QM is local paper update

[FrediFizzx]

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



Enjoy!
.

[ajw]

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'.

[FrediFizzx]

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". 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".
.

[ajw]

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

[FrediFizzx]

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.
.

[Joy Christian]

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.

***

[Guest]

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.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". 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]

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

EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf
.

[Guest]

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.

[FrediFizzx]

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]

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.

[FrediFizzx]

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]

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?
.

[Joy Christian]

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:

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.

***

[FrediFizzx]

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:

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?"
.

[gill1109]

Here is another paper arguing that QM is local. Everything is just a consequence of non-commutativity of ordinary rotations in R^3, and of wave-particle duality. I think that the consequence of this is irreducible randomness. That way nature allows us to have our cake and eat it. No action at a distance in the manifest (surface) world of macroscopic inputs and outputs. Yet correlations which could only be explained in a classical world by action at a distance in hidden layers below (or inside).

I do therefore agree that everything strange in QM is a consequence of non-commutativity of ordinary rotations in R^3, and of wave-particle duality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06196

Bell correlations from previously entangled states of light
Louis Sica

Based on the Bell theorem and the resulting interpretation of the violation of Bell inequalities by experimental data, it has been believed that a theoretical computation of Bell correlations requires explicit use of the entanglement formalism. Physically this implies a permanent superposition of light waves in spite of the physical separation that occurs in the course of their propagation to spatially separated detectors. Nevertheless, in the present model, Bell correlations are calculated using explicitly separated waves with photon occurrence probabilities given by wave intensities based on nonlinear optics and quantum electrodynamics. The non-locality implied in the conventional calculation is thereby eliminated, but interference effects between photon excited waves and vacuum waves are assumed, as specified to be necessary in the design of Bell-experiment sources.

[local]

We should keep on topic with Fred's analyses. Posting links to random papers seems obfuscatory.

[FrediFizzx]

We should keep on topic with Fred's analyses. Posting links to random papers seems obfuscatory.

That was OK as it is another paper demonstrating that QM is local. I haven't studied it yet, but will eventually.
.