SciPhysicsForums.com

by **FrediFizzx** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:48 am

It is hard to believe that in the over 50 years since Bell, that no one ever came up with A and B local functions for QM.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:54 am

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I don't have all the QM textbooks so of course I'm not sure if they are in a textbook or not. Are you sure that they are not?

Yes.

FrediFizzx wrote:If not, then we claim that they are new. Something that no one thought of before for QM.
.

Ok. Claim duly noted.

Oh, I guess you have read all the QM textbooks?

It is possible that they have appeared in a research paper before. So far, haven't seen anything so they might be new. But one thing the measurement functions do is highlight the measurement problem in QM. They possibly have some value for that alone.
.

by **Heinera** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:31 am

FrediFizzx wrote:I don't have all the QM textbooks so of course I'm not sure if they are in a textbook or not. Are you sure that they are not?

Yes.

FrediFizzx wrote:If not, then we claim that they are new. Something that no one thought of before for QM.
.

Ok. Claim duly noted.

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:47 am

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, they do actually demonstrate predictions that don't rely on the actual individual event by event outcomes. You can use them to show that you in fact get A = +/-1 and B = +/- 1. And that the average of A and B are zero. And that for a = b you get equal +- and -+ = -1.

So it is allowed to use them for calculation when a = b, but not for any other values of a and b? Why is that?

FrediFizzx wrote: So you can use them for some things. They are in fact standard formulation of QM. Why do you think they are not standard QM?
.

With "standard formulation" I mean something you can find in e.g. a textbook. Do you have a single reference to a textbook that includes those function A and B?

I told you "why". Other settings of a and b depend on QM being able to correctly predict the individual event by event A and B outcomes.

I don't have all the QM textbooks so of course I'm not sure if they are in a textbook or not. Are you sure that they are not? If not, then we claim that they are new. Something that no one thought of before for QM.
.

by **Heinera** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:13 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Well, they do actually demonstrate predictions that don't rely on the actual individual event by event outcomes. You can use them to show that you in fact get A = +/-1 and B = +/- 1. And that the average of A and B are zero. And that for a = b you get equal +- and -+ = -1.

So it is allowed to use them for calculation when a = b, but not for any other values of a and b? Why is that?

FrediFizzx wrote: So you can use them for some things. They are in fact standard formulation of QM. Why do you think they are not standard QM?
.

With "standard formulation" I mean something you can find in e.g. a textbook. Do you have a single reference to a textbook that includes those function A and B?

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:31 am

Heinera wrote:But that is only because the standard formulation of QM doesn't have any measurement functions A and B. It seems ridiculous to introduce those functions into QM, and then deny people the right to actually compute them.

Well, they do actually demonstrate predictions that don't rely on the actual individual event by event outcomes. You can use them to show that you in fact get A = +/-1 and B = +/- 1. And that the average of A and B are zero. And that for a = b you get equal +- and -+ = -1. So you can use them for some things. They are in fact standard formulation of QM. Why do you think they are not standard QM?
.

by **Heinera** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:13 am

FrediFizzx wrote:You have given us two functions A and B. Is there any reason why it should be forbidden to actually use these functions to compute the values?

Sure. Quantum mechanics can't predict the actual +1 or -1 A and B outcomes.
.[/quote]
But that is only because the standard formulation of QM doesn't have any measurement functions A and B. It seems ridiculous to introduce those functions into QM, and then deny people the right to actually compute them.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:17 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:My discourse with Heine got me to thinking. How can one even construct non-local measurement functions for QM? Our functions,

$A({\bf a},\, \lambda) := -\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf a}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf a}}\Big[\langle\phi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ ({\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot{\bf a}) \,(\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s})\}|\phi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big] = \mp 1$
$B({\bf b},\, \lambda) := +\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow \, \text{sgn}({\bf b}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf b}}\Big[\langle\chi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ (\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s}) \,( {\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf b})\}|\chi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big]= \pm 1$
With the states,

$|\phi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_1 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_3\Bigr\}$
$|\chi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_4 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_2\Bigr\}$

seem to be the only sensible way to construct any measurement functions for QM. Perhaps someone here has some ideas about how to make them sensibly non-local?
.

You have given us two functions A and B. Is there any reason why it should be forbidden to actually use these functions to compute the values?

Sure. Quantum mechanics can't predict the actual +1 or -1 A and B outcomes. Didn't I say that a bunch of times already? Let us know if you figure out how QM can do it. And that non-local HV junk doesn't count.

.

by **Heinera** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:27 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:My discourse with Heine got me to thinking. How can one even construct non-local measurement functions for QM? Our functions,

$A({\bf a},\, \lambda) := -\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf a}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf a}}\Big[\langle\phi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ ({\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot{\bf a}) \,(\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s})\}|\phi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big] = \mp 1$
$B({\bf b},\, \lambda) := +\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow \, \text{sgn}({\bf b}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf b}}\Big[\langle\chi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ (\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s}) \,( {\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf b})\}|\chi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big]= \pm 1$
With the states,

$|\phi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_1 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_3\Bigr\}$
$|\chi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_4 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_2\Bigr\}$

seem to be the only sensible way to construct any measurement functions for QM. Perhaps someone here has some ideas about how to make them sensibly non-local?
.

You have given us two functions A and B. Is there any reason why it should be forbidden to actually use these functions to compute the values?

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:08 pm

Lord of the Physics wrote:It isn't a simulation. All they are doing is plotting a formula at a lot of randomly chosen points. They could have just done a grid of x coordinate (theta) values. Lambda has no effect on the y coordinate number. Averaging over many random choices just gives you the average of the y coordinate values, irrespective of theta. What the heck is that average supposed to represent?

You are replying to comments that were deemed off-topic for this thread. But anyways, the event by event simulation is for validating the product calculation only. It is NOT a simulation of an experiment since that is impossible to do because QM can't predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. There is no averaging at all happening. We are merely comparing correlations of the product calculation with the -cosine curve. They match perfectly to more than 9 significant digits so the theoretical product calculation is validated.

The reason for doing this is that in the past some people (not naming names but you know who you are

) have questioned that the theoretical product calculation could be correct. This validates that it is in fact correct.
.

by **Lord of the Physics** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:58 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Moreover, Joy claims that he can arrange this with lambda being a fair coin toss - so it also just takes the values +/- 1 and in the long run, each value occurs equally often. There is a problem here, that he does not do computer programming himself. He needs friends to do it for him. I think it was Albert-Jan Wonninck who first came up with your present and successful event-based computer simulation, but A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) do not only take the values +/- 1, they are geometric algebra bivectors, they are both square roots of 1, and you multiply them before averaging over many outcomes of lambda, in an order each time depending on the value of lambda. It is brilliant, but it breaks the rules of the game. That's why it can violate Bell inequalities, of course.

But so far nobody has been able to program this model for him, without deviating dramatically from the rules of the game. Though Joy does not agree with what I say here. And probably I am getting some details mixed up (vectors, bivectors; +1, -1, ...).

It isn't a simulation. All they are doing is plotting a formula at a lot of randomly chosen points. They could have just done a grid of x coordinate (theta) values. Lambda has no effect on the y coordinate number. Averaging over many random choices just gives you the average of the y coordinate values, irrespective of theta. What the heck is that average supposed to represent?

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:21 pm

gill1109 wrote:I still want to know how you define your limit operations. What you write is illegal according to generally accepted rules of mathematics. (Which have nothing whatever to do with physics). Do you know those rules? Do you propose an alternative? It's up to you ....

Yeah, I didn't think you would be able propose some non-local measurement functions as I don't think it is possible.

There is an alternative to the limits in the Mathematica code. Take a look.
.

by **gill1109** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:29 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:My discourse with Heine got me to thinking. How can one even construct non-local measurement functions for QM? Our functions,

$A({\bf a},\, \lambda) := -\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf a}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf a}}\Big[\langle\phi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ ({\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot{\bf a}) \,(\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s})\}|\phi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big] = \mp 1$
$B({\bf b},\, \lambda) := +\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow \, \text{sgn}({\bf b}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf b}}\Big[\langle\chi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ (\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s}) \,( {\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf b})\}|\chi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big]= \pm 1$
With the states,

$|\phi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_1 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_3\Bigr\}$
$|\chi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_4 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_2\Bigr\}$

seem to be the only sensible way to construct any measurement functions for QM. Perhaps someone here has some ideas about how to make them sensibly non-local?
.

I still want to know how you define your limit operations. What you write is illegal according to generally accepted rules of mathematics. (Which have nothing whatever to do with physics). Do you know those rules? Do you propose an alternative? It's up to you ....

by **FrediFizzx** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:40 am

My discourse with Heine got me to thinking. How can one even construct non-local measurement functions for QM? Our functions,

$A({\bf a},\, \lambda) := -\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow\, \text{sgn}({\bf a}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf a}}\Big[\langle\phi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ ({\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot{\bf a}) \,(\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s})\}|\phi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big] = \mp 1$
$B({\bf b},\, \lambda) := +\lim_{{\bf s} \rightarrow \, \text{sgn}({\bf b}\cdot{\bf s}){\bf b}}\Big[\langle\chi_{\bf n \text R}|\{ (\lambda{\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf s}) \,( {\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot {\bf b})\}|\chi_{\bf n \text R}\rangle \Big]= \pm 1$
With the states,

$|\phi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_1 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_3\Bigr\}$
$|\chi_{\bf n\text R}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{|{\bf n},\,+\rangle_4 |{\bf n},\,-\rangle_2\Bigr\}$

seem to be the only sensible way to construct any measurement functions for QM. Perhaps someone here has some ideas about how to make them sensibly non-local?
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Off-topic. We are doing local QM here. Not Joy's classical model.
.

by **gill1109** » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:02 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.

Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk.

Let's see some actual A and B measurement functions for QM. No HV required. You won't be able to predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. Not so trivial after all, is it?
.

Fred, aren't you contradicting Joy's claims here? Joy claims that he has functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) which take the values +/-1, and which reproduce the quantum correlations which you average over many repetitions, ie, when many, many times nature picks a new value of lambda. The experimenter doesn't get to see those values of lambda - it's a hidden variable. But it is there, in reality. So in principle, a computer programmer can play God - can play being Nature - and can "see" the hidden variable'; indeed, not only sees it, but actually creates it too.

Moreover, Joy claims that he can arrange this with lambda being a fair coin toss - so it also just takes the values +/- 1 and in the long run, each value occurs equally often. There is a problem here, that he does not do computer programming himself. He needs friends to do it for him. I think it was Albert-Jan Wonninck who first came up with your present and successful event-based computer simulation, but A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) do not only take the values +/- 1, they are geometric algebra bivectors, they are both square roots of 1, and you multiply them before averaging over many outcomes of lambda, in an order each time depending on the value of lambda. It is brilliant, but it breaks the rules of the game. That's why it can violate Bell inequalities, of course.

But so far nobody has been able to program this model for him, without deviating dramatically from the rules of the game. Though Joy does not agree with what I say here. And probably I am getting some details mixed up (vectors, bivectors; +1, -1, ...).

by **FrediFizzx** » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:04 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.

Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk.

Let's see some actual A and B measurement functions for QM. No HV required. You won't be able to predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. Not so trivial after all, is it?
.

by **Heinera** » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:51 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:43 pm

Heinera wrote:
It's really puzzling that you admit that QM can't have an event by event simulation with local measurement functions, since this is exactly what Bell's theorem states.

But for non-local, it's trivial. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Sorry, but I don't see any Pauli matrices there. It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk. I don't even see what the functions A and B are.
.

by **Heinera** » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:33 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Of course you can do an event by event simulation of QM, as long as you use random variables. It's trivial.

Let's see your local measurement functions.
.

Of course it won't be local. That's Bell's theorem, right there. Congratulations!

Sorry, it's not Bell's junk physics theory. Nature is local. But OK, let's see any functions for A and B. We will let you cheat this one time.
.

It's really puzzling that you admit that QM can't have an event by event simulation with local measurement functions, since this is exactly what Bell's theorem states.

But for non-local, it's trivial. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

SciPhysicsForums.com

Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices