Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiments:

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

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:34 am

Jarek wrote:Having Born rule it is not a problem to "violate" also the original Bell inequalities: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=318&p=7838#p7832

I prefer working on Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 instead because it is simpler, "drawing three coins, at least two are equal" - seeming to leave no hope for "violation" ... but it can be done using Born rules/path ensembles.

Can you find Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1 with your model?

In that case, your model is not local-realistic.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:18 pm

MERW is exactly like (euclidean) path integrals - used for quantum calculation: just uniform (or Boltzmann) probability distribution among paths ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_e ... andom_walk ).

Hence, it is time-symmetric model - is not local in standard sense ("evolving 3D"), but is local in "4D spacetime" sense - if using ensemble of continuous paths (what leads to stationary probability distribution exactly like for quantum ground state).
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:25 pm

Jarek wrote:MERW is exactly like (euclidean) path integrals - used for quantum calculation: just uniform (or Boltzmann) probability distribution among paths ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_e ... andom_walk ).

Hence, it is time-symmetric model - is not local in standard sense ("evolving 3D"), but is local in "4D spacetime" sense - if using ensemble of continuous paths (what leads to stationary probability distribution exactly like for quantum ground state).

It is not local-realistic in Einstein's and Bell's sense (which is mathematically a very precise sense as I explained above), and hence it is irrelevant for the Einstein-Bell debate.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:45 pm

It is non-local in exactly the same way as path integrals - widely used in quantum calculations.
We need some non-locality to get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1, extract its idealization from QM to understand nature of its non-locality.
MERW is the simplest way I know (?) - mathematically equivalent to euclidean path integrals, already containing Born rules and allowing for Bell violation.
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:56 pm

Jarek wrote:It is non-local in exactly the same way as path integrals - widely used in quantum calculations.
We need some non-locality to get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1, extract its idealization from QM to understand nature of its non-locality.
MERW is the simplest way I know (?) - mathematically equivalent to euclidean path integrals, already containing Born rules and allowing for Bell violation.

Quantum mechanical non-locality is very well understood for decades. It is a non-signaling non-locality that preserves parameter independence but violates outcome independence.

If you are not familiar with these terms, then you should be. Otherwise, you are at least 50 years behind the quantum foundations and quantum information communities.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:07 pm

You are only referring to some of its properties.
To get understanding we need simplified intuitive models extracting from QM idealization required for these properties - and path ensembles extract enough to have Born rules and Bell violation ... from the other side repairing diffusion models to agree with (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle - required by statistical physics models. Thanks of it, it no longer lacks Anderson-like localization property, which lead to prediction discrepancy by standard diffusion models, like wrongly predicting that semiconductor is a conductor.
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:14 pm

Jarek wrote:You are only referring to some of its properties.
To get understanding we need simplified intuitive models extracting from QM idealization required for these properties - and path ensembles extract enough to have Born rules and Bell violation ... from the other side repairing diffusion models to agree with (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle - required by statistical physics models. Thanks of it, it no longer lacks Anderson-like localization property, which lead to prediction discrepancy by standard diffusion models, like wrongly predicting that semiconductor is a conductor.

But why bother? Quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of Nature. Who cares if it is non-local? What matters is that Nature is perfectly local --- as my local-realistic framework proves.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:17 pm

So please show Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1 example with your framework.

Path ensembles are non-local in standard "evolving 3D" sense, but
- are mathematically equivalent with euclidean path integrals, commonly used for quantum calculations,
- recreate also many other quantum phenomena like stationary probability distribution of quantum ground state (can your framework do that?) - repairing discrepancy of standard diffusion models,
- are also compatible with Lagrangian mechanics perspective - optimizing action among paths.

They extract quantum nonlocality (e.g. ability to get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1 ) in idealized, intuitive and well motivated way (without cosmological assumptions or guessed algebras) - show that the "quantum mysticism" comes from the fact that we live in real 4D spacetime - not just "evolving 3D" our intuition wrongly suggests us.
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:11 am

Jarek wrote:So please show Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1 example with your framework.

Path ensembles are non-local in standard "evolving 3D" sense, but
- are mathematically equivalent with euclidean path integrals, commonly used for quantum calculations,
- recreate also many other quantum phenomena like stationary probability distribution of quantum ground state (can your framework do that?) - repairing discrepancy of standard diffusion models,
- are also compatible with Lagrangian mechanics perspective - optimizing action among paths.

They extract quantum nonlocality (e.g. ability to get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1 ) in idealized, intuitive and well motivated way (without cosmological assumptions or guessed algebras) - show that the "quantum mysticism" comes from the fact that we live in real 4D spacetime - not just "evolving 3D" our intuition wrongly suggests us.

Sorry, what you are talking about is incomprehensible to me. I tried to explain to you that your ideas are misguided. Hopefully, someone else will do a better job than me at explaining.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:36 am

I thought so, please let me know if you could find example for Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1.
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:48 am

Jarek wrote:I thought so, please let me know if you could find example for Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1.

Your request it misguided. But you do not understand that, do you? No. Do you understand that statistics and probabilities obfuscate the real questions of local-realism? No.

Have you read the two papers of mine I have linked above? No. Do you understand that they reproduce ALL quantum correlations "violating" Bell-type inequalities? No.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:59 am

No, I haven't read ten your papers, nor you have read mine. The purpose of this discussion was to get motivation, but I didn't find it. You are using cosmological assumptions and guessed algebras - hiding one misery behind another.

The test is very simple - QM formalism allows for Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1, what seems impossible in classical, intuitive ways. Please show if you can do it.
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:45 am

Jarek wrote:No, I haven't read ten your papers, nor you have read mine. The purpose of this discussion was to get motivation, but I didn't find it. You are using cosmological assumptions and guessed algebras - hiding one misery behind another.

The test is very simple - QM formalism allows for Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1, what seems impossible in classical, intuitive ways. Please show if you can do it.

I have made no assumptions, let alone cosmological assumptions. General relativity is not an assumption. The algebra respected by the spacetime geometry is not an assumption either.

All quantum mechanical (probabilistic) predictions for the singlet state are reproduced, along with all experimental results, in the two papers I have linked. They answer your question.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:26 am

From one side we are talking about microscopic statistical properties - macroscopic e.g. cosmological situation should have no relation here.

From the other, blind trust in general relativity (introduced due to aesthetic reasons) is just unscientific.
It is a theory for which there is now in fact confirmed only the first correction to Newton: frame dragging by Gravity Probe B - using gravitomagnetism approximation of GR - which itself was introduced by Heaviside in 1893:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:56 pm

***
The following is footnote 3 of this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876

Image

Nota bene: If such impossible events are not presumed to occur simultaneously, then the upper bound on the Bell-CHSH correlator is 4 (not 2), which is never "violated" in any experiment.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby minkwe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:30 pm

Jarek wrote:
The counterargument Bell-believers of statistical proclivities make is that if you toss two of the three coins each time for a large number of times then you will get (A=B or B=C or A=C)

Imagine you independently "toss 3 coins" a large number of times (prepared in identical way) and calculate proportions for all 2^3 = 8 possibilities: \sum_ABC Pr(ABC) = 1.
Whatever this Pr(ABC) probability distribution is (e.g. there can be dependencies), as derived earlier it satisfies Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1.

I wonder why bother to toss two, just toss one of the three coins then. Why does the same argument not apply if you toss just one coin at a time? If you can explain why tossing one coin at a time is nonsensical, then you may start understanding why tossing just two out of the three coins is also nonsensical.

You see, Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 is an inequality, which means it is an incomplete specification of a mathematical equation. Unfortunately in this case, the missing part of the equation contains the term Pr(ABC). So any statement or deduction you make about this inequality implicitly involves Pr(ABC). By hiding the term behind the inequality, it allows Bellists to delude themselves.
That inequality makes no sense unless Pr(ABC) makes sense. The experiment in which you measure just two terms deceives you into thinking the LHS makes sense and since the RHS is just a number, then the inequality makes sense. Not so fast. It makes no sense. The reason you will never think of tossing just a single coin at a time is because every term on the LHS contains two coins, so you will throw your hands in the air and say it wont work. But I challenge you to write out the full equation on which the inequality is based and attempt to make your argument, and you will see how naive Bell was in coming up with this charade.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Jarek » Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:01 am

To test Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 we need "three coins" and independent experiments consisting of measuring at least two of them.
Measuring all three, the above inequality has to be satisfied by statistics of such independent experiments.

The question is: what can happen while we measure only two so that this inequality is not satisfied? - what is possible e.g. in models with Born rule like QM or MERW.
Please share if you know other models allowing for that.
Jarek
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Bell inequalities from the incompatibility of experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:27 am

Jarek wrote:To test Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 we need "three coins" and independent experiments consisting of measuring at least two of them.
Measuring all three, the above inequality has to be satisfied by statistics of such independent experiments.

(1) There are only two coins in any EPR-Bohm type experiment, not three. (2) Even if there were three coins, they cannot be measured in any EPR-Bohm type experiment, in any possible world. (3) Statistics and probabilities are for the conmen (like Gill) who want to deceive the world, and their use in the Einstein-Bohr debate obfuscate the requirements of local-realism.

Jarek wrote:The question is: what can happen while we measure only two so that this inequality is not satisfied? - what is possible e.g. in models with Born rule like QM or MERW.
Please share if you know other models allowing for that.

Models with Born rule like QM and MERW (whatever that is) are manifestly non-local models. But Nature is manifestly local. And all quantum mechanical correlations, probabilities, and statistics are reproduced strictly local-realistically in the two papers I have linked above, namely in (1) https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 and (2) https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

minkwe wrote: ... you will see how naive Bell was in coming up with this charade.

Bell's argument is indeed misguided, if not naive, and the whole saga of Bell's so-called "theorem" is indeed a charade. The sooner it is exposed as such and put to rest the better.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library