Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:47 am

guest wrote:OK. But then the left hand side = +/-1 while the right hand side equals - a.b - L(axb, lambda)


No. The limits come off because they aren't used in the correlation calculation.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:42 am

guest wrote:So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)

Indeed we do. L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) is what I used in 2007 without proving A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda). But now that gap is bridged.

***

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:27 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).


I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1

So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)


That is correct. You can consider the equation I wrote to be the next step after the equation Joy wrote. The limits aren't used so they can just come out.
.

OK. But then the left hand side = +/-1 while the right hand side equals - a.b - L(axb, lambda)

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:05 am

guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).


I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1

So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)


That is correct. You can consider the equation I wrote to be the next step after the equation Joy wrote. The limits aren't used so they can just come out.
.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:50 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).


I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1

So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:31 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:10 am

***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:43 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, that seems right. It would be,



to model the polarizer correctly. That would just replace the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) so you would have,



which is the same thing as you have. But the limits don't even matter in the correlation calculation anyways because you cancel out L(s1)L(s2) before detection.
As it should be.
.

That doesn't seem right. It wouldn't take out the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) because you need that for the replacement of . So it should be,



Which is the same result. So essentially, you have just taken a shortcut. The polarizer is in there but hidden in your version. Which confirms what I said on RW is true.
.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:24 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:So the limit function should actually be,



Or simply,



If you don't want to bother with initial and final.
.

The correct limit is as I have it in the paper. All sign changes are accounted for, and encoded in lambda.

If we have it like then no correlations would be observed. Correlations would average out to zero.

***


Ok, that seems right. It would be,



to model the polarizer correctly. That would just replace the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) so you would have,



which is the same thing as you have. But the limits don't even matter in the correlation calculation anyways because you cancel out L(s1)L(s2) before detection.
As it should be.
.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by thray » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:21 am

This controversy would -- or should -- go away if the detractors would ever admit that Joy's framework is analytical.

However, if they would so admit, there would remain no foundational basis for the digital model. It relegates quantum theory to a subdiscipline of information theory, and eliminates quantum entanglement. That's what they don't want to give up; there's too much research money at stake.

The onus is on Bell loyalists to demonstrate that entanglement exists -- failing that, Einstein's program ("all physics is local") stands to be demonstrated. Joy offers an experiment that includes a non-arbitrary initial condition and a function continuous from that value. In this light, Gill's mathematical arguments are not only wrong, they are superfluous. Newton's hypotheses non fingo applies; the physical experiment is decisive.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:16 am

FrediFizzx wrote:So the limit function should actually be,



Or simply,



If you don't want to bother with initial and final.
.

The correct limit is as I have it in the paper. All sign changes are accounted for, and encoded in lambda.

If we have it like then no correlations would be observed. Correlations would average out to zero.

***

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:05 am

So the limit function should actually be,



Or simply,



If you don't want to bother with initial and final.
.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:55 am

Joy Christian wrote:I suppose one can have two meanings, or two separate definitions of the word "initial", one for the decay event --- which is what is meant by "initial" in the Bell literature --- and one for the detection event as you have it. But why bother with all such complications when I have explained clearly in the paper what is happening physically, with words, equations, and even a very illustrative figure?
***


Because even Jay didn't quite understand it from his post on RW and I not sure Ben does yet either. You should do whatever you can to make it more clear to a reader. Most people don't bother with a bunch of detail.

For me s1_i means the creation event when s is created and s1_f means at detection. And quite actually s1_f can be a or -a. I am not sure you are accounting for the extra sign flip possibility from the polarizer. That for sure makes your A and B functions not equal to lambda and -lambda respectively because you could have A = - lambda and B = + lambda or A = + lambda and B = + lambda, etc. If a = b then you will always get anti-correlation though.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:35 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Sure, there are polarizers. But all of that is just part of the measurement set up, confined locally to the labs of Alice and Bob, who are space-like separated from one another. There is nothing in-between for the spins to deviate from free evolution, until they hit the polarizers. So physically s1_i --> s2_f = a is not what is happening.

***

Sure it is. "a" is the angle of the polarizer wrt some reference frame. That means when the particle is going thru the polarizer, its spin is aligned to "a" by the magnetic field and it is either "up" (+1) or down (-1). So surely s1_f = a after the polarizer and before the detectors. Well, actually s1_f is "a" or "-a" depending if aligned up or down. And s1_i (initial) is not necessarily equal to s1_f (final) but it could be.

I suppose one can have two meanings, or two separate definitions of the word "initial", one for the decay event --- which is what is meant by "initial" in the Bell literature --- and one for the detection event as you have it. But why bother with all such complications when I have explained clearly in the paper what is happening physically, with words, equations, and even a very illustrative figure?

***

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:10 am

Joy Christian wrote:Sure, there are polarizers. But all of that is just part of the measurement set up, confined locally to the labs of Alice and Bob, who are space-like separated from one another. There is nothing in-between for the spins to deviate from free evolution, until they hit the polarizers. So physically s1_i --> s2_f = a is not what is happening.

***

Sure it is. "a" is the angle of the polarizer wrt some reference frame. That means when the particle is going thru the polarizer, its spin is aligned to "a" by the magnetic field and it is either "up" (+1) or down (-1). So surely s1_f = a after the polarizer and before the detectors. Well, actually s1_f is "a" or "-a" depending if aligned up or down. And s1_i (initial) is not necessarily equal to s1_f (final) but it could be.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:23 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Actually, I take it back. Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b gives the wrong impression. It gives the impression that initial spin s1_i is somehow evolving into final spin s2_f, which just happens to be equal to a. But that is wrong. After the initial decay of the neutral pion there is no interaction between the spin and the detector, or between the two spins, until the spin hits the detector. The spins are evolving freely until detection. Only the conservation of the initial spin-0 remains in force during the evolution, so that s1 = s2 is maintained. It is only at the detector that the components of the two spins along the two respective directions a and b are measured by Alice and Bob, just as Bell has it in his own local model of 1964. So at least physically specifying s1_i --> s2_f = a is wrong. What is happening physically is the detection process s1 --> a, which picks out the normalized component of s1 along a, just as I have it in the paper.

PS: Something is still wrong with the site. It takes ages to load. Or is it just my browser that is slow?


That is not true. There are always polarizers (in the EPR-Bohm case it would be Stern-Gerlach devices) before the detectors and they direct the particle via its spin to either the up (+1) detector or the down (-1) detector. So s1_i --> s2_f = a is correct. "a" is the action of the polarizer via its angle setting. s1_i does go to s2_f at the polarizer.

It is not your browser; it is the hosting company that I can't do anything about until Monday.
.

Sure, there are polarizers. But all of that is just part of the measurement set up, confined locally to the labs of Alice and Bob, who are space-like separated from one another. There is nothing in-between for the spins to deviate from free evolution, until they hit the polarizers. So physically s1_i --> s2_f = a is not what is happening.

***

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:14 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Actually, I take it back. Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b gives the wrong impression. It gives the impression that initial spin s1_i is somehow evolving into final spin s2_f, which just happens to be equal to a. But that is wrong. After the initial decay of the neutral pion there is no interaction between the spin and the detector, or between the two spins, until the spin hits the detector. The spins are evolving freely until detection. Only the conservation of the initial spin-0 remains in force during the evolution, so that s1 = s2 is maintained. It is only at the detector that the components of the two spins along the two respective directions a and b are measured by Alice and Bob, just as Bell has it in his own local model of 1964. So at least physically specifying s1_i --> s2_f = a is wrong. What is happening physically is the detection process s1 --> a, which picks out the normalized component of s1 along a, just as I have it in the paper.

PS: Something is still wrong with the site. It takes ages to load. Or is it just my browser that is slow?


That is not true. There are always polarizers (in the EPR-Bohm case it would be Stern-Gerlach devices) before the detectors and they direct the particle via its spin to either the up (+1) detector or the down (-1) detector. So s1_i --> s2_f = a is correct. "a" is the action of the polarizer via its angle setting. s1_i does go to s2_f at the polarizer. Think about it; you don't change the angle of the detector, you change the angle of the polarizer.

It is not your browser; it is the hosting company that I can't do anything about until Monday.
.

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Ben6993 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:10 pm

Hi Fred
Just thinking about the expression si -> sf -> a.
As si and sf (= a) are vectors they should be in bold, especially as you say you were trying to make more sense for the mathematicians.
I can understand the urge to insert Appendix in v5, as the '->' symbol makes me think of a classical '[asymptotically] tending to a limit' when in fact there is no 'tending to' in this case. This is one of the weird things about measuring an electron. Whatever the s value, the electron for Alice either immediately snaps from s to a with the emission of a single photon, or it doesn't emit a photon at all. (For simplicity I am just imagining the case where she either detects an emitted photon or there is no emitted photon.)

So on detection by Alice, an electron's states are instantly transformed from s1 and lambda1 to a and lambda_new. (And as an aside, as an electron changes handedness on detection, lambda_new does not necessarily equal lambda1?) But one can think of detecting an electron as peparing an electron for a new experiment. So a and Lambda_new are appropriate for the newly prepared electron in a new experiment, whereas the old electron, i.e. the one participating in the Bell experiment, had states s1 and lambda1.

However, since lambda1 is an unknown, information has to be built up statistically about the old electrons using the outcomes of Alice on many electrons all in terms of measurement results for which the newly measured electron vectors are a.
So, after measurement, all Alice's vectors are a single vector a. But before measurement there is a full range of vector directions: s1.
And s1 does not need to equal a for an electron to emit a photon (otherwise there would be very few detections indeed).
That makes me think that the '->' symbol is a very confusing one.
Is there a symbol for 's1 snaps to a'? :)


PS Yes, website loading time is slow at the moment

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:40 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b is harmless. It is purely cosmetic, because s_1 and s_2 are not hidden variables to being with. Only lambda is.

***

Good. Then why not do it? You can get rid of the A and B limit process on eqs. (69) thru (71). Actually you could go directly from (68) to (72) but you might want to retain some of the steps for clarity.

Actually, I take it back. Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b gives the wrong impression. It gives the impression that initial spin s1_i is somehow evolving into final spin s2_f, which just happens to be equal to a. But that is wrong. After the initial decay of the neutral pion there is no interaction between the spin and the detector, or between the two spins, until the spin hits the detector. The spins are evolving freely until detection. Only the conservation of the initial spin-0 remains in force during the evolution, so that s1 = s2 is maintained. It is only at the detector that the components of the two spins along the two respective directions a and b are measured by Alice and Bob, just as Bell has it in his own local model of 1964. So at least physically specifying s1_i --> s2_f = a is wrong. What is happening physically is the detection process s1 --> a, which picks out the normalized component of s1 along a, just as I have it in the paper.

PS: Something is still wrong with the site. It takes ages to load. Or is it just my browser that is slow?

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:55 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b is harmless. It is purely cosmetic, because s_1 and s_2 are not hidden variables to being with. Only lambda is.

***

Good. Then why not do it? You can get rid of the A and B limit process on eqs. (69) thru (71). Actually you could go directly from (68) to (72) but you might want to retain some of the steps for clarity.


Oh, you have to keep the limit on for eq. (69) because there you are doing {L(s1_i, lamba^k) L(s2_i, lambda^k)}. But actually the way you have it now, there is no limit process anyways for (70) and (71).

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library