To all Physics Fans,

At long last we have what you have all been waiting for. Quantum Mechanics with a hidden variable.

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf

It turns out that it is the same as Joy Christian's hidden variable. This was Jay Yablon's original idea which with the help of Joy, I was able to make work.

Enjoy!

Note that this is a draft for feedback only.

At long last we have what you have all been waiting for. Quantum Mechanics with a hidden variable.

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf

It turns out that it is the same as Joy Christian's hidden variable. This was Jay Yablon's original idea which with the help of Joy, I was able to make work.

Enjoy!

Note that this is a draft for feedback only.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:To all Physics Fans,

At long last we have what you have all been waiting for. Quantum Mechanics with a hidden variable.

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v1.pdf

It turns out that it is the same as Joy Christian's hidden variable. This was Jay Yablon's original idea which with the help of Joy, I was able to make work.

Enjoy!

Note that this is a draft for feedback only.

Exciting! Excellent!

My feedback so far: in conventional quantum mechanics, we distinguish between *state vectors* and *states*. Different state vectors can be used to represent the same state. The philosophy of science definition of "state" is something like the truth, the whole truth, and *nothing but the truth*. More precisely, it is *exactly* "all you need to know" (with no superfluous decorations or embellishments"). You could also say: it is the *naked* truth. Reduced to its bare essentials.

So are you saying (or going to say) that the two state vectors (1a) and (1b) actually correspond to different states? In other words, one can by observation (if only statistically, i.e. given many independent copies), distinguish which state vector the system has?

Typo: "well know identities" -> "well known identities"

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1653**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

***

(1a) and (1b) are one and the same quantum state (since they evidently differ only by an overall phase factor), but they have different chiralities.

***

(1a) and (1b) are one and the same quantum state (since they evidently differ only by an overall phase factor), but they have different chiralities.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2161**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:(1a) and (1b) are one and the same quantum state (since they evidently differ only by an overall phase factor), but they have different chiralities.

According to conventional quantum theory, and according to the conventional concept of "physical state" [which is not tied to any particular physical framework - ie independent of whether we go for QM or CM (classical mechanics)], (1a) and (1b) are just different labels which actually represent the same physical state. That is because an overall phase factor makes no difference to any of the empirical predictions of conventional quantum theory.

Jay, Fred, or Joy: are you suggesting that that difference between the two state vectors has empirical consequences? In other words, are you saying that what we usually call "the quantum state" is not actually a complete representation of "the state" at all?

That certainly fits with Joy's idea of adding a binary hidden variable to "complete" QM in the way that Einstein and his colleagues believed should be possible, if the theory was indeed (close to) accurate.

The question after that is obviously going to be: is your completion also *local*? ie have you created a *local* hidden variables theory. Not just any hidden variables theory. We already know that there are *contextual* hidden variable models a-plenty. According to Bell's (usually called Kochen-Specker's) no go theorem, there are no *non-contextual* models beyond Hilbert space dimension 2.

"Locality" is a particular kind of contextuality. Alice's outcome should not depend on Bob's measurement. But we do allow Alice's outcome to depend on whatever else Alice is doing.

"No-signalling" is a weaker form of locality: Alice shouldn't, statistically, be able to see what Bob is doing.

Obviously, your paper isn't written yet; it is in its initial stages. But you are already solliciting feed-back, I understood. Obviously too, you don't have to give me an answer if you want to keep it a secret for the time being. I repeat that I think that this is a splendid project.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1653**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

Hang on, we are sorting out an error that we found.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Hi Folks,

Here we go with Take 2.

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf

It now conforms with what Jay Yablon has presented here,

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

Enjoy!

.

Here we go with Take 2.

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf

It now conforms with what Jay Yablon has presented here,

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

Enjoy!

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

gill1109 wrote:According to conventional quantum theory, and according to the conventional concept of "physical state" [which is not tied to any particular physical framework - ie independent of whether we go for QM or CM (classical mechanics)], (1a) and (1b) are just different labels which actually represent the same physical state. That is because an overall phase factor makes no difference to any of the empirical predictions of conventional quantum theory.

Yeah, we had to fix that to conform to what Jay presented. If you view the right handed state from the right handed perspective it looks exactly the same as the left handed state viewed from the left handed perspective. So when viewing the left handed state from the right handed perspective it is minus of the right handed state. It is a parity thing for 3D space.

Jay, Fred, or Joy: are you suggesting that that difference between the two state vectors has empirical consequences? In other words, are you saying that what we usually call "the quantum state" is not actually a complete representation of "the state" at all?

It is now that we have the left and right handed states defined correctly. It's hidden, isn't it?

That certainly fits with Joy's idea of adding a binary hidden variable to "complete" QM in the way that Einstein and his colleagues believed should be possible, if the theory was indeed (close to) accurate.

I don't think Joy ever proposed to put his hidden variable into QM. That is Jay's idea. And it works magnificently!

The question after that is obviously going to be: is your completion also *local*? ie have you created a *local* hidden variables theory. Not just any hidden variables theory. We already know that there are *contextual* hidden variable models a-plenty. According to Bell's (usually called Kochen-Specker's) no go theorem, there are no *non-contextual* models beyond Hilbert space dimension 2.

One step at a time. The first step is to make the HV work in QM. That part is done. Now..., since we have successfully implemented Joy's HV into QM, you can actually just take Joy's model for proof of the rest of it. But don't worry. We have actually worked out the rest of it concerning locality easy peasy in QM. We are just waiting on further developments by Jay to launch that part of it so that it all conforms. Jay has been working really hard on it.

"Locality" is a particular kind of contextuality. Alice's outcome should not depend on Bob's measurement. But we do allow Alice's outcome to depend on whatever else Alice is doing.

"No-signalling" is a weaker form of locality: Alice shouldn't, statistically, be able to see what Bob is doing.

We have absolutely no problem with any of that in QM. QM is local after all.

Obviously, your paper isn't written yet; it is in its initial stages. But you are already solliciting feed-back, I understood. Obviously too, you don't have to give me an answer if you want to keep it a secret for the time being. I repeat that I think that this is a splendid project.

Yeah, we jumped the gun a bit and had to revise to get all of our duckies in the same row. It is all magnificent now! Bell's junk physic theory is definitely in the junk pile now! And a lot of bad interpretations of QM are going there also. Yes, it is definitely a splendid project. Thank you Jay.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Folks,

Here we go with Take 2.

download/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable_draft_v2.pdf

It now conforms with what Jay Yablon has presented here,

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

Enjoy!

.

And thank you, Joy! For your wonderful discovery!

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghost away!

.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghost away!

.

Sorry I did not respond yet! I did not yet digest the work which you guys have done.

But I will comment on your claims, Fred.

1) QM has been completed by the addition of HV many many times in the past. The most well-developed theory being Bohmian mechanics. It's been done. There are even lots of people developing it further. It seems that Bohmian mechanics even does make predictions about experiment which eventually will be testable. However, it also has a lot of problems. The Born rule about the probability of measurement outcomes is not actually *derived* in Bohmian theory. One can "insert" it by taking suitable probability distribution of the initial conditions.

2) Whether or not you call it local depends on how you define local. And how you define local depends on what you take to be "real" ie located in space-time. And where you locate it in space-time!

Fact remains that Bell's theorem is an uncontroversial theorem in distributed classical computing. If your work is successful then you will be able to prove to the world that you were successful by implementing a loophole-free computer experiment (as in the quantum Randi challenge).

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1653**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghosts away!

.

Fred, please explain -- "QM with a hidden variable" -- what is "new" with your finding?

What is the symbol and physical significance of your HV?

Thanks.

- Gordon Watson
**Posts:**255**Joined:**Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghost away!

.

Sorry I did not respond yet! I did not yet digest the work which you guys have done.

But I will comment on your claims, Fred.

1) QM has been completed by the addition of HV many many times in the past. The most well-developed theory being Bohmian mechanics. It's been done. There are even lots of people developing it further. It seems that Bohmian mechanics even does make predictions about experiment which eventually will be testable. However, it also has a lot of problems. The Born rule about the probability of measurement outcomes is not actually *derived* in Bohmian theory. One can "insert" it by taking suitable probability distribution of the initial conditions.

2) Whether or not you call it local depends on how you define local. And how you define local depends on what you take to be "real" ie located in space-time. And where you locate it in space-time!

Fact remains that Bell's theorem is an uncontroversial theorem in distributed classical computing. If your work is successful then you will be able to prove to the world that you were successful by implementing a loophole-free computer experiment (as in the quantum Randi challenge).

Sure, there have been many attempts at HV theories in QM starting with Einstein in 1927 but they all have problems that can't be overcome. This one has absolutely no problems. It is too simple to have problems. And of course we define local in the Bell sense. Only a fool would try to play the "rigged" quantum Randi challenge. Joy's model already beat that hands down.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Gordon Watson wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927. Now, once you have the HV in QM, it is trivial to show that it is also local as far as EPR-Bohm is concerned. No more spookiness! Gone! Poof! Chase those ghosts away!

.

Fred, please explain -- "QM with a hidden variable" -- what is "new" with your finding?

What is the symbol and physical significance of your HV?

Thanks.

??? Did you read the paper? It is the same HV as Joy's. It has never actually been implemented directly in quantum mechanics. That is what is new.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927.

Have you heard of Bohmian mechanics?

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927.

Have you heard of Bohmian mechanics?

Sure. it is more junk physics and grossly non-local. Pretty un-successful.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hmm... no comments so far from the Bell fans so I guess we indeed have quantum mechanics with a hidden variable! After doing an extensive search and as far as I can tell, this is the first QM HV that is successful since Einstein first tried in 1927.

Have you heard of Bohmian mechanics?

Sure. it is more junk physics and grossly non-local. Pretty un-successful.

It is non-local indeed, like any other HV theory that reproduces the QM predictions.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Well, you can believe in all that "spooky" junk about QM. I don't believe it for a second. And we already have a classical local-realistic model that gives all the predictions of QM so guess what? You're wrong.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1715**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Here is how the QM correlation is derived the standard way:

Let's define to be the relative angle between the two detector settings, Now there are 4 combinations of outcomes at Alice and Bob, since they have two possible outcomes each. We start with the QM predictions for the probabilities of each of the four combinations of outcomes:

Here we have the outcome combination on the left, and the corresponding probability/frequency on the right after the colon. It is easy to check that they sum to 1.

Now, since we have binary outcomes, the standard formula for correlation siplifies to the difference between the proportion of equal outcomes for Alice and Bob, minus the proportion where the two outcomes are different. Thus,

It is an absolutely trivial derivation. There is nothing "mysterious" or "unexplained" about it at all. So why someone should try a different and much more convoluted route is beyond me.

But we also see, without referring to Bell's theorem at all, that in general all four combinations will eventually be produced for almost any given pair of settings (they all have non-zero probability). But a binary hidden variable could only produce two of these combinations. So something is clearly wrong with the paper.

Let's define to be the relative angle between the two detector settings, Now there are 4 combinations of outcomes at Alice and Bob, since they have two possible outcomes each. We start with the QM predictions for the probabilities of each of the four combinations of outcomes:

Here we have the outcome combination on the left, and the corresponding probability/frequency on the right after the colon. It is easy to check that they sum to 1.

Now, since we have binary outcomes, the standard formula for correlation siplifies to the difference between the proportion of equal outcomes for Alice and Bob, minus the proportion where the two outcomes are different. Thus,

It is an absolutely trivial derivation. There is nothing "mysterious" or "unexplained" about it at all. So why someone should try a different and much more convoluted route is beyond me.

But we also see, without referring to Bell's theorem at all, that in general all four combinations will eventually be produced for almost any given pair of settings (they all have non-zero probability). But a binary hidden variable could only produce two of these combinations. So something is clearly wrong with the paper.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:But we also see, without referring to Bell's theorem at all, that in general all four combinations will eventually be produced for almost any given pair of settings (they all have non-zero probability). But a binary hidden variable could only produce two of these combinations.

Yes. A beautiful argument.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1653**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:But we also see, without referring to Bell's theorem at all, that in general all four combinations will eventually be produced for almost any given pair of settings (they all have non-zero probability). But a binary hidden variable could only produce two of these combinations.

Yes. A beautiful argument.

Irrelevant argument. There is no need to use "probabilities" to reproduce strong correlations. If you wish to see examples, read some of my papers.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2161**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 5 guests