QM is local paper update

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:51 am

Hi Folks,

At long last here is an update to our local quantum mechanics paper that successfully demonstrates that the EPR-Bohm scenario correlation is produced by a completely local process in Nature.

EPRsims/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable__Draft__9_28_long.pdf

Image

Enjoy! :D
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby ajw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:43 pm

I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:51 pm

ajw wrote:I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.

Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". :D Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby ajw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:04 pm

No, I am saying that there should be a non-flatlanders way to simulate this.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:51 pm

ajw wrote:No, I am saying that there should be a non-flatlanders way to simulate this.

??? This is a non-flatlanders simulation. Where do you think comes from? It certainly can't come from flatland. In fact I was able to generate using Niles Johnson's 3-sphere mapping formula. So the remaining mystery is eq. (20). Which is not really such a big mystery. It is just a translational mapping of 0 to pi to 1 to 0. Of course we can wonder why that is necessary. Partially because n.s runs from 0 to 1. Ack! I just realized I have a small error in the paper. Supposed to be absolute value of . Fixing now.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:40 am

ajw wrote:I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.

I think I know what Albert Jan is saying. But such a "non-flatland" simulation would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Not that I am an expert in programming. Quite the opposite.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:25 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
ajw wrote:I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.

Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". :D Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.


Fred: to make "those states never exist in the first place" you have to know the orientation of the detectors at both sites. Just look at your code. Hence, the simulation involves a nonlocal element, if that's your interpretation.

The other possibility is to say that the physical situation is such that the experimental results will be something like

a b
+ +
+ -
* -
+ +
+ *
* *
- +
etc

in which * means that there was no detection, and you compute the correlations using only results with no *'s. This is essentialy what the Pearle model does, but the problem is that a model like Pearle's would, for example, determine the fraction of results * * in a long run of the experiment, and this is an experimentaly observable number.
Guest
 

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:00 am

Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". :D Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.


Fred: to make "those states never exist in the first place" you have to know the orientation of the detectors at both sites. Just look at your code. Hence, the simulation involves a nonlocal element, if that's your interpretation.

The other possibility is to say that the physical situation is such that the experimental results will be something like

a b
+ +
+ -
* -
+ +
+ *
* *
- +
etc

in which * means that there was no detection, and you compute the correlations using only results with no *'s. This is essentialy what the Pearle model does, but the problem is that a model like Pearle's would, for example, determine the fraction of results * * in a long run of the experiment, and this is an experimentaly observable number.

Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:03 pm

Here is the Mathematica code we are talking about that goes with the paper.

EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:22 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". :D Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.


Fred: to make "those states never exist in the first place" you have to know the orientation of the detectors at both sites. Just look at your code. Hence, the simulation involves a nonlocal element, if that's your interpretation.

The other possibility is to say that the physical situation is such that the experimental results will be something like

a b
+ +
+ -
* -
+ +
+ *
* *
- +
etc

in which * means that there was no detection, and you compute the correlations using only results with no *'s. This is essentialy what the Pearle model does, but the problem is that a model like Pearle's would, for example, determine the fraction of results * * in a long run of the experiment, and this is an experimentaly observable number.

Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.


The following OR is not a XOR:

A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"

This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.
Guest
 

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:21 am

Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.


The following OR is not a XOR:

A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"

This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.

Nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:03 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.


The following OR is not a XOR:

A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"

This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.

Nonsense.
.


That's rude, Fred. Yes, we disagree, but that's my understanding.

Good luck for you guys.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Other personal comment removed.
Guest
 

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:05 am

Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.


The following OR is not a XOR:

A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"

This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.

Nonsense.
.


That's rude, Fred. Yes, we disagree, but that's my understanding.

Good luck for you guys.

Sorry that you think it is rude but I think what you wrote is in fact complete nonsense. You are making stuff up to justify your claim.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:53 am

Anyways, the direction of the spin vector is very non-trivial due to 3-sphere topology. And it looks like the detectors are involved in the topology also. Is that correct, Joy?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:02 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Anyways, the direction of the spin vector is very non-trivial due to 3-sphere topology. And it looks like the detectors are involved in the topology also. Is that correct, Joy?

The detectors, which are represented by unit bivectors, are indeed involved in the topology, and that looks problematic from the flatland perspective. That is what Alber Jan was saying:

Joy Christian wrote:
ajw wrote:
I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.

I think I know what Albert Jan is saying. But such a "non-flatland" simulation would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Not that I am an expert in programming. Quite the opposite.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: QM is local paper update

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:58 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Anyways, the direction of the spin vector is very non-trivial due to 3-sphere topology. And it looks like the detectors are involved in the topology also. Is that correct, Joy?

The detectors, which are represented by unit bivectors, are indeed involved in the topology, and that looks problematic from the flatland perspective. That is what Albert Jan was saying:

Joy Christian wrote:
ajw wrote:
I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.

I think I know what Albert Jan is saying. But such a "non-flatland" simulation would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Not that I am an expert in programming. Quite the opposite.

??? It is not impossible to do at all. Complete states is the way to do it. If we know a, s, and , we can predict with certainty the outcome at station A. And if we know b, s, and , we can predict with certainty the outcome at station B.

The problem is that the singlet spin vector's direction is highly non-trivial due to the 3-sphere topology. This "bangs" it in. It is definitely wrong in the code to use points on a 2-sphere as a starting point.

Here is a recent paper I found that highlights the problem.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00693
"Do Spins Have Directions?"
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library