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

Postby Jarek » Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:20 pm

gill1109 wrote: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).


In all scales we use e.g. time/CPT symmetric Lagrangian mechanics: from QFT to GR - what means that past and future are conceptually the same, not completely different: one particles, second waves. Wave-particle duality also says they are both. If you want to use some made up asymmetries, please at least give any argument.
Imagine general relativity: we live in spacetime satisfying Einstein's equation for intrinsic curvature.
Particles are their trajectories there - what happens with them when passing "present moment"?
Where exactly is this "present moment"? Remember that, starting with special relativity, hyperplane of constant time is no longer objective - depends on velocity of observer.

Regarding complex analysis, I also see it only as a tool - e.g. to represent periodic processes, or vector fields in 2D. Here I meant the latter.
We know that charge is quantized in nature, Gauss law "counts" charge inside a region - it should only return integer values.
However, standard Gauss law allows for any real charge instead - we need to repair it, and it can be done analogously to the argument principle: by using topological charge and Gauss-Bonnet theorem - saying that integrating curvature of vector field over a closed surface we get topological charge inside - which has to be integer.
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:30 am

Jarek wrote:In all scales we use e.g. time/CPT symmetric Lagrangian mechanics: from QFT to GR - what means that past and future are conceptually the same, not completely different: one particles, second waves. Wave-particle duality also says they are both. If you want to use some made up asymmetries, please at least give any argument.

I gave you the argument, I gave you the mathematical solution, you are not interested, you don't have the patience to learn some simple new maths concepts. Obviously, I am not the one who could teach them to you. Probably, no one can.

But, no problem, don't be interested! You are a physicist, not a logician or a mathematician, so you are not interested in logical consistency. You are just interested in getting the right answer. "Shut up and calculate", right? You know how to calculate and you have a number of dogmas which you like to stick to, you don't see any logical inconsistencies, so you are fine. Schrödinger invented the Schrödinger cat paradox. Why is it a paradox? Because there are two ways to shut up and calculate and they give different answers. Fortunately, you know the right answer so you are not bothered by the logical inconsistency. You can ignore the sense-less answer.

I am very interested in the mathematics you use. I hope to learn it, in the coming seasons... But life is short and I have some other more pressing concerns.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:49 am

I am the "Shut up and calculate" person here? I fight with this dangerous view for more than a decade. And I am also a mathematics (MSc) and computer science (PhD) person.
You are proposing some supernatural solutions, recently some asymmetry "particles in the past, fields in the future" - I don't understand and was asking for elaboration.
For example EM field is required for e.g. Coulomb interaction - are you claiming it was nonexistent in the past?

Let me briefly summarize from my perspective. The main question here is why "local realism" is wrong.
You still propose some nonlocality, spooky/angelic action at a distance - what is still "shut up and calculate" for me, I don't consider it a "logical" solution, it is an anti-motivation for studying your materials.
In contrast, I am proposing just replacing it with "4D local realism", like e.g. in Lagrangian mechanics, general relativity or Feynman/Boltzmann path ensembles - and the problems just disappear.
For example we get the problematic Born rule from uniform path ensemble in two lines, you cannot find time to look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_e ... derivation
Image
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:57 pm

Jarek wrote:I am the "Shut up and calculate" person here? I fight with this dangerous view for more than a decade. And I am also a mathematics (MSc) and computer science (PhD) person.
You are proposing some supernatural solutions, recently some asymmetry "particles in the past, fields in the future" - I don't understand and was asking for elaboration.
For example EM field is required for e.g. Coulomb interaction - are you claiming it was nonexistent in the past?

Let me briefly summarize from my perspective. The main question here is why "local realism" is wrong.
You still propose some nonlocality, spooky/angelic action at a distance - what is still "shut up and calculate" for me, I don't consider it a "logical" solution, it is an anti-motivation for studying your materials.
In contrast, I am proposing just replacing it with "4D local realism", like e.g. in Lagrangian mechanics, general relativity or Feynman/Boltzmann path ensembles - and the problems just disappear.
For example we get the problematic Born rule from uniform path ensemble in two lines, you cannot find time to look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_e ... derivation
Image

You asked for elaboration. I told you where you could find elaboration. You refused to take the trouble to understand the pure mathematical concepts isomorphism, endomorphism. I think our communications are at an end.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:28 pm

I am trying to perform a scientific discussion here - using direct arguments, avoiding requirement to use external sources.
In contrast, instead of replying with arguments, you usually refer to "a sacred text you definitely find all the answers in". I have tried but didn't.

I am interested here in understanding why "local realism" is wrong, how to repair this misunderstanding, proposing using "4D local realism" instead.
The only your solution to this basic problem/question I have seen has used angelic force, so I ask for elaboration, but no luck.
You also don't want to discuss what I propose, only refer to your sacred text.
Recently you claimed "past are particles, future are fields" asymmetry, as explained I see again as extremely controversial and problematic - asking for elaboration ... but no luck - all knowing sacred text again.

I would gladly discuss, but need scientific arguments I could address.
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:48 am

Jarek wrote:I am trying to perform a scientific discussion here - using direct arguments, avoiding requirement to use external sources.
In contrast, instead of replying with arguments, you usually refer to "a sacred text you definitely find all the answers in". I have tried but didn't.

I am interested here in understanding why "local realism" is wrong, how to repair this misunderstanding, proposing using "4D local realism" instead.
The only your solution to this basic problem/question I have seen has used angelic force, so I ask for elaboration, but no luck.
You also don't want to discuss what I propose, only refer to your sacred text.
Recently you claimed "past are particles, future are fields" asymmetry, as explained I see again as extremely controversial and problematic - asking for elaboration ... but no luck - all knowing sacred text again.

I would gladly discuss, but need scientific arguments I could address.

What "sacred text" are you talking about???? Why are you talking about "angelic force"????

You ask for elaboration and scientific arguments, and I refer you to a rather simple introduction, by me, to Belavkin's work. If you don't want to read it, don't. But anyway, in case you do feel like giving it another chance, here is the reference. I also give you two references for further reading.

I believe that there is a "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics. I believe it is resolved by Belavkin's work. I believe that the very interesting framework which you are promoting is not a solution to the measurement problem at all. But I agree that it is really fascinating and worth learning about.

I know that most physicists think that them measurement problem was solved long ago, or was actually never a problem at all. However, logical reasoning is not their strongest talent.
======================================================

"Schrödinger's cat meets Occam's razor"
Richard D. Gill
https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2723

Further references:
N.P. Landsman (1995), Observation and superselection in quantum mechanics, SHPMP 26, 1355–2198. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411173
V.P. Belavkin (2007), Eventum Mechanics of Quantum Trajectories: Continual Measurements, Quantum Predictions and Feedback Control.
Submitted to Reviews on Mathematical Physics. https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0702079
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:50 am

As we have very different ways of thinking, reading doesn't mean understanding as you are. Let us just have a discussion not a reference exchange - please just briefly write how you understand:
- what is the misunderstanding in "local realism"? I interpret you agree that the problem is in "locality"?
How to repair it - do we need "action at a distance": reason-result chains faster than speed of light? Instant?
- I believe that using "4D locality" instead like Feynman/Boltzmann path ensemble repairs this problem and is well motivated (time/CPT symmetry of physics we use).
You partially agreed, but added asymmetry: that "there are particles in the past, fields in the future" - please elaborate. If there were no fields in the past, there was no e.g. EM interaction - what arguments do you have?
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Heinera » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:47 am

Jarek wrote:- what is the misunderstanding in "local realism"? I interpret you agree that the problem is in "locality"?

Let me just chip in here in order to make the mess complete: The "problem" with local realism is not locality, it is realism.
Heinera
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:12 am

Heinara, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... al_realism :
real states exist independently of the observer (realism)

So you claim that states are not objective, but subjective: depending on observer?
Please specify how do you understand "observer" - does he/she need to to be biological? alive? conscious?
How does physics operate without such observers nearby, e.g. far from us, before us?
E.g. Stern-Gerlach is example of measurement, requiring only strong magnetic field, like near pulsars - does it count as measurement? Who/what is the observer?

ps. Richard, beside better understanding of (much clearer) positions of discussants, another advantage of avoiding external references is that others can easily join such discussion.
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:56 am

Jarek wrote:Heinara, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... al_realism :
real states exist independently of the observer (realism)

So you claim that states are not objective, but subjective: depending on observer?

Oh, it was not me that wrote that sentence, so you shouldn't infer that those words is something I claim.

With "realism", I mean the assumption that our physical models should also be able to model an experiment independently of whether it is performed or not, and that probabilities are merely epistemic, that is, they only reflect our lack of knowledge of the precise state.

Jarek wrote:Please specify how do you understand "observer" - does he/she need to to be biological? alive? conscious?
How does physics operate without such observers nearby, e.g. far from us, before us?
E.g. Stern-Gerlach is example of measurement, requiring only strong magnetic field, like near pulsars - does it count as measurement? Who/what is the observer?

I don't understand "observers", in fact I try to take great care in not mentioning them at all. But this all relates to the measurement problem, which has not been solved in my opinion, despite many claims to the opposite. E.g. decoherence, which simply moves the bump under the carpet to another place.
Heinera
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:17 am

I also treat probabilities only as our description: the safest assumption for our incomplete knowledge - for this purpose we should use Jaynes maximal entropy principle, what e.g. in MERW ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_e ... andom_walk ) leads to Anderson localization, Born rules, Bell violation etc.

The question is if there exists some objective (ontological) physics below - what I would understand as realism, and argue that it can be combined with locality - if only using time-symmetric "4D locality" - path ensembles like Feynman or in MERW.

Negating such realism means there is no objective physics, suggests that there is only subjective (?) ... but subjective to who/what?
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:16 am

Jarek wrote:I also treat probabilities only as our description: the safest assumption for our incomplete knowledge - for this purpose we should use Jaynes maximal entropy principle, what e.g. in MERW ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_e ... andom_walk ) leads to Anderson localization, Born rules, Bell violation etc.

The question is if there exists some objective (ontological) physics below - what I would understand as realism, and argue that it can be combined with locality - if only using time-symmetric "4D locality" - path ensembles like Feynman or in MERW.

Negating such realism means there is no objective physics, suggests that there is only subjective (?) ... but subjective to who/what?

I like to have my cake and eat it. I will take as working assumption that there exists an objective real world, an objective physics. Of course, I cannot prove this is so. I do fully realise that everything I think I know is just how my brain reacts to incoming stimuli and I cannot escape my "subjective" view of the world. Descartes said "I think therefore I am". That's a nice slogan, but it doesn't tell us that anything else "is".

There is a school in the foundations of quantum mechanics (and the foundations of physics) called QBism, the "B" originally stood for Bayesian, and meant that probability is something epistemological, not ontological. *Your* probabilities are a function of *your* (imperfect, partial) knowledge. No more and no less. They are not objective physical properties of things in the real world.

I agree that the subjectivist view is needed to understand psychology and to study the mind-brain problem; it's part of the core of modern AI and deep neural networks and future robots and all that stuff. I also find it fascinating that it seems to be a major part of the Buddha's insights, 2500 years ago. He used meditation techniques to study the working of his own mind. And his findings are very much corroborated by modern neuro-science. Though that may just be wishful thinking. Hindsight makes everything so easy. I also find it fascinating that the founders of QM were so deeply fascinated by the ancient Eastern thinking that was just starting to percolate into the Western world. Of course, those people in Eastern Asian cultures who pioneered the export of Eastern thought to the West were themselves confronted by Western thought and cultural assimilation, and deliberately attempting to refashion their traditional world view to make it palatable for those who also needed to operate in Western culture.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:40 am

Richard, again totally egocentric, anthropocentric view - according to human intuition ... and against what physics says: Lagrangian mechanics we successfully use to describe idealizations of physics in all scales.
So subjective observer just makes up this complex world as own? Would human intelligence itself allow to build the world we live in?

Moving perspective from anthropocentric to physics, we are just infinitesimally small - both in space and time.
Physics hasn't started with Adam and Eve, but was evolving for billions of years without us, there are no human observers on other planets ... galaxies.
We are just tiny systems of atoms, governed by this objective physics - not the opposite way: everybody living in own subjective universes.

No, we are not the centers of the universe - objective physics doesn't care about our subjective evaluations and made up egocentric theories.
Also no, there is no nonlocality "spooky/angelic" force at a distance - otherwise, a long time ago we would manage to send information faster than speed of light.

And there is no need for subjective universes or nonlocality - if only replacing egocentric intuitions with the rules of physics, like time/CPT symmetry being at its heart: in general relativity, Lagrangian mechanics, Feynman path integrals, QFT ... and against our egocentric time-asymmetric intuitions.
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:28 am

Jarek wrote:Richard, again totally egocentric, anthropocentric view - according to human intuition ... and against what physics says: Lagrangian mechanics we successfully use to describe idealizations of physics in all scales.
So subjective observer just makes up this complex world as own? Would human intelligence itself allow to build the world we live in?

Moving perspective from anthropocentric to physics, we are just infinitesimally small - both in space and time.
Physics hasn't started with Adam and Eve, but was evolving for billions of years without us, there are no human observers on other planets ... galaxies.
We are just tiny systems of atoms, governed by this objective physics - not the opposite way: everybody living in own subjective universes.

No, we are not the centres of the universe - objective physics doesn't care about our subjective evaluations and made up egocentric theories.
Also no, there is no nonlocality "spooky/angelic" force at a distance - otherwise, a long time ago we would manage to send information faster than the speed of light.

And there is no need for subjective universes or nonlocality - if only replacing egocentric intuitions with the rules of physics, like time/CPT symmetry being at its heart: in general relativity, Lagrangian mechanics, Feynman path integrals, QFT ... and against our egocentric time-asymmetric intuitions.

Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem.

It seems that you don't even realise that it is a problem. Your methodology is interesting and useful, but it does not solve the interpretational problems of unitary quantum mechanics (QM without collapse).

You refuse to read my paper. The Belavkin solution is *not* subjective, it is not egocentric, it is not about human observers. It is not about observers at all. Since you can't handle the (modest amount of) mathematical abstraction in my paper, and you clearly cannot handle Belavkin's own more sophisticated (continuous-time) treatment, you will never know what I am talking about. That's too bad... Maybe we will meet in person some time, maybe we would then be able to make some progress.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:10 pm

Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem.

Ok, so once again here is my Bell violating measurement example construction you would like to criticize:

Image

The considered space is graph on the left with all 8 values of ABC: in 000 and 111 we have to stay, in the remaining vertices we can jump to a neighbor.
The presented measurement of AB in time=0 ignores C - we have 4 possible outcomes (red squares) determining exactly AB.
Assuming uniform probability distribution among paths (from -infinity to +infinity in time like in TSVF), we get Pr(A=B) = (1^2 + 1^2) / (1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2) = 2/10.
Analogously for the remaining pairs, we finally get Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 6/10

To violate Bell, the not measured (C) variable requires literally to have no value (like "coin floating and spinning") - it is realized here, what is additionally verified by not satisfying the inequality.
Please elaborate where do you see a problem here which has lead you to "Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem." statement?
What measurement problem do you refer to?

I have tried to read the Belavkin paper, but didn't find a solution to the basic problem I am interested here: why "local realism" is wrong and how to repair it?
Our discussion here has only confirmed that you don't have solution - you still needed some ("angelic") nonlocality, now in the previous statement you additionally show doubt in realism - so your "solution" is neglecting both locality and realism.
In contrast I believe in Lagrangian mechanics which has both (but in time symmetric way), I can defend it/them, and still haven't seen any physical argument against.
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:46 pm

Richard, previously you have ignored questions regarding your controversial statements like "past are particles, future are fields".
Now a week ago you have expressed a looking concrete criticism to me: "Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem." - I would love to answer, but it needs elaboration what exactly you don't like.
But again there was only silence when bringing back this topic and asking about the problem you claim you have found - let me try one last time, otherwise I am assuming that you don't mean or cannot support what you say.

ps. nicely gathered images with descriptions: http://inspirehep.net/record/834153/plots
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:57 am

I have just accidentally returned to inspiring 20 year old https://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021 - about time/CPT view on the history of the Universe ... and turns out that it just might be approaching the mainstream:
Jan 2019: Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists: https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe ... hysicists/
Based on Latham Boyle, Kieran Finn, and Neil Turok, CPT-Symmetric Universe: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.251301
Also earlier https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

If only more people finally accept time/CPT symmetry of physics we use in all scales - replacing time-asymmetric "local realism" proven to be incorrect, with time-symmetric spacetime "4d local realism" as in action optimization or path ensembles - all the paradoxes like Bell's just disappear.
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:13 am

Jarek wrote:Richard, previously you have ignored questions regarding your controversial statements like "past are particles, future are fields".
Now a week ago you have expressed a looking concrete criticism to me: "Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem." - I would love to answer, but it needs elaboration what exactly you don't like.
But again there was only silence when bringing back this topic and asking about the problem you claim you have found - let me try one last time, otherwise I am assuming that you don't mean or cannot support what you say.

ps. nicely gathered images with descriptions: http://inspirehep.net/record/834153/plots

Sorry, Jarek. I have a real life, indeed, a private real life, as well as an internet life. I'm not going to tell you about my private life here.

Look: it seems to me that you do not understand what the measurement problem is. I am not going to try to explain it to you, I feel it will be a waste of time. If John Bell's words did not get across to you, I'm afraid that mine won't either.

Your approach is a wonderful approach for *doing* no-collapse (ie. unitary) quantum mechanics. Great. It does not solve the *interpretational* problems of "unitary QM". It merely gives us powerful tools for the "shut up and calculate" line. You have fallen in what John Bell called the FAPP trap. FAPP = For All Practical Purposes.

To put it a different way, you have found a theory "behind" QM which is even more weird than QM already was. Which is exactly what von Neuman, Feynman and our other heros predicted. QM as it is makes no sense, and when something is found which "behind the scenes" explains or improves or extends it, it will be even weirder. Fine! I like it! I agree. Please carry on and please keep explaining how your approach works and why we should find it "intuitive". OK it is time symmetric and that is for you a big selling point. I'm not a physicist so that doesn't have sales appeal for me, but OK, many other people will like it. In fact, from a Buddhist perspective , time is cyclic, so that is more or less the same as reversible. The same bloody things just keep happening all over again. We will keep on suffering, for ever.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby Jarek » Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:31 am

Richard, MERW is just random walk done accordingly to (Jaynes) maximal uncertainty principle - in situations with limited knowledge, the safest assumption is the one maximizing entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
This principle is mathematically universal - can be seen as pure combinatorics: entropy is practically log(number of possibilities), hence maximizing it means focusing on cases which will asymptotically dominate.
E.g. knowing only that we have n white and black balls, the safest assumption is that half of them is white as binomial(n,pn) ~ 2^{nh(p)} is maximized for p=1/2, where h(p) = p lg(p) - (1-p)lg(1-p) is Shannon's entropy.

To summarize choice of model, if you ask for probabilities of transitions which are the safest accordingly to limited knowledge - mathematics says you should choose MERW.
I see you disagree - with asking for transition probabilities, or with Jaynes principle? (I can elaborate)

Going to measurement, we
1) need a way to choose basis of observables, and
2) during measurement erase all information but the measurement outcome.
Do you disagree? What more rules would you add here?

Above 2 rules are exactly what my construction does for combinatorial situation:
1) the space of states is split into disjoint subsets corresponding to measurement outcomes, and
2) inside such subsets, each is connected with each: all information but the measurement outcome is erased.
What do you think is wrong/missing here?
Jarek
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:57 am

Re: Simple violation of Bell inequalities

Postby gill1109 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:03 am

Jarek wrote:Richard, MERW is just random walk done accordingly to (Jaynes) maximal uncertainty principle - in situations with limited knowledge, the safest assumption is the one maximizing entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
This principle is mathematically universal - can be seen as pure combinatorics: entropy is practically log(number of possibilities), hence maximizing it means focusing on cases which will asymptotically dominate.
E.g. knowing only that we have n white and black balls, the safest assumption is that half of them is white as binomial(n,pn) ~ 2^{nh(p)} is maximized for p=1/2, where h(p) = p lg(p) - (1-p)lg(1-p) is Shannon's entropy.

To summarize choice of model, if you ask for probabilities of transitions which are the safest accordingly to limited knowledge - mathematics says you should choose MERW.
I see you disagree - with asking for transition probabilities, or with Jaynes principle? (I can elaborate)

Going to measurement, we
1) need a way to choose basis of observables, and
2) during measurement erase all information but the measurement outcome.
Do you disagree? What more rules would you add here?

Above 2 rules are exactly what my construction does for combinatorial situation:
1) the space of states is split into disjoint subsets corresponding to measurement outcomes, and
2) inside such subsets, each is connected with each: all information but the measurement outcome is erased.
What do you think is wrong/missing here?

I don't disagree. I have no problems with this approach. I just have a problem with the idea that this somehow "explains" violation of Bell inequalities. But that "problem" of miunbe depends on what I mean by "explain". You have a different understanding of "explanation" from mine. We agree that it is a fact that there is no *local realist* explanation. (Contrarily to Joy Christian's point of view, which is supported by Fred Diether, who is our host on this forum).

BTW here is a new publication with a new *simple* explanation of Bell inequalities. I think I have seen it before. It does not work for me but maybe others find it useful:
https://ben6993.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/a-comparison-of-bells-theorem-and-maluss-law-action-at-a-distance-is-not-required-in-order-to-explain-results-of-bells-theorem-experiments/
http://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0348v1.pdf
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library