TLR: true local realism

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

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:35 am

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
Mikko wrote:It doesn't make much sense to introduce new terms and definitions and then to not use them for anything. As long as the new concepts and definitions are not used there is no demonstration that they could be useful. A simple example to get started could be the toy theory by Bell in section III "Illustration" of http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf , with equation (9) as its main postulate; and the variants of this theory discussed in the same section. Which of the definitions do these theories satisfy, or how close they come?


Do you mean something like this, in my terms? (9) satisfies true local realism.

Basically yes, though if there is something else in the theory that does not satisfy it, that would be significant, too. But in this theory there is not much more. How about the variant presented in the last paragraph of the section?
However, I didn't limit my question to "true local realism". You have also used the name "pseudo-realism". Does the equation (9) and the theory using it satisfy that, too?
(10) is a valid conclusion from the interactions/projections in (9).

Equation (9) does not represent interactions. They may be called projections in some mathematical sense that hardly is useful for physics.
An experiment based on (9) will confirm (10). QED.

What do you mean by "based"? Equation (9) is an assumption about the relation of the hidden variable and the result of a measurement. How can an experiment be based on a particular assumption about that?
Whether an experiment confirms (10) or not is not part of a theory. The theory predicts that no experiment, whether "based on (9)" or not, will refute (9) but an experiment might refute it anyway. But the usual meaning of "realism" and its variants is that it is an intrinsic property of theory that does not depend on any experiments or results of experiments.
(EPRB-style experiments are not represented by (9), so (10) does not hold in such.)

This doesn't really make sense but somehow seems to contradict what you already said. In what sense EPRB-style experiments are not represented by (9) are not represented? Are some other experiments represented? Equation of (9) is a statement about measurement of spin, so it applies equally to all experiments where a spin is measured. Equation (10) is a consequence of equation (9), so it is true at least whenever (9) is.


I take (9) to be a toy model that can be experimentally replicated on paper by means of unit-vectors a, b and random λ. I take the signs to reflect the rotation ("via interaction" as I envisage the experiment) of λs onto a and b (i.e., ± = UP/DOWN). I take a, b and λ to be truly realistic and well-defined variables in the toy experiment which is an experiment that can be done to validate (10).

Since the correct results are derived, I see no pseudo-realism here: unless Bell is trying to replicate EPRB. To be clear: imho, Bell uses pseudo-realism in his analyses of EPRB +++; that's why he gets the wrong answers -- which, coming full circle -- is how I DEFINE pseudo-realism: it gives wrong answers.

We agree: Equation (10) is a consequence of equation (9), so it is true whenever (9) is true.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:21 pm

Does this help? Critical comments and corrections/improvements please:

Abstract: Based on Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism—the union of true locality and true realism—our theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true locality (ie, no causal influence propagates superluminally). True realism allows that beables (Bell’s convenient term for existents) have objective properties at all times and interactions may verify objectively preexisting properties, confirm known properties, reveal previously hidden properties, create new beables, etc. We thus demystify QM (ie, no classical/quantum divide).
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:03 am

Gordon Watson wrote:I take (9) to be a toy model that can be experimentally replicated on paper by means of unit-vectors a, b and random λ.

The expressions "experimentally" and "on paper" have opposite meanings so the above does not make sense. Perhaps you mean "can be simulated"? Anyway, that is not the point. The main use Bell was discussing is to compare to predictions of quantum mechanics.
I take the signs to reflect the rotation ("via interaction" as I envisage the experiment) of λs onto a and b (i.e., ± = UP/DOWN). I take a, b and λ to be truly realistic and well-defined variables in the toy experiment which is an experiment that can be done to validate (10).

If by "toy experiment" you mean "simulation", that does not really validate (10). You don't need any simulation or experiment to see that (10) is a valid consequence of (9), nor to see that quantum mechanics contradicts it.
Since the correct results are derived, I see no pseudo-realism here: unless Bell is trying to replicate EPRB.

What do you mean by "replicate"? Bell is trying to illustrate key concepts of the article, and does it sufficiently successfully.
To be clear: imho, Bell uses pseudo-realism in his analyses of EPRB +++;

Which point of his analysis would most clearly indicate pseudo-realism and how?
that's why he gets the wrong answers -- which, coming full circle -- is how I DEFINE pseudo-realism: it gives wrong answers.

There are so many different meanings of "wrong" that without clarification it is not useful in any definition. And anyway, what answer to what question is wrong?
We agree: Equation (10) is a consequence of equation (9), so it is true whenever (9) is true.

Therefore, equation (9) is false whenever (10) is.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:11 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Does this help? Critical comments and corrections/improvements please:

Abstract: Based on Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism—the union of true locality and true realism—our theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true locality (ie, no causal influence propagates superluminally). True realism allows that beables (Bell’s convenient term for existents) have objective properties at all times and interactions may verify objectively preexisting properties, confirm known properties, reveal previously hidden properties, create new beables, etc. We thus demystify QM (ie, no classical/quantum divide).

An abstract should only use well known words and only in their well known meanings. The purpose of the abstract is to indicate the topic of the article so that a potential reader may determine whether one wants to read it. The abstract above suggests that the aticle is philosofical nonsense.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:22 am

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:I take (9) to be a toy model that can be experimentally replicated on paper by means of unit-vectors a, b and random λ.

The expressions "experimentally" and "on paper" have opposite meanings so the above does not make sense. Perhaps you mean "can be simulated"? Anyway, that is not the point. The main use Bell was discussing is to compare to predictions of quantum mechanics.
I take the signs to reflect the rotation ("via interaction" as I envisage the experiment) of λs onto a and b (i.e., ± = UP/DOWN). I take a, b and λ to be truly realistic and well-defined variables in the toy experiment which is an experiment that can be done to validate (10).

If by "toy experiment" you mean "simulation", that does not really validate (10). You don't need any simulation or experiment to see that (10) is a valid consequence of (9), nor to see that quantum mechanics contradicts it.
Since the correct results are derived, I see no pseudo-realism here: unless Bell is trying to replicate EPRB.

What do you mean by "replicate"? Bell is trying to illustrate key concepts of the article, and does it sufficiently successfully.
To be clear: imho, Bell uses pseudo-realism in his analyses of EPRB +++;

Which point of his analysis would most clearly indicate pseudo-realism and how?
that's why he gets the wrong answers -- which, coming full circle -- is how I DEFINE pseudo-realism: it gives wrong answers.

There are so many different meanings of "wrong" that without clarification it is not useful in any definition. And anyway, what answer to what question is wrong?
We agree: Equation (10) is a consequence of equation (9), so it is true whenever (9) is true.

Therefore, equation (9) is false whenever (10) is.


Since Bell is giving "illustrations" -- to put his theorem in perspective -- I take (9) to be a toy model. Such experiments can often be "run" on paper: as here, to validate (10) if you wish.

After his illustrations, Bell makes a claim in the 1st paragraph of his conclusion. That claim is wrong/false: it left Bell in a dilemma, puzzled, doubting, etc.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:27 am

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Does this help? Critical comments and corrections/improvements please:

Abstract: Based on Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism—the union of true locality and true realism—our theory (wholistic mechanics, WM) resolves Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true locality (ie, no causal influence propagates superluminally). True realism allows that beables (Bell’s convenient term for existents) have objective properties at all times and interactions may verify objectively preexisting properties, confirm known properties, reveal previously hidden properties, create new beables, etc. We thus demystify QM (ie, no classical/quantum divide).

An abstract should only use well known words and only in their well known meanings. The purpose of the abstract is to indicate the topic of the article so that a potential reader may determine whether one wants to read it. The abstract above suggests that the aticle is philosofical nonsense.


How about this? Any words unclear? Phrasings that can be improved -- or added -- to help the reader?

Abstract: Using Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism—the union of true locality and true realism—we resolve Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true (Einstein) locality: no causal influence propagates superluminally. Then, using Bell’s handy term for classical and quantum existents, true realism follows: some beables change interactively. That is: since beables are defined by their objective properties and values, interactions may yield (via Bohr's ‘disturbance' insight) new properties and values. Further, since observables are beables, there is no quantum/classical divide here. Thus, under true local realism—delivering results in full accord with quantum theory and experiment (contra Bell)—we demystify QM en route to the latter's reconstruction.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:07 am

Gordon Watson wrote:How about this? Any words unclear? Phrasings that can be improved -- or added -- to help the reader?
Abstract: Using Bell's mathematical definition of (what we term) true local realism—the union of true locality and true realism—we resolve Bell’s ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true (Einstein) locality: no causal influence propagates superluminally. Then, using Bell’s handy term for classical and quantum existents, true realism follows: some beables change interactively. That is: since beables are defined by their objective properties and values, interactions may yield (via Bohr's ‘disturbance' insight) new properties and values. Further, since observables are beables, there is no quantum/classical divide here. Thus, under true local realism—delivering results in full accord with quantum theory and experiment (contra Bell)—we demystify QM en route to the latter's reconstruction.

An abstract should not use words and phrases that are not well known and words that are defined in the article. Therefore, the following words should not be used:
true local realism
union
true locality
true realism
In addition, although the reference to Bell makes "beables" sufficiently well defined, it is perhaps not widely understood, so it might be better to avoid it in the abstract.
Another problem is that an abstract should be a truthful description of an article. An abstract without a useful article is not useful.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:18 am

Ok; thanks.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:15 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Since Bell is giving "illustrations" -- to put his theorem in perspective -- I take (9) to be a toy model. Such experiments can often be "run" on paper: as here, to validate (10) if you wish.

A proposed experiment can be simulated or otherwise analyzed on paper to determine whether two theories predict the same or different result. But the equation (10) is not validated with such simulation: its validity in the theory is already known.
After his illustrations, Bell makes a claim in the 1st paragraph of his conclusion. That claim is wrong/false: it left Bell in a dilemma, puzzled, doubting, etc.

There are two claims in that theory: 1) a non-local theory can reproduce quantum mechanical predictions; and 2) a local theory cannot.
The first claim is an obvious consequnce of the last paragraph of the "Illustration" section. The second one is a consequence of the last sentence of the paragraph that contains the equation (15). Therefore the conclusion is correct.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:38 am

Equation (15) is false under TLR, so a compatible conclusion from it is false also: Hence the source of Bell's dilemma. I share BELL'S unhappiness with his (15), so I'll leave it at that for now.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:48 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Equation (15) is false under TLR, so a compatible conclusion from it is false also: Hence the source of Bell's dilemma. I share BELL'S unhappiness with his (15), so I'll leave it at that for now.

Irrelevant as Bell does not assume TLR. And anyway, your unjustified claim was not about equation (15) but the first paragraph of the "Conclusions" section.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:34 pm

Bell's equation (15) is FALSE under TLR. Bell's equation (15) is also false under related experiments and also false under quantum theory; as Bell knew.

Since math is the best logic, and my math is provided in detail: please point to errors in my math.

To put my position clearly for you:

1. My theory (call it true local realism or TLR for now) tackles Bell's problems and delivers his hopes head on.

2. TLR correctly predicts the outcomes of interactions between beables and the probabilistic distribution of such outcomes.

3. By correctly I mean: TLR confirms the predictions of quantum theory (QT) and the outcomes of experiments.

4. The experiments in #3 include EPRB, Aspect's experiments, CHSH, GHZ, GHSZ.

5. Bell's work in this area does NOT make such predictions; i.e., independent of QT but confirmed by QT and experiments. Hence Bell's dilemma. Hence the naivety and puzzlement and doubts in his final years.

6. In short: TLR corrects Bell's errors and does what Bell did not do; it factors his mathematical definition of true local realism in full accord with QT and the outcomes of experiments.

QED.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:52 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Bell's equation (15) is FALSE under TLR. Bell's equation (15) is also false under related experiments and also false under quantum theory; as Bell knew.

Bell's equation (15) follows from earlier equations by sound mathematics. Therefore it is true whenever those earlier equations are.
Since math is the best logic, and my math is provided in detail: please point to errors in my math.

Already done.
To put my position clearly for you:

1. My theory (call it true local realism or TLR for now) tackles Bell's problems and delivers his hopes head on.

So you say but haven't proven. Even if you could prove it, it would be uninteresting unless you can prove that your theory obeys Einstein's causality and augments quantum mechanics as expected in the EPR paper.
2. TLR correctly predicts the outcomes of interactions between beables and the probabilistic distribution of such outcomes.

So you say but haven't proven.
3. By correctly I mean: TLR confirms the predictions of quantum theory (QT) and the outcomes of experiments.

But not that they are predicted by TLR? (The word "confirms" is not correct. Perhaps you mean "predicts" or "is assumed to predit".)
4. The experiments in #3 include EPRB, Aspect's experiments, CHSH, GHZ, GHSZ.

A small scope but sufficient for the present discussion.
5. Bell's work in this area does NOT make such predictions; i.e., independent of QT but confirmed by QT and experiments. Hence Bell's dilemma. Hence the naivety and puzzlement and doubts in his final years.

Obviously. He had no reason to predict anything that was not already predicted by quantum mechanics.
6. In short: TLR corrects Bell's errors and does what Bell did not do; it factors his mathematical definition of true local realism in full accord with QT and the outcomes of experiments.

QED.

You have not derived any prediction from the postulates of your TLR. You have not preven that your TLR is local. You have not proven that TLR is consistent. You have not shown that TLR is "complete" in the sense of the EPR paper. Therefore you have not shown that TLR is of any use in discussions about Bell's inequality and related topics.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:42 am

Mikko,

I wrote: "Since math is the best logic, and my math is provided in detail: please point to errors in my math."
You write: " "Already done."
Trusting that you're referring to my latest draft, BY EQUATION NUMBERS, in some sensible detail;
I ask: Where?
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:08 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Mikko,

I wrote: "Since math is the best logic, and my math is provided in detail: please point to errors in my math."
You write: " "Already done."
Trusting that you're referring to my latest draft, BY EQUATION NUMBERS, in some sensible detail;
I ask: Where?

An error in your earlier article is identified in the discussion on http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0035 where I have analysed it in more detail than should be necessary and Fred Diether has confirmed my analysis. You have not corrected that error but have repeated it in your later articles. When you have corrected that error or written an article without it there may be some point to check whether there are other errors. Before that, what purpose would it serve?
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:56 pm

1: Please bring your claim up to date by giving the latest eqn numbers. 2: The link you give seems to show Fred on my side, so please bring the point you are making (re Fred's confirmation of your analysis) into the post that delivers your update to this site. Tks.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:17 am

Gordon Watson wrote:1: Please bring your claim up to date by giving the latest eqn numbers.

As you have not corrected errors already identified and analysed, I don't see why I should.
2: The link you give seems to show Fred on my side, so please bring the point you are making (re Fred's confirmation of your analysis) into the post that delivers your update to this site. Tks.

Fred Diether has arrived through different considerations to a conclusion that agrees to some extent with yours. However, his conclusion does not depend on your error and he is mathematically litterate enough to see your error. Therefore his expressed disagreement is specifically with your error but not with your conclusion or anything else in your article.

In order to find the message where Fred Diether expresses his agreement with my analysis, type the following to your search engine
site:vixra.org Fred Diether or more simply
and open the page where the phrase "or more simpy" was found, then use the search (or find) function of your browser for the phrase
or more simply
and you should find Fred Dither's message. That message is a reply to my message where I ask a question that you never answered.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:09 am

Mikko, if I''ve not corrected the errors that you found, then the errors should be easily found in the latest draft. Just give the eqn or para. number and your point. This is a fresh chance for you to make your point on a site that is more congenial for debate.

As for Fred's comment: he appears to be justifying Bell's explicit assumption -- how Bell moved for (14a) to (14b)! My draft shows that to be -- in terms of the EPRB setting -- a false assumption by Bell if he is attempting to reproduce the correct result. (It looks more like he was using an EPR definition and finding it false.) So bring your case here; and/or justify Fred's case if you wish.

Alternatively, if you agree with Fred and Bell on this specific point -- say so. For then it is already answered in the latest draft. Tks.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:45 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Mikko, if I''ve not corrected the errors that you found, then the errors should be easily found in the latest draft.

If that is true then my help is hardly needed.
Just give the eqn or para. number and your point. This is a fresh chance for you to make your point on a site that is more congenial for debate.

Ask again when you have corrected that error in at least one of your articles.
As for Fred's comment: he appears to be justifying Bell's explicit assumption -- how Bell moved for (14a) to (14b)!

That's right, alghough the step is so obviously correct that there should be no need to express the justification.
My draft shows that to be -- in terms of the EPRB setting -- a false assumption by Bell if he is attempting to reproduce the correct result. (It looks more like he was using an EPR definition and finding it false.) So bring your case here; and/or justify Fred's case if you wish.

Your article falsely claims that the two obviously equivalen expressions be not equivalent but it does not show it. In order to show that the two expressions are not equivalent you should present an exaple of values for the symbles in the expression that would give different values to the two expressions.
Alternatively, if you agree with Fred and Bell on this specific point -- say so. For then it is already answered in the latest draft. Tks.

That I have proven Bell's inference correct should be a clear indocation of my unimportant opinion.
Mikko
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:05 am

How do I correct an "error" when you don't show me where it is in my latest draft? For I have no clue what you are referring to now! Nor in your old arguments!

Which are the "obviously equivalent" expressions? Also: The ones where I don't present "example values"?

Where do you prove Bell's inference PHYSICALLY correct? That is, you prove that his inference yields results that accord with experimental outcomes: not just a "correct representation" of an unphysical assumption.

PS: I personally do not regard your opinions as unimportant. But your approach -- not dealing with the latest draft; avoiding eqn numbers, etc -- makes them difficult to understand.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library