 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The experiment is run over many trials on individual particle pairs, so averages or expectation values are the quantities of relevance

Experiment never produces "expected values" it just produces values. And those values would be impossible to produce if particles had one and only one state before they were measured or if particles could not affect each other faster than light, unless superdeterminism is true. So either Locality or Reality or both must be false.  I went over this in considerable detail in a previous very long post.  

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

rsa

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:44 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 6:26 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The experiment is run over many trials on individual particle pairs, so averages or expectation values are the quantities of relevance

Experiment never produces "expected values" it just produces values.

I don't think you even know what an "experiment" is!

Bruce