EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

[FrediFizzx]

What did I tell you folks? Bizarre rationalization that an inequality with a higher bound is used for QM and the experiments. The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup. It doesn't apply to QM or the experiments or anything really. Bell's inequalities are never violated. Does QM and the experiments obtain a higher value than the bound on the Bell inequalities? Sure, but it is also possible for a classical system to have a higher bound than what Bell setup because the interdependency Bell setup is false as witnessed above by how QM seemingly violates his bound which it never does. IOW, he has the wrong bound on the inequalities. Bell screwed up thus his theory is junk physics.

[Yablon]

Might I offer the following thoughts about the Bell and CHSH inequalities?

As much as these provide an approach to generalizing the discussion of strong quantum correlations, I believe they obscure the key points which can be made more directly, rather than in the usual roundabout way:

In correlation experiments which start with prepared singlet states, we observe correlations which are stronger than what would be expected from a linear relation only. For example, if a and b are 135 degrees apart in orientation, the correlation is whereas a linear relation would suggest this is merely . There is a correspondence between the strong result and the linear result only at 0, 90, 180 and 270 degree orientation differences.

Bell claims that it is impossible, even in principle, to formulate a local realistic hidden variable (LRHV) theory which can explain why these correlations are stronger at all but at separation angles , where . The prevailing view is that quantum mechanics (QM) does explain these strong correlations, but that it is not an LRHV theory. If it were possible to present an LRVH theory which does explain these strong correlations, then Bell would be refuted by counterexample. So while I know it is vogue, why don't we set aside all of the "inequalities" discussion and focus directly on the theoretical physics of the mechanisms which bring about the strong correlations?

And especially, why don't we see if we are overlooking something in quantum mechanics itself, which actually reveals QM to be an LRHV theory which to date has simply not been understood as such?

Jay

[Heinera]

The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup.

Ah, so you think that it is the possibility to do multiple measurements with different detector settings on the same particle that is the culprit here. I will come back to you why this doesn't really matter, since this is the thing I overlooked at first (ref my earlier post, where you requested I be concrete about what I initially overlooked when I first encountered Bell's theorem).

But first I want to ask you: In Joy's proposed macroscopic experiment, isn't it the case that you can measure every exploding ball fragment as many times as you like, with different angles? And that is actually what he encourages? But he still expects to see the quantum correlations, so the interdependency that you are claiming is the culprit can have nothing to do with anything, right?

[Heinera]

And especially, why don't we see if we are overlooking something in quantum mechanics itself, which actually reveals QM to be an LRHV theory which to date has simply not been understood as such?

Jay

Well, Bell (or rather, his successors C, H, S, and H) showed that, given a LRHV theory, the upper bound for the CHSH expression must be 2. This has nothing to do with QM; only classical physics is used in the derivation of this bound. No wonder, since Bell wanted to derive an upper bound for classical physics. The only reason QM got dragged into this was because it's predictions just happens to violate this upper bound, and it was also the theory that (almost) everyone believed in. So then the whole thing suddenly became sort of a big deal. One could now safely conclude that QM could not be replicated by some modified version of classical physics (which every physicist already knew, anyway).

There can thus be nothing we have overlooked in QM itself that makes it a classical LHRV theory, unless it takes the CHSH expression below 2. Which would then no longer make it QM (and also empirically wrong, given the latest experiments.)

[Yablon]

There can thus be nothing we have overlooked in QM itself that makes it a classical LHRV theory, unless it takes the CHSH expression below 2. Which would then no longer make it QM (and also empirically wrong, given the latest experiments.)

I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.

[FrediFizzx]

There can thus be nothing we have overlooked in QM itself that makes it a classical LHRV theory, unless it takes the CHSH expression below 2. Which would then no longer make it QM (and also empirically wrong, given the latest experiments.)

I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.

Well, you will end up with a huge debate about whether it is realistic or not being in QM and I don't think Bell ever said it had to be realistic so perhaps better to just go with a QM local HV model.

Of course once you show that QM has a hidden variable and that it is indeed local, it is much easier to claim that QM is realistic "out of the box". Real probability factors for real physical events.
.

[Heinera]

I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.

But an LHRV theory is basically the definition of a classical theory. I prefer "local realistic" to "hidden variables", but that's more a preference for phrases.

The point is that if a theory is "realistic", (i.e. you can compute definite outcomes even for experiments not performed, but only thought of), and "local" (Alice's choice does not influence Bob's result), then it's classical in my view. And for these theories, the CHSH expression has an upper bound of 2.

[FrediFizzx]

I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.

But an LHRV theory is basically the definition of a classical theory. I prefer "local realistic" to "hidden variables", but that's more a preference for phrases.

The point is that if a theory is "realistic", (i.e. you can compute definite outcomes even for experiments not performed, but only thought of), and "local" (Alice's choice does not influence Bob's result), then it's classical in my view. And for these theories, the CHSH expression has an upper bound of 2.

Realism is not the same as determinism.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnew ... ckpage.cfm
"Striving for Realism, Not for Determinism: Historical Misconceptions on Einstein and Bohm"

Realism can be as simple as QM is about real probability factors for real physical events so QM is realistic "out of the box". It doesn't have to be deterministic.
.

[FrediFizzx]

The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup.

Ah, so you think that it is the possibility to do multiple measurements with different detector settings on the same particle that is the culprit here. I will come back to you why this doesn't really matter, since this is the thing I overlooked at first (ref my earlier post, where you requested I be concrete about what I initially overlooked when I first encountered Bell's theorem). ...snip...

The real "culprit" here is that people claim QM and the experiments violate Bell's inequalities when the fact is that no such thing ever happened. They simply don't use Bell's inequalities but one with a higher bound. It is cheating and there is absolutely no rationalization that can be true for it.

[minkwe]

What did I tell you folks? Bizarre rationalization that an inequality with a higher bound is used for QM and the experiments. The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup. It doesn't apply to QM or the experiments or anything really. Bell's inequalities are never violated. Does QM and the experiments obtain a higher value than the bound on the Bell inequalities? Sure, but it is also possible for a classical system to have a higher bound than what Bell setup because the interdependency Bell setup is false as witnessed above by how QM seemingly violates his bound which it never does. IOW, he has the wrong bound on the inequalities. Bell screwed up thus his theory is junk physics.

Fred,
This is what Hess and De Raedt describe in their paper I posted recently https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 60007/meta.

"Therefore, if we have a violation of a non-trivial Boole inequality, then we must conclude that we have not achieved a one to one correspondence of our variables to the elementary eternally true logical variables of Boole and that we need further “coordinates” that will then remove the cyclicity."

I've also found very clear illustrations of this problem in generative effects from category theory. For example, consider a class of three element systems made up elements F, J, G and relationships between them. The following systems are possible with parenthesis representing relationships.

{(F)(J)(G)}, {(F,J)(G)}, {(F)(J,G)}, {(F,G)(J)}, {(F, J, G)}

Let us propose a measurement Q we can make on any of the systems. Let Q be the question. "Are F and J related?" with the result being either "True" or "False".

Thus Q{(F)(J)(G)} = Q{(F,G)(J)} = False, and Q{(F,J)(G)} = Q{(F, J, G)} = True

We can also have a relationship-preserving join operations V, on two system such that for example {(F)(J)(G)} V {(F,J)(G)} = {(F,J)(G)}. and {(F)(J,G)} V {(F,G)(J)} = {(F, J, G)}. The join operation preserves the relationship so that if F and G are related in one of the systems they will be related in the resulting joined system.

Consider however, the the following join. {(F)(J,G)} V {(F,G)(J)} = {(F, J, G)}.
Note that Q{(F)(J,G)} = Q{(F,G)(J)} = false, but Q{(F, J, G)} = true. In other words, F and J are not related in each of the two cases but after joining, they are related. That is The (F,J) relationship in the joined system was generated by the join. But how does this apply to the Bell situation? The point is that in trying to understand relationships between three things, measuring pairs separately and then combining them is not the same as combining the three things and directly measuring the paired relationships. If you
separately extract information from your raw data and combine the results, it gives different results than if you combine the raw data and extract information from it.

When we discuss Bell's inequalities and QM you'll notice interesting things happening. Bell's inequalities are derived by thinking of all the relationships together and extracting pairs from it to do measurements. But when it comes to QM and experiments, the opposite is done, everything is treated in pairs and only after the paired results are obtained, are they combined.



This is demonstrated in other ways by Vorob,ev in http://www.panix.com/~jays/vorob.pdf

It is disappointing that facts are ignored by the quantum mysterians.

[gill1109]

Dear friends of Bell controversy

At last a bit more news about the symposium plans. Feel free to contact the organizers, whether in private or on this forum, if you have suggestions or would like to help out in any other way. But first a little summary of how we got here.

Three months ago I made the following announcement on the web site of the journal "Royal Society Open Source", in the thread devoted to the controversial paper by Joy Christian:

"To resolve our scientific differences in person rather than on internet forums, Joy Christian and I are planning a public symposium at Leiden University (Netherlands) centered on a presentation by Christian of his work. A debate between Gill and Christian will be moderated by Jay R. Yablon, whom we have each asked to privately mediate between us in this undertaking. The symposium will also include invited talks by other Bell critics and Bell supporters, panel discussions and further, moderated but open, debate. As we work toward this event, I will no longer be posting at this forum about our differences."

We are now at the stage of starting to write a proposal to the Lorentz Center in Leiden. It would be a "normal" one-week scientific workshop of quite intimate nature, i.e., few carefully selected participants, but it would also have a large one-day public symposium as the centerpiece. The next deadline for proposals to the Lorentz Center is Monday 30 September 2019. I envisage a multidisciplinary workshop on Bell inequalities (or if you prefer: Bell's theorem) and quantum foundations *and* about scientific controversy and science politics - thus the disciplines sociology of science, history of science, and philosophy of science are involved as well as physics and mathematics.

Below are links to the two relevant RSOS web pages, and to Lorentz Center mission and workshop organization.

Richard Gill


"Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives" by Joy Christian,
published 30 May 2018 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.180526


The mission of the Lorentz center:
https://www.lorentzcenter.nl/aim.php

Information for workshop organizers:
https://www.lorentzcenter.nl/infoorg.php

******************************************************************************************************************************
Mission Statement

The Lorentz Center is a national center for international workshops in all scientific disciplines. Our guiding philosophy is that innovative research thrives on interaction between creative researchers. Lorentz Center workshops focus on new collaborations and on interactions in highly diverse groups of researchers – international and with different scientific viewpoints as well as seniority, gender, and culture.
The Lorentz Center concept

At the Lorentz Center, groups of researchers are brought together to assess the status of a field and share results, problems, methods, and views on future directions of research. Groups can be accommodated in two dedicated venues: Lorentz Center@Oort and Lorentz Center@Snellius, optimized for group sizes up to 55 or 25 participants. Both provide personal working space for all participants, as well as lecture rooms and a casual common room. The workshops usually last 5 days, allowing participants to discuss their research in depth, through a combination of informal talks, working sessions, and discussions. New contacts and collaborations are typical outcomes of Lorentz Center workshops.

Workshops organized by researchers from different scientific backgrounds are welcomed as well as monodisciplinary workshops. Workshops can be proposed and organized by any researcher in any field of research, at any professional level, and from any country. Groups of organizers from institutions in different countries and/or the public and private sectors are encouraged. In short, the Lorentz Center is committed to stimulate diversity in all aspects. Application procedures are aimed at rapid evaluation, with a go/no-go decision within three months and your workshop taking place within sixteen months after the submission deadline. Proposals for workshops are peer-reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Boards. Currently, the advisory boards are astronomy, chemistry, informatics, life and medical sciences, mathematics, physics, the highly interdisciplinary computational sciences, and the NIAS-Lorentz board covering the social sciences and humanities.

The development of our workshop concept in the social sciences and humanities is supported by the NIAS-Lorentz Program, with the dedicated scientific advisory board mentioned above. In 2015 support from Leiden University allowed us to fully embrace the social sciences and humanities. With this expansion, it is our ambition that our workshop program will cover the full academic spectrum. The partnership with NIAS, the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences, was initiated in 2006. The NIAS-Lorentz program explicitly also encourages initiatives that bridge the natural and technical sciences with the social sciences and humanities. We already have a significant track record of successful interactions and we expect that the need for and significance of such meetings is growing.


Surrounded by excellence

The Lorentz Center is situated in the faculty of Science of Leiden University – the oldest university in the Netherlands. The two workshop venues are in the Oort and Snellius buildings, which also host the Leiden Institute of Physics, the Leiden Observatory (astronomy), the Mathematical Institute and the Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science. The biology, chemistry and pharmacology departments are located in adjacent buildings. Leiden University also includes the faculties of archeology, humanities, law, social and behavioral sciences, and the Leiden University Medical Center which are all within 10 minutes by bicycle. The faculty of governance and global affairs in the Hague is 10 minutes by train. The other Dutch universities and research institutes can easily be reached by public transport; the universities in Amsterdam, Delft, Rotterdam and Utrecht are within one hour by train. Schiphol International Airport is reached by train in 20 minutes.
Support

The Lorentz Center receives structural financial support by Leiden University, the Dutch research councils and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research NWO. The Lorentz Center also is granted funding for specific workshops by the Lorentz Fund, Netherlands eScience Center, Centre Européen de Calcul Atomique et Moléculaire CECAM and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Science KNAW.

[FrediFizzx]

The Lorentz Center looks like a very nice place. It looks like they are booked up pretty good for the rest of this year. Are you going to be able to get a spot early next year?

[gill1109]

The Lorentz Center looks like a very nice place. It looks like they are booked up pretty good for the rest of this year. Are you going to be able to get a spot early next year?

I think that the sooner we write *and submit* an outstanding proposal, the more likely we are to get both an attractive and early time slot. Significant financial support also helps. Also, it helps to be able to document the fact that people we want to invite are actually interested in coming to the meeting. So we need to have had promising contacts with any persons we want to name as "likely (or desired) participants" etc.

I think we also need a co-organiser of outstanding international reputation who has *not* had anything whatever to do with Joy and my "rumble in the jungle" so far, except perhaps to disapprove of it. Preferably neither a mathematician nor a physicist. Preferably a philosopher or a social psychologist or a legal scholar or a historian. [My brain is coming up with the most audacious ideas as these words come out of my fingers].

In other words, there is a lot of work to be done, and a lot of creativity is going to be needed.

[gill1109]

A few days ago,

Below are links to the two relevant RSOS web pages, and to Lorentz Center mission and workshop organization.

This should have been:

Below are links to the relevant RSOS web page and to the Lorentz Center mission and workshop organization webpages.

I am talking to some potential co-organisers - the initial team of myself and Jay needs to be expanded to about five. And Jay has to agree to what comes out of my initial contacts! I obviously can't announce anything till the team has been finalised. And maybe we will even then only be able to say that we have a team and that it is working hard to deliver a proposal by 30 September.

In 10 days I will see a lot of people at Växjö for the conference Quantum Information Revolution: Impact to Foundations‽ (QIRIF‽), 10-13 June, 2019, https://lnu.se/en/research/conferences/quantum-information-revolution-impact-to-foundations-qirif-10-13-juni-2019/. I will see if I can trigger the formation of another team with another location in mind... so we have a kind of competition, or if you prefer, a back-up plan.

[gill1109]

In the mean-time, I have put to Jay a proposal for a complete team of co-organisers. Jay tells me those names are fine by him and he tells me that Joy is happy with them too. So now I have to contact each of them, in turn, and hope they are as enthusiastic as we are. If so the real work of writing the proposal (workshop plus embedded symposium) can then at last start.

[FrediFizzx]

With the advent of Joy's hidden variable in quantum mechanics, this should be a very interesting symposium indeed!

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf

[Joy Christian]

I think Joy should aim at convincing others. The point of the symposium is to give Joy a podium on which to do so. I offered him this symposium in order to atone, as far as I can, for the anguish I caused him in the past. I should not have pursued him, like I did, to all far corners of the internet! It was an unhealthy obsession on my part, and it caused harm to Joy and to others, which I'm deeply sorry for.

Apology accepted, as long as it is sincere.

***

[Yablon]

I think Joy should aim at convincing others. The point of the symposium is to give Joy a podium on which to do so. I offered him this symposium in order to atone, as far as I can, for the anguish I caused him in the past. I should not have pursued him, like I did, to all far corners of the internet! It was an unhealthy obsession on my part, and it caused harm to Joy and to others, which I'm deeply sorry for.

Apology accepted, as long as it is sincere.

***

This is wonderful to hear! Time to put all of the past in the past and only look forward.

[Heinera]

Curious to know if there has been any progress on organizing this symposium (2020 is only four months away...)

[local]

Prof. Gill was equivocating about it on another thread:

"do we really need a symposium on this ancient stuff? I doubt that yet another symposium is going to definitively resolve the EPR paradox and the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics"

viewtopic.php?p=9627#p9627