by Joy Christian » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:58 am
***
Let me note that for the 4-particle GHZS state the condition E(a, b, c, d) = << ABCD >> = +1 or -1 for some specific settings for all runs and thus even for a single run is similar to the familiar condition E(a, b) = << AB >> = +1 or -1 for the 2-particle EPRB state for some specific settings (i.e., for a = b and a = -b, respectively) for all runs and thus even for a single run. In the latter example, it is the condition of perfect correlation (or perfect anti-correlation), which is predicted by quantum mechanics.
In other words, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about ABCD = +1 and ABCD = -1 for a single run, for some specific settings, for the GHZS state. But Tim Maudlin wrongly thought that my 7-sphere model for the GHZS state predicts ABCD = +1 always, regardless of the settings a, b, c, and d. His mistake is exactly the same as the one repeatedly made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall. They have all wrongly claimed that my 3-sphere model for the 2-particle EPRB state predicts E(a, b) = << AB >> = -1 always, for all settings a and b. The actual prediction of my 3-sphere model is E(a, b) = - a . b, and analogously for E(a, b, c, d):
Both mistakes --- the one made by Tim Maudlin in the GHZS case and the one made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall in the EPRB case, stem from ignoring the conservation law for the spins --- namely, the physical fact that the total zero initial spin is conserved throughout each run of the experiment.
So here is a real puzzle: Not only do we learn about the conservation of angular momentum in Physics-101, it has been explicitly discussed in several of my papers on the subject. See for example equations (65) and (66) of
this paper for the EPRB case and equations (143) and (144) of
this paper for the GHZS case. What is more, the four individuals -- Tim Maudlin, Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall -- are not exactly dummies. They all have professorial positions in highly respectable universities. Moreover, they are all members of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). Although I myself
have resigned from the institute because of their hypocrisy and politics, it is undoubtedly a prestigious institute, at least because of the sheer number of high-profile scholars they have managed to accumulate.
And yet these individuals have repeatedly made the mistake of ignoring the conservation of angular momentum in considering either EPRB or GHZS type experiments.
Here is the answer to this puzzle:
None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers.
***
***
Let me note that for the 4-particle GHZS state the condition E(a, b, c, d) = << ABCD >> = +1 or -1 for some specific settings for all runs and thus even for a single run is similar to the familiar condition E(a, b) = << AB >> = +1 or -1 for the 2-particle EPRB state for some specific settings (i.e., for a = b and a = -b, respectively) for all runs and thus even for a single run. In the latter example, it is the condition of perfect correlation (or perfect anti-correlation), which is predicted by quantum mechanics.
In other words, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about ABCD = +1 and ABCD = -1 for a single run, for some specific settings, for the GHZS state. But Tim Maudlin wrongly thought that my 7-sphere model for the GHZS state predicts ABCD = +1 always, regardless of the settings a, b, c, and d. His mistake is exactly the same as the one repeatedly made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall. They have all wrongly claimed that my 3-sphere model for the 2-particle EPRB state predicts E(a, b) = << AB >> = -1 always, for all settings a and b. The actual prediction of my 3-sphere model is E(a, b) = - a . b, and analogously for E(a, b, c, d):
[img]http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GHZS.png[/img]
Both mistakes --- the one made by Tim Maudlin in the GHZS case and the one made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall in the EPRB case, stem from ignoring the conservation law for the spins --- namely, the physical fact that the total zero initial spin is conserved throughout each run of the experiment.
So here is a real puzzle: Not only do we learn about the conservation of angular momentum in Physics-101, it has been explicitly discussed in several of my papers on the subject. See for example equations (65) and (66) of [url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355]this paper[/url] for the EPRB case and equations (143) and (144) of [url=http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13019/]this paper[/url] for the GHZS case. What is more, the four individuals -- Tim Maudlin, Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall -- are not exactly dummies. They all have professorial positions in highly respectable universities. Moreover, they are all members of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). Although I myself [url=http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=222&start=20#p6618]have resigned[/url] from the institute because of their hypocrisy and politics, it is undoubtedly a prestigious institute, at least because of the sheer number of high-profile scholars they have managed to accumulate.
And yet these individuals have repeatedly made the mistake of ignoring the conservation of angular momentum in considering either EPRB or GHZS type experiments.
Here is the answer to this puzzle:
None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers.
***
