Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

[jreed]

I was able to find Jay's earlier paper. It's dated June 4,2019. The first part, which includes equations (1.1) through (1.20), is a pretty good summery of the -a.b calculation, using the Bell singlet entangled state and Pauli matrices. Fred used equation (1.11) from that paper to start this thread. It is an expression for the expectation value of -a.b and is certainly non-local, contrary to what Fred stated about it.

[Heinera]

Apparently the Mathematica local QM product calculation is too complicated for local to understand. So, here is a simplified version down to the last step. Hopefully local has brushed up on his vector algebra.



What we have is just a product of two scalar numbers. There is no locality involved here. There are no functions here other than the limit process performed on scalar numbers.
.

Here we see a novel way of doing physics:

(1) Take a well-known formula and embellish it with something silly.
(2) Put it into Mathematica.
(3) Mathematica removes the silliness and returns the original formula.
(4) Oh, I am a genius!

[FrediFizzx]

I was able to find Jay's earlier paper. It's dated June 4,2019. The first part, which includes equations (1.1) through (1.20), is a pretty good summery of the -a.b calculation, using the Bell singlet entangled state and Pauli matrices. Fred used equation (1.11) from that paper to start this thread. It is an expression for the expectation value of -a.b and is certainly non-local, contrary to what Fred stated about it.

What do you see in it that makes it non-local? From a particle physics perspective, everything is interacting with each other like it is completely local. How would you put distance in it between a and b? The thought that a and b are physically separated doesn't count in particle physics.
.

[gill1109]

I was able to find Jay's earlier paper. It's dated June 4,2019. The first part, which includes equations (1.1) through (1.20), is a pretty good summery of the -a.b calculation, using the Bell singlet entangled state and Pauli matrices. Fred used equation (1.11) from that paper to start this thread. It is an expression for the expectation value of -a.b and is certainly non-local, contrary to what Fred stated about it.

What do you see in it that makes it non-local? From a particle physics perspective, everything is interacting with each other like it is completely local. How would you put distance in it between a and b? The thought that a and b are physically separated doesn't count in particle physics.
.

Fred’s formula, which he got from Jay, was, I believe, the standard:

expectation of product of spins of Alice and Bob’s particles in a and b directions: <psi| (a.sigma) (x) (b.sigma) |psi>,
where (x) stands for tensor product.

The state vector: |psi> = ( |+z> (x) |-z> - |-z> (x) |+z> ) / sqrt 2.

The observables a.sigma, b.sigma could be thought to be “at” the locations where the measurements are done.

The state can justly be called a non-local state: it is an equal weight quantum superposition (not a probabilistic mixture) of two orthogonal product states, namely |up, down> and |down, up>. Particle physics tells us that this is the state of the two particles as they are created, at the source. See Bohm and Aharonovich. When they arrive at the detectors each particle will have experienced a separate unitary transformation, ie, a rotation in the Bloch sphere. So the “up” and “down” directions (z-axis) at the source, of Alice’s particle, correspond to two different, opposite, directions at Alice’s detector. In these experiments a period of “tuning” is done, before the definitive experiment starts, to find the correspondence between directions at the two measurement locations. The amount of rotation depends on the time of travel. The times of travel will not be exactly the same in the two arms of the experiment.

[FrediFizzx]

The observables a.sigma, b.sigma could be thought to be “at” the locations where the measurements are done.

As I said, "thought" doesn't count in particle physics. Got any more nonsense you would like to add? Or can you actually make the calculation non-local by putting in actual distance between a and b?
.

[FrediFizzx]

The observables a.sigma, b.sigma could be thought to be “at” the locations where the measurements are done.

As I said, "thought" doesn't count in particle physics. Got any more nonsense you would like to add? Or can you actually make the calculation non-local by putting in actual distance between a and b?
.

Well, sure you could by putting in a mystery mechanism that connects a to b over a distance. It's ludicrous.
.

[FrediFizzx]

[quote="Heinera"] ... (1) Take a well-known formula and embellish it with something silly. ... [\quote]

What was silly about it?
.

[Heinera]

... (1) Take a well-known formula and embellish it with something silly. ... [\quote]

What was silly about it?
.

The silly part is obviously taking a "limit" where you can just substitute the variables.

[FrediFizzx]

... (1) Take a well-known formula and embellish it with something silly. ... [\quote]

What was silly about it?
.

The silly part is obviously taking a "limit" where you can just substitute the variables.

Demonstrate. Let's see your math.
.

[Heinera]

Demonstrate. Let's see your math.
.

Heh...I think Mathematica just did that.

[FrediFizzx]

Demonstrate. Let's see your math.
.

Heh...I think Mathematica just did that.

Didn't think you would do it. Don't be talking nonsense that you are not willing to back it up. Show your math or get lost.
.

[Heinera]

Didn't think you would do it. Don't be talking nonsense that you are not willing to back up. Show your math or get lost.
.

I am indeed very happy to get lost from here. Now you don't have to be Einstein to see that simply substituting sx for ax, sy for ay, and sz for az will give the Mathematica output:

[FrediFizzx]

Didn't think you would do it. Don't be talking nonsense that you are not willing to back up. Show your math or get lost.
.

I am indeed very happy to get lost from here. Now you don't have to be Einstein to see that simply substituting sx for ax, sy for ay, and sz for az will give the Mathematica output:

So what? The limit process is doing the substitution for you. Do you actually have some point you are trying to make here? There is absolutely nothing silly about it.
.

[Heinera]

There is absolutely nothing silly about it.
.

Thankfully "silly", like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

[FrediFizzx]

There is absolutely nothing silly about it.
.

Thankfully "silly", like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Sure, and you are afraid of showing your silly math. Instead you keep showing my math. Oh, wait a minute; you don't have any math. That's why.
.

[FrediFizzx]

So, here we have it folks. The Bell fans are now caught between a rock and a hard place. Either the local QM product calculation is correct and QM is local or local and Graft are correct that the -a.b prediction cannot be obtained from separated measurements. Fortunately we have a clue from the GA model that Nature is in fact local so I will be picking door #1. Either way, entanglement is screwed.
.

So anyways, I didn't see anything in the distracting commentary that would get the Bell fans out of this conundrum. Entanglement remains screwed.
.

[jreed]

The observables a.sigma, b.sigma could be thought to be “at” the locations where the measurements are done.

As I said, "thought" doesn't count in particle physics. Got any more nonsense you would like to add? Or can you actually make the calculation non-local by putting in actual distance between a and b?
.

If you want to put distance in, solve Schrodinger's equation for the two particles in a 6 dimensional configuration space, 3 dimensions for each superposed set (up-down and down-up). Since they don't interact with each other, that will be simple. It won't add change the results. Isn't quantum mechanics fun?

[FrediFizzx]

The observables a.sigma, b.sigma could be thought to be “at” the locations where the measurements are done.

As I said, "thought" doesn't count in particle physics. Got any more nonsense you would like to add? Or can you actually make the calculation non-local by putting in actual distance between a and b?
.

If you want to put distance in, solve Schrodinger's equation for the two particles in a 6 dimensional configuration space, 3 dimensions for each superposed set (up-down and down-up). Since they don't interact with each other, that will be simple. It won't add change the results. Isn't quantum mechanics fun?

We will be waiting to see your math. You can't put distance in that standard QM calculation without some kind of mystery mechanism that would connect a and b to make it non-local.
.

[gill1109]

The observables a.sigma, b.sigma could be thought to be “at” the locations where the measurements are done.

As I said, "thought" doesn't count in particle physics. Got any more nonsense you would like to add? Or can you actually make the calculation non-local by putting in actual distance between a and b?
.

Dear Fred, don’t be so aggressive. Open up your mind, old man. Use your imagination. It doesn’t make sense to talk about a calculation being local or not. You do a calculation on a piece of paper with a pen, using some information. The calculation represents things in the real world. The information is stored in physical stuff in physical places at a physical time moment. At time zero, the settings were about to be introduced into the detectors, the state of the two particles was in the particles at the source. We are given the state of the two particles as they are created. What will their joint state be at the detectors?

This is QM (wave-particle duality), this is particle physics. The experiment lasts a positive duration. A dial is turned on an apparatus in each of Alice and Bob’s labs, to positions “a” and “b”, while two particles each fly from a source in a third lab to one of the other two labs. It’s one wave emanating through two wave-guides. As “jreed” says you can sit down and solve the Schrödinger equation. Two particles each moving in 1 dimension.

In fact the distances in the two arms of the experiment won’t be exactly the same. The two parts of the two-particle system will each have undergone a different phase change (they rotate, very fast, independently). So at the detectors , they are no longer in phase. One has to do a number of test runs to find out the phase difference, ie calibrate directions in Alice’s lab against those in Bob’s. Essentially you scan through all directions, reproducing the cosine curve, but shifted by an a priori unknown amount. Once you’ve found the phase shift, you can do the CHSH stuff. Ever been in a quantum optics lab?

[FrediFizzx]

Blah, Blah, Blah! Let's see your freakin' calculation to make the standard QM calculation non-local. Put up or shut up!

This thread is about calculations. Everyone, show your math or just shut the f... up!
.