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.
.