## Simple violation of Bell inequalities

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

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:Dear Richard,
As written, I have searched for Born rules in the material you have provided, but without success - I interpret it is spread, would require studying a complete picture. But if you point me to a few pages focused on Born rules, I will try to understand it.
Sure time symmetric explanation is very far from something new, but allows to just remove the mist of magic from QM - which is still deeply there in the society. "If you think you understand QM, it means you don't understand QM" - extremely dangerous belief, which paralyzed physics from development - making that basic questions of physics are just ignored, like understanding the structure of EM field of particles - I am much more interested in, but it is nearly impossible to discuss about due to the quantum mystery ...
Best regards,
Jarek

OK will try to give you explicit pointers. The Belavkin approach gives us, for any time instant, the joint probability distribution of the “Beatles”. It is the same as what Born says
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Thank you. Born rules are the central point of quantum mysticism - a separate paper focused on this issue might be very helpful for convincing others.

As you have mentioned they might be equivalent, for which it might be useful to see that evolution in time-symmetric models does not need retrocausality:
- we see a given moment in time as an equilibrium between past and future - "tension" from one direction is described by psi (effect of propagator from minus infinity to now), from the other by phi (from plus infinity to now).
- now we just evolve in time both simultaneously - one propagator is elongated, the second is shortened:

Situation is analogous to Lagrangian mechanics (we use from QFT to GR) - it has 3 mathematically equivalent formulations:
1) fixing value and time derivative (e.g. of a field) in a given moment, Euler-Lagrange equation allows to uniquely evolve toward future,
2) analogously, but evolving toward past (all are time/CPT symmetric),
3) by action optimizing: fixing only values in two moments in time, they determine trajectory/history between them as one optimizing action.

Evolution of these amplitudes from two time direction can be seen as 1) or 2): they define value and first derivative.
But sometimes it is more convenient to imagine through equivalent 3), for example for stationary probability distribution: rho ~ psi*phi in the center of propagators from both infinities.
More sophisticated example is Shor's algorithm: where we branch calculations, give input to one branch, and read its result in second branch: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... its-crippl
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:Thank you. Born rules are the central point of quantum mysticism - a separate paper focused on this issue might be very helpful for convincing others.

My whole paper is about the Born rule! There is no separate issue needing a separate paper. See the bottom of page 6.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

In physics we are certain of e.g. fields, particles - we should start with to get understanding, like using their ensembles ... but you start with a very abstract your picture, hiding many assumptions - why projections, unitary operators, von Neuman algebras? To get understanding it needs to be derived not assumed.
How do you conclude Born rules from it: that probability of alternative of disjoint events is proportional to sum of squares of their amplitudes? When should we use it, and when standard probabilistics with first power?

I might guess that U and U^* correspond to the two amplitudes - can we interpret them in time symmetric manner: that one is from propagator from minus infinity, second from plus infinity?
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:In physics we are certain of e.g. fields, particles - we should start with to get understanding, like using their ensembles ... but you start with a very abstract your picture, hiding many assumptions - why projections, unitary operators, von Neuman algebras? To get understanding it needs to be derived not assumed.
How do you conclude Born rules from it: that probability of alternative of disjoint events is proportional to sum of squares of their amplitudes? When should we use it, and when standard probabilistics with first power?

I might guess that U and U^* correspond to the two amplitudes - can we interpret them in time symmetric manner: that one is from propagator from minus infinity, second from plus infinity?

U is a unitary operator and U* is what perhaps you would write as U dagger. My model is a model of the universe. Time is discrete instead of continuous. U acts on the wave function of the universe. Today, the wave function is |psi>. Tomorrow, it is U |psi>. The density matrix of the universe, today, is rho = |psi><psi|. Tomorrow it will be U rho U*. trace U rho U* X = trace rho U* X U.

In the Heisenberg picture, the state remains constant. The observables evolve. Today we have observable X. Tomorrow it will be U* X U.

Yesterday's observable X is U X U*. Belavkin calls observables such that X commutes with UXU* "beables". Such observables have a classical joint history. They have trajectories, going back in the past. We stand in the present and the past of all beables is ... past. Fixed. Dead. The future of such observables is not yet determined. It is stochastic. Born's law tells us the conditional probability distribution of the future, conditional on the past.

You are a physicist. You use quantum mechanics. You use projections, unitary operators; without knowing it, you use von Neumann algebras. I don't have to derive these things. You use them and you told me that you find them useful. My starting point is the mathematical framework which you use yourself, every day. My paper https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2723 *derives* the Born law and describes how it is used.

If you don't want to learn some basic mathematical terminology and some basic mathematical ideas then you are not going to learn anything from me. If you don't want to learn from me, that's your choice: don't.

I'm a mathematician and you are a physicist and neither of us is ever going to become the other. We could try to understand each other. We can also not try to understand one another. For me, it is sufficient if *some* physicists understand me. Then they can explain what they have learnt, if they found it useful, to other physicists. No doubt some mathematicians understand your work. That's good enough for me. They can explain it to me. You don't have to do that.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Let us remind what problem we would like to understand ...
So there is this "nice physics": intuitive, with particles of continuous trajectories, field propagating with finite speeds ...
But then there come axioms of QM, leading to consequences which seem impossible to satisfy in this nice physics, suggesting some "spooky action" etc.

To understand the above problem, we need to point a misunderstanding in the "nice physics" leading to the problematic effects of QM - like having Born rule at the heart.
My point is that the misunderstanding is "locality" while it should be "4D locality" as e.g. in GR, missing assumption is time-symmetry, which is already there in all fundamental physics we use, but is nonintuitive - hard to accept. This way we directly get e.g. Born rules.

However, you don't start from this "nice physics", but from algebraic formulation - directly coming from QM you would like to conclude.
While it is standard in QM, assuming it to derive problematic assumptions of QM is like proving by assuming the theses - you just reformulate QM this way.

But generally your U is forward propagator of Wavefunction of the Universe (rather continuous as space or time discreteness is incompatible with Lorentz invariance), U* propagates back in time.
This evolution can be seen as elongating past propagator and shortening future, as I have written above.

|psi> is result of using such unitary evolution from minus infinity to now.
<psi| analogously from plus infinity to now.
Wanting a different interpretation, you propose a local hidden variable model - which have been shown impossible not only by Bell violation, but also e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%27s_paradox , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GHZ_experiment
See Pawel Blasiak slides (image below): https://www.dropbox.com/s/jd7fixmpbyqb6 ... 8PB%29.pdf
How would you choose A_a and B_b functions for your hidden local variable lambda - such that |11> on 'z' never appears? In time-symmetric view this paradox doesn't work as hidden variables come from both time directions.

Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:...However, you don't start from this "nice physics", but from algebraic formulation - directly coming from QM you would like to conclude.
While it is standard in QM, assuming it to derive problematic assumptions of QM is like proving by assuming the theses - you just reformulate QM this way.

But generally your U is forward propagator of Wavefunction of the Universe (rather continuous as space or time discreteness is incompatible with Lorentz invariance), U* propagates back in time.
This evolution can be seen as elongating past propagator and shortening future, as I have written above.

|psi> is result of using such unitary evolution from minus infinity to now.
<psi| analogously from plus infinity to now.
Wanting a different interpretation, you propose a local hidden variable model

I do not propose a local hidden variable model.
I take standard QM, just as you do.
I wrote a toy model version of Belavkin's theory in discrete time, but he of course did it in continuous time. It is technically rather more sophisticated, of course.
His model is compatible with Lorentz invariance.

You should read the stuff which you are attacking!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Indeed you just have standard QM - build inspired model, reformulate it.
The problem with quantum mysticism is different: we have this nice local realistic physics with particles, finite propagation speed fields - it usually works, but has some very subtle problems.
Instead of building from scratch, we just need to point some subtle incorrect assumption in this nice local realistic physics with particles and field.
So where do you think is this incorrect assumption?
Considering wavefunction of the Universe is a nice abstract way, but tough to combine with locality - do you think we should completely get rid of locality, or maybe somehow weaken or modify it?
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:Indeed you just have standard QM - build inspired model, reformulate it.
The problem with quantum mysticism is different: we have this nice local realistic physics with particles, finite propagation speed fields - it usually works, but has some very subtle problems.
Instead of building from scratch, we just need to point some subtle incorrect assumption in this nice local realistic physics with particles and field.
So where do you think is this incorrect assumption?
Considering wavefunction of the Universe is a nice abstract way, but tough to combine with locality - do you think we should completely get rid of locality, or maybe somehow weaken or modify it?

We have to abandon *local realism*. I think it is simple. We have to abandon crypto-determinism. We should accept that there exists irreducible randomness as part of the essential ingredients of the universe. We can just accept quantum mechanics. I say: there is no action at a distance, but there is passion at a distance. It's not malevolent. It's creative. You could call it angelic if you like. It is not spooky, it is not malevolent. I say: God does throw dice and they are very special dice because they are random in a deep and fundamental way, completely unlike the "unpredictability" of the toss of a die. The result of the toss of a die or a coin is a completely deterministic result of the classical laws of physics together with our inability to specify exactly the initial conditions and together with the extremely delicate dependence of the final result on the initial conditions.

The problems with the interpretation of quantum mechanics are simply due to the limitations of our brains. Evolution has taught us to understand the world around us using some basic modules of instinctive understanding of geometry and algebra and causality. We know there are agents and there are objects and actually we "know" that agents can act, benevolently or malevolently, at a distance. So that's how our brains interpret quantum non-locality. I think we should leave our instinctive feelings out of this, and just accept what the laws of physics are saying.

Usual interpretations of quantum mechanics have some *philosophical* or *meta-physical* problems. The so-called measurement problem and the so-called Schrödinger cat problem. These metaphysical problems are resolved by Belavkin's framework. People should take it seriously and develop it further! The next thing to do is to study the case of several observers. Model a "toy" EPR-B experiment with two entangled two-level systems, continuous time and space, Lorentz invariance, from the point of view of "eventum mechanics". This is what Belavkin and his students were working on, at the time of his untimely death from cancer.

We know that it can be done. See
Bedingham, D. J. (2011). Relativistic state reduction dynamics. Found. Phys. 41 686–704.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2774
A mechanism describing state reduction dynamics in relativistic quantum field theory is outlined. The mechanism involves nonlinear stochastic modifications to the standard description of unitary state evolution and the introduction of a relativistic field in which a quantized degree of freedom is associated to each point in spacetime. The purpose of this field is to mediate in the interaction between classical stochastic influences and conventional quantum fields. The equations of motion are Lorentz covariant, frame independent, and do not result in divergent behaviour. It is shown that the mathematical framework permits the specification of unambiguous local properties providing a connection between the model and evidence of real-world phenomena. The collapse process is demonstrated for an idealized example.

Daniel Bedingham, Sujoy K. Modak, Daniel Sudarsky

We study a proposal for the resolution of the black hole information puzzle within the context of modified versions of quantum theory involving spontaneous reduction of the quantum state. The theories of this kind, which were developed in order to address the so called "measurement problem" in quantum theory have, in the past, been framed in a non-relativistic setting and in that form they were previously applied to the black hole information problem. Here, and for the first time, we show in a simple toy model, a treatment of the problem within a fully relativistic setting. We also discuss the issues that the present analysis leaves as open problems to be dealt with in future refinements of the present approach.
Last edited by gill1109 on Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Could you maybe support your belief in non-determinism with any physical argument? I see only spooky/angelic/supernatural arguments here - that's religion not physics.
In all scales: from QFT to GR we use Lagrangian mechanics, which are deterministic (Euler-Lagrange), CPT/time symmetric - do you disagree?
How do you see such "dice throw" from Lagrangian mechanics, CPT symmetry perspective - all events have CPT analogues - what is it here? "dice unthrow"? What does it mean?
You were operating on wavefunction of the universe with purely unitary (reversible) evolution - where are these "dice throws"?
Who/what makes them? Where does it happen?

The problems with the interpretation of quantum mechanics are simply due to the limitations of our brains. Evolution has taught us to understand the world around us using some basic modules of instinctive understanding of geometry and algebra and causality.

I see this problem only as not accepting Lagrangian mechanics - we successfully use in all scales ... due to our "instinctive understanding of (...) causality" - with fundamental time asymmetry, while physics we successfully use has this symmetry.
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

The lack of acceptance of determinism, time/CPT symmetry - being at heart of fundamental physics we use from QFT to GR, resembles the "intelligent design vs evolutionism discussion".

Intelligent design people acknowledge evolution, but gave up possibility of complete understanding, will always fill gaps with supernatural - are satisfied with status quo, don't really care about unanswered questions.
There is e.g. heredity, natural selection, but why should we bother? We should rather rely on our intuitions, supernatural arguments.

Non-deterministic people acknowledge physics, but gave up possibility of complete understanding, will always fill gaps with supernatural - are satisfied with status quo, don't really care about unanswered questions.
There is e.g. time/CPT in Lagrangian mechanics we use, but why should we bother? We should rather rely on our intuitions, supernatural arguments.

You acknowledge that there is something missing - please just try for a moment a gedankenexperiment that time/CPT symmetry is not just for fun e.g. in QFT, unitary QM, GR ... but is a real property of physics.
It is in Feynman path ensembles - "4D local" and equivalent with QM.
It e.g. immediately leads to Born rules and resulting Bell violation, or Anderson localization - also extremely nonintuitive.

Do you have a single real argument for non-determinism?
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:The lack of acceptance of determinism, time/CPT symmetry - being at heart of fundamental physics we use from QFT to GR, resembles the "intelligent design vs evolutionism discussion".

Intelligent design people acknowledge evolution, but gave up possibility of complete understanding, will always fill gaps with supernatural - are satisfied with status quo, don't really care about unanswered questions.
There is e.g. heredity, natural selection, but why should we bother? We should rather rely on our intuitions, supernatural arguments.

Non-deterministic people acknowledge physics, but gave up possibility of complete understanding, will always fill gaps with supernatural - are satisfied with status quo, don't really care about unanswered questions.
There is e.g. time/CPT in Lagrangian mechanics we use, but why should we bother? We should rather rely on our intuitions, supernatural arguments.

You acknowledge that there is something missing - please just try for a moment a gedankenexperiment that time/CPT symmetry is not just for fun e.g. in QFT, unitary QM, GR ... but is a real property of physics.
It is in Feynman path ensembles - "4D local" and equivalent with QM.
It e.g. immediately leads to Born rules and resulting Bell violation, or Anderson localization - also extremely nonintuitive.

Do you have a single real argument for non-determinism?

My powerful real argument for nondeterminism is the violation of Bell inequalities in "loophole-free" experiments.

A secondary argument is the utterly total logical failure of every existing attempt to solve the measurement problem.

When will you realise: I do agree with time/CPT symmetry! It is a real property of the mathematics of unitary QM. Of QM "without collapse". It is retained in Belavkin's "eventum mechanics". You can interpret eventum mechanics exactly as the meeting of a wave from the future with a wave from the past. Read Belavkin's work. You might like it.

I have not seen your derivation of Born rules from unitary QM. Show them to me.

I do not fill gaps with the supernatural. I simply propose that we accept that irreducible randomness is natural. It is part of nature.

I keep saying, our intuitions are *wrong*. Our carbon-based human intution makes quantum-correlated quantum jumps appear supernatural. But in fact, they are hypo-natural. They drive the time-evolution of the physical world "from below" as it were.

I do care about unanswered problems. The Schrödinger cat problem was an unanswered problem. It was solved by eventum mechanics.

Sorry, but you are very good at ignoring what I say here and what I have written in the past. I am happy that you are so enthusiastic about your Wick rotation and random walks. It is exciting mathematics which I want to learn about. You are not helping me understand the mathematics better. You keep showing me pictures which are supposed to sell it, but I can't "read" them. It's like selling bicycles to fish.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

My powerful real argument for nondeterminism is the violation of Bell inequalities in "loophole-free" experiments.

I don't understand why do you think it is an argument for non-determinism?
In deterministic time-symmetric view we have one amplitude from past, second from future - getting Born rules and resulting possibility to violate Bell inequalities. It is not a surprise if accepting time symmetry.
When will you realise: I do agree with time/CPT symmetry!

You might agree, but not really accept it - as it contradicts nondeterminism - you can accept only one of them.
In time symmetry you cannot have complete difference between past and future: one is chosen, the other is not.
Sure it is non-deterministic from our perspective: having a limited knowledge, but do you really believe it is also fundamentally - requires a God to perform dice throws? How many of them?
What exactly they do? How they influence the Lagrangian mechanics we use from QFT to GR?
Such "God's dice throw" needs to have a time/CPT symmetric analogue - what is it?
I have not seen your derivation of Born rules from unitary QM. Show them to me.

My derivation is from "4D locality" - that basic objects are not points, but their trajectories - exactly as in general relativity or Feynman's path integrals, I just do statistical mechanics on such objects: entropy maximizing uniform (or Boltzmann) distribution.
Accepting this time-symmetric picture we have: one psi is from past (propagator from minus infinity to now), second from future (propagator from plus infinity to now) - as you have written it is not new ... but you just disagree.
Why do you disagree?
I do not fill gaps with the supernatural. I simply propose that we accept that irreducible randomness is natural. It is part of nature.

If angels and God you are using are not supernatural, please describe them with natural physics we have no doubts in: with particles and fields of finite propagation speed.
I keep saying, our intuitions are *wrong*.

Our intuition is based on time asymmetry, while you also agree that physics has time/CPT symmetry instead - doesn't this contradiction point an error in our intuition?
You agree that our intuition has a problem, also say you agree with time symmetry - why not start with this contradiction?
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:
gill1109 wrote:My powerful real argument for nondeterminism is the violation of Bell inequalities in "loophole-free" experiments.

I don't understand why do you think it is an argument for non-determinism?
In deterministic time-symmetric view we have one amplitude from past, second from future - getting Born rules and resulting possibility to violate Bell inequalities. It is not a surprise if accepting time symmetry.

I have noticed that you don't understand logical or mathematical arguments. You only have your physical intuition, i.e., various physics dogmas which you learnt from your physics masters, together with your physics intuition. You use mathematical formulas but just as a language in which to express physics. You don't realise that mathematicians see mathematical models as things in themselves. Abstract, yes. But things one can reason about and which have their own "existence" quite independently of whatever aspects of reality they were originally designed to help with.

If you don't understand Bell's paper "On Bertlman's socks and the nature of reality" you won't understand my attempts to explain what he said, either.

Jarek wrote:
gill1109 wrote:When will you realise: I do agree with time/CPT symmetry!

You might agree, but not really accept it - as it contradicts nondeterminism - you can accept only one of them.
In time symmetry you cannot have a complete difference between past and future: one is chosen, the other is not.
Sure it is non-deterministic from our perspective: having limited knowledge, but do you really believe it is also fundamentally - requires a God to perform dice throws? How many of them?
What exactly they do? How they influence the Lagrangian mechanics we use from QFT to GR?
Such "God's dice throw" needs to have a time/CPT symmetric analogue - what is it?

Please take some time off and try to understand the maths in my little paper. It is simple stuff. We start with a separable Hilbert space and a discrete time unitary transformation on it and a "time zero" state. We can go backwards or forwards in time. So far everything is time symmetric. Now we pick a commuting set of observables which is mapped *into* but not *onto* itself, and the fun starts. I derive Born's law.

Jarek wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I have not seen your derivation of Born rules from unitary QM. Show them to me.

My derivation is from "4D locality" - that basic objects are not points, but their trajectories - exactly as in general relativity or Feynman's path integrals, I just do statistical mechanics on such objects: entropy maximizing uniform (or Boltzmann) distribution.
Accepting this time-symmetric picture we have: one psi is from past (propagator from minus infinity to now), second from future (propagator from plus infinity to now) - as you have written it is not new ... but you just disagree.
Why do you disagree?

I don't know general relativity or Feynmann path integrals so what you say is meaningless to me. I know that you can convert the Schrödinger equations into equations well known in the theory of Brownian motion, random walk and so on. So you can use the mathematics which we are familiar with in statistical mechanics, which, properly speaking, is part of probability theory. Fine. Great to be able to use all kinds of mathematical tools. But the physical picture corresponding to those random walks of yours from statistical mechanics is not a physical picture of the real world of measurement outcomes, which finally is the only thing that QM talks about.

Jarek wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I do not fill gaps with the supernatural. I simply propose that we accept that irreducible randomness is natural. It is part of nature.

If angels and God you are using are not supernatural, please describe them with natural physics we have no doubts in: with particles and fields of finite propagation speed.

I am not using angels or Gods. Some people in the past found such colourful language useful. If it is hindrance rather than a help for you, then just erase those words. All we have is the mathematical model and heuristics connecting some objects in the mathematical model with things we experience in the real world.

Jarek wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I keep saying, our intuitions are *wrong*.

Our intuition is based on time asymmetry, while you also agree that physics has time/CPT symmetry instead - doesn't this contradiction point an error in our intuition?
You agree that our intuition has a problem, also say you agree with time symmetry - why not start with this contradiction?

No. Part of quantum physics has a time symmetry and part of it doesn't. Born's law is time-asymmetric. And our experience of quantum mechanics also is time asymmetric. Belavkin discovered a really clever way to reconcile these two things but it requires some mental agility and abstract thinking to appreciate it. It's not everyone's cup of tea. I am not the right person to try to popularise his approach, at least, not to physicists. Mathematicians - that's OK. Children - not yet brainwashed to be one or the other kind of person - OK.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

I am physicist (PhD), computer scientist (PhD), but I have also MSc in theoretical mathematics - the combinatorial construction I use: just uniform distribution among paths, can be formalized.
But, as you have also pointed, this is not new - Feynman path ensembles are know to be equivalent with QM, and are a time-symmetric picture.

I am interested in pointing and repairing problem of "nice physics": with particles and fields, understanding required non-locality.
You are reformulating QM instead - replace one set of assumptions with another ... and use supernatural beings to explain non-locality.
If you want to motivate me, please propose a scientific explanation instead for the non-locality problem.

While Feynman path integrals are really tough to formalize, you can start with analogous MERW ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_E ... andom_Walk ): just simple combinatorics - uniform distribution among paths on a graph, already recreating many nonintuitive properties of QM.
It is local in "4D sense", but nonlocal in standard "evolving 3D sense": walker would need to know the future to directly use MERW probabilities.
But this is only an effective model: describes only our information.
In fact the walker just performs some complex evolution - can be deterministic, not knowing it we use the safest assumption: according to Jaynes maximal uncertainty principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
It took me a few years to convince Manfried Faber to MERW, and now he also sees it as a way to save local realism.

The fundamental rules governing our world are time/CPT symmetric or not - there is no a third option, and fundamental physics we use say they do.
- TSVF, MERW are time symmetric and have Born rule,
- example of measurement idealization is Stern-Gerlach experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2% ... experiment ) and it has time symmetry - switching time direction it would behave the same way: particles would still prefer to be aligned or anti-aligned.
Why do you think Born's law is not time symmetric?
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:You are reformulating QM instead - replace one set of assumptions with another ... and use supernatural beings to explain non-locality.
...
The fundamental rules governing our world are time/CPT symmetric or not - there is no a third option, and fundamental physics we use say they do.
...
Why do you think Born's law is not time symmetric?

I am not reformulating QM, and I am not using supernatural beings to explain anything.

Maybe the fundamental physics which physicists use is wrong, and maybe that is why they did not solve the fundamental problem of reconciling QM and GR.

Born's law describes a stochastic process of events in the laboratory whose probability distribution is not symmetric under reversal of time.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

There is this modern physics believed to be well confirmed: built on Lagrangian mechanics - successfully from QFT to GR.
Time/CPT symmetry is literally at its heart, also in Feynman path integrals equivalent with QM - so you propose ... using a few "maybes" instead?
Still don't providing a single real argument why you don't accept modern physics? Like going to mathematics and not accepting symmetry of addition operation ...

Born's law is extremely controversial in intuitive perspective - literally leads to contradiction of "local realism".
In contrast using "4D locality", these squares are just there: one psi from past, second from future.
Please elaborate how would you like to use it in opposite way: against time-symmetry, pro intuitive "local realism"?

And we agreed that "local realism" is incorrect - the question is where is the problem: misunderstanding, how to repair it?
I'm pointing that, accordingly to the rest of physics, it should be "4D locality" instead - and this way the problems disappear.
You disagree - please finally explain why?
So what is the proper repairment for "local realism"? The only approach you have suggested has used angels - could you decompose the
"angelic force" you have used into generally accepted physics: fields and particles?
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:There is this modern physics believed to be well confirmed: built on Lagrangian mechanics - successfully from QFT to GR.
Time/CPT symmetry is literally at its heart, also in Feynman path integrals equivalent with QM - so you propose ... using a few "maybes" instead?
Still don't providing a single real argument why you don't accept modern physics? Like going to mathematics and not accepting symmetry of addition operation ...

Born's law is extremely controversial in intuitive perspective - literally leads to contradiction of "local realism".
In contrast using "4D locality", these squares are just there: one psi from past, second from future.
Please elaborate how would you like to use it in opposite way: against time-symmetry, pro intuitive "local realism"?

And we agreed that "local realism" is incorrect - the question is where is the problem: misunderstanding, how to repair it?
I'm pointing that, accordingly to the rest of physics, it should be "4D locality" instead - and this way the problems disappear.
You disagree - please finally explain why?
So what is the proper repairment for "local realism"? The only approach you have suggested has used angels - could you decompose the
"angelic force" you have used into generally accepted physics: fields and particles?

I do *not* propose to use angels.
I do not propose to modify modern physics.
I have no problems at all with your mathematics. It is compatible with Belavkin's.
You really need to take a look at the mathematics.
Yes there are fields and particles. A good slogan for Belavkin's approach is: the past consists of particles, the future is fields. Born's law is how the two meet.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

the past consists of particles, the future is fields. Born's law is how the two meet.

We agree that "Born's law is how the two meet." like in TSVF ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state ... _formalism ), but I don't agree with "the past consists of particles, the future is fields" - physics says that both contain both.
From one side e.g. electron has singular E~1/r^2 electric field.
From the other we have charge quantization: Gauss/Stokes law returns integer numbers, splitting the region we could finally localize the elementary charges with this law - which are particles ... exactly like finally getting zeros and poles in complex analysis argument principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_principle ).

How would you like to tear away charged particles from EM field?
Particles are localized configurations of the field - are its solitons, probably topological for quantization.
Jarek

Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

### Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Jarek wrote:
the past consists of particles, the future is fields. Born's law is how the two meet.

We agree that "Born's law is how the two meet." like in TSVF ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state ... _formalism ), but I don't agree with "the past consists of particles, the future is fields" - physics says that both contain both.
From one side e.g. electron has singular E~1/r^2 electric field.
From the other we have charge quantization: Gauss/Stokes law returns integer numbers, splitting the region we could finally localize the elementary charges with this law - which are particles ... exactly like finally getting zeros and poles in complex analysis argument principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_principle ).

How would you like to tear away charged particles from EM field?
Particles are localized configurations of the field - are its solitons, probably topological for quantization.

Physics does not say that past and future both contain particles and waves. That is your interpretation of mathematics which the physicists have found useful. The fact is that we human beings experience time going in a rather definite direction, and moreover, in the lab, we see an electron choosing one of the two possible paths out of the Stern-Gerlach device. QM tells us the probability it will go each way.

Complex analysis is a wonderful tool. I think you are wrong to think that the pictures we can draw in complex analysis are pictures of what is actually going on in the real world. We do not live in complex Hilbert space. We live in houses and we work in laboratories. We experience a "real" world in which random things happen. Fortunately we have found out how to compute the probability of those random events, and moreover to harness the possibilities which QM offers for exciting applications (technologies).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext