18 posts
• Page **1** of **1**

Dear friends:

As you all know, Richard Gill and Joy Christian have agreed to my mediating and moderating the Bell/EPR symposium which has been discussed on some other threads here at SPF and elsewhere. And, as I have also said on these other threads, in this role, I felt it important to undertake a detailed study of what quantum mechanics teaches about the strong singlet correlations, and locality and realism, which would become my advance paper contribution to the symposium.

I now have completed a first complete draft of the first four sections of that paper, which for review and feedback, I have uploaded to:

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

Here is the title:

Directly-observable versus observably-consequential elements of reality and the uncertainty principle: Why quantum mechanics — properly understood — is a realistic and complete hidden variable theory of the natural world

Here is the abstract:

Using intrinsic spin as the simplest possible example of the uncertainty principle, we show, at least for this example, in answer to the title question posed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), how and why the quantum mechanical description of reality is complete. Subsequent revisions of this paper will study the question of locality.

I look forward to good feedback and good discussion.

Jay

As you all know, Richard Gill and Joy Christian have agreed to my mediating and moderating the Bell/EPR symposium which has been discussed on some other threads here at SPF and elsewhere. And, as I have also said on these other threads, in this role, I felt it important to undertake a detailed study of what quantum mechanics teaches about the strong singlet correlations, and locality and realism, which would become my advance paper contribution to the symposium.

I now have completed a first complete draft of the first four sections of that paper, which for review and feedback, I have uploaded to:

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

Here is the title:

Directly-observable versus observably-consequential elements of reality and the uncertainty principle: Why quantum mechanics — properly understood — is a realistic and complete hidden variable theory of the natural world

Here is the abstract:

Using intrinsic spin as the simplest possible example of the uncertainty principle, we show, at least for this example, in answer to the title question posed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), how and why the quantum mechanical description of reality is complete. Subsequent revisions of this paper will study the question of locality.

I look forward to good feedback and good discussion.

Jay

- Yablon
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**360**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**New York

You are not citing Joy Christian?

- Heinera
**Posts:**719**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:You are not citing Joy Christian?

I, personally, do not believe there is anything wrong or incomplete with quantum mechanics. The problem is that our present understanding of QM is incomplete, which I have already started to make clear in what I posted yesterday at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf.

Specifically, I am working from the viewpoint that geometric algebra (GA) which Joy Christian uses in his model, and Pauli matrices with eigenstates and eigenvalues customarily used for describing these correlations, provide two different mathematical “languages” which can be used to describe the strong singlet correlations, with identifiable transformations (translations) between them. So, if neither language is fundamentally flawed (and I personally believe that neither one is flawed), then the underlying natural reality must be the same no matter which of these two languages we choose. In short, assuming unflawed languages, nature is and must be invariant with respect to the language we use to describe her.

Based on this, the paper I posted yesterday, of which you can now review the first four sections, seeks to closely study the standard quantum mechanical description of strong correlations using Pauli matrices and their states and values (and in some cases, values which cannot be simultaneously observed owing to the uncertainty principle), both to stand on its own right, and to provide another “language” for analyzing the local realistic model which Joy Christian has used to describe these correlations. In the process, it will also become possible to test the validity of the hypothesis that neither language is flawed, and / or to correct any flawed interpretations of these languages, and to assess the Christian model.

My goal is not to confirm or refute anybody’s theory, be it Joy Christian or John Bell or even Albert Einstein; it is to find the truth. The chips will fall wherever they fall. That is science.

Jay

- Yablon
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**360**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**New York

That's correct. The math is not flawed in either case but there are a lot of interpretations of QM that are quite flawed. And a lot of it had to do with Bell's flawed physics theory.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:That's correct. The math is not flawed in either case but there are a lot of interpretations of QM that are quite flawed. And a lot of it had to do with Bell's flawed physics theory.

Bell had no "physics theory". He went exploring and reported back on what he had found.

So what is it that you call "Bell's flawed physics theory". I am inclined to agree with you, that the theory which you mean by this, is flawed.

Bell, I think, did not have a physics theory. He reported on flaws that he had discovered with existing theories. I don't know what his favourite solution was.

Anyway, whatever it was, it probably - since he was indubitably a wise man (does anyone here disagree?) - changed over the years.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1758**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

Bell's theorem is disproved so it can only be a theory not a theorem.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Bell's theorem is disproved so it can only be a theory not a theorem.

Fred, what exactly do *you* mean by the phrase “Bell’s theorem”?

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1758**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

From,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell himself wrote: "If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says." John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65.

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

Since we have a physical theory of a local hidden variable that produces all the predictions of quantum mechanics, that theorem is false and can only be a theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell himself wrote: "If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says." John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65.

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

Since we have a physical theory of a local hidden variable that produces all the predictions of quantum mechanics, that theorem is false and can only be a theory.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:From,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell himself wrote: "If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says." John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65.

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

Since we have a physical theory of a local hidden variable that produces all the predictions of quantum mechanics, that theorem is false and can only be a theory.

Starting with these "dictionary" definitions, let me give you my take:

Quantum mechanics by definition reproduces all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell says that no locally realistic hidden variables (LRHV) theory can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics, most notably, the strong singlet correlations. Absolutely assumed and implicit in Bell's theorem is the conclusion that QM itself is NOT itself an LRHV theory. IF QM itself could be shown to be an LRHV theory even though nobody knew that before, then Bell's Theorem itself would not be wrong. What would be wrong are his implicit assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics.

Cast in these terms, what I am attempting to do in https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf and what will be the future development of this, is to determine whether QM itself really IS an LRHV theory, unbeknownst to the world. In these first four sections I have already laid out why -- at least as to intrinsic spin used as a simplest example of the uncertainty principle -- QM is realistic and complete and has its own local hidden variables which arise directly out the the uncertainty principle. So what is left is the question of explaining the correlations on a strictly local basis without all the "spooky" stuff.

IF that could be done, and I use the word IF and would not claim it can be done without delivering hard mathematical proof at the same time, then we would end all doubt about whether QM is a correct and complete theory of the natural world on the smallest scales, favorably to QM. Joy Christian's model would then have to be mapped against such an understanding of QM as an LRHV theory in fact, and if that were to be successfully done, then I would say that Christian's theory is not an alternative theory to QM, but rather, is simply QM replicated in the different mathematical language known as geometric algebra. And all theories other than QM and translations of QM into other mathematical languages such as GA, would indeed be ruled out. This would validate Bell's Theorem in spirit, but not his (or anybody else's) understanding of QM.

So that is the plan. The question is whether I can succeed in proving that QM really is local but that the physical mechanism of its locality has not yet been understood. If you want to find out, stay tuned...

Jay

- Yablon
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**360**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**New York

Yablon wrote:Quantum mechanics by definition reproduces all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell says that no locally realistic hidden variables (LRHV) theory can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics, most notably, the strong singlet correlations. Absolutely assumed and implicit in Bell's theorem is the conclusion that QM itself is NOT itself an LRHV theory. IF QM itself could be shown to be an LRHV theory even though nobody knew that before, then Bell's Theorem itself would not be wrong. What would be wrong are his implicit assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics.

Jay

You have got this completely wrong. There are no assumptions about QM in the proof of Bell's theorem, and he does certainly not a priori assume that "QM itself is NOT itself an LRHV theory." Bell simply proved the existence of an upper bound on correlations in all LRHV theories. There are no assumptions about QM there. His logic is elementary:

All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular expression involving correlations.

QM predictions exceed this upper bound.

Ergo, QM can not be an LRHV model.

The only escape from this is to start redefining the meanings of words like "correlation", "local" or "hidden variable." But when one starts redefining words (relative to the original context) in order to make an argument, one has left the realm of science and is solidly planted in philosophy.

Last edited by Heinera on Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

- Heinera
**Posts:**719**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular correlation.

This claim is false on at least two counts.

To begin with, the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality arises entirely from considering incompatible physical experiments about four mutually exclusive directions:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876

Moreover, there exists at least one local-realistic framework that exceeds the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality just as any quantum mechanical prediction does:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392

You would be better off updating your outdated knowledge in this subject. Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2271**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

I think Bell's coffee is getting better and better! The horse is very much alive, and kicking harder than ever.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1758**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

I think Bell's coffee is getting better and better! The horse is very much alive, and kicking harder than ever.

Fantasies are good. Delusions are better. Keep on dreaming.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2271**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular expression involving correlations.

In other words, so you say, no LRHV models can reproduce , but have a weaker, linear correlation, which translates into an outer bound of in the CHSH inequality.

Heinera wrote:QM predictions exceed this upper bound.

In other words, QM does reproduce , which translates into going outside the outer bound of all the way out to in some cases.

Heinera wrote:Ergo, QM can not be an LRHV model.

So, if can be shown that QM is an LRHV model using suitable definitions for L and/or R and/or HV, and in the process QM did not lose its ability to predict , then what you just said would be contradicted. So, let's move on to definitions...

Heinera wrote:The only escape from this is to start redefining the meanings of words like "correlation", "local" or "hidden variable." But when one starts redefining words (relative to the original context) in order to make an argument, one has left the realm of science and is solidly planted in philosophy.

I agree that the definitions are important. I take as a guiding principle the wisdom of EPR that "The elements of the physical reality [and other definitions as well] cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." I believe that in the opening four sections in https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf I have stayed solidly planted within the realm of science in defining R and HV (and also "predictability with certainty" and "completeness"), in the context of intrinsic spin, with more to come, particularly the main event which is locality. Have you read what I wrote in those four sections? And did I get anything fundamentally wrong or drift out of the realm of science?

- Yablon
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**360**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**New York

Heinera wrote:The only escape from this is to start redefining the meanings of words like "correlation", "local" or "hidden variable." But when one starts redefining words (relative to the original context) in order to make an argument, one has left the realm of science and is solidly planted in philosophy.

Heinera edited his previous post to add the above sentence giving false impression of my reply to the readers. This is one of the standard tactics Bell-believers have used against me before.

Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular correlation.

This claim is false on at least two counts.

To begin with, the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality arises entirely from considering incompatible physical experiments about four mutually exclusive directions:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876

Moreover, there exists at least one local-realistic framework that exceeds the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality just as any quantum mechanical prediction does:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392

You would be better off updating your outdated knowledge in this subject. Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

So to my post above, I add that the model presented in the three preprints above conforms strictly to the definitions of locality and realism espoused by Einstein and later mathematically formulated by Bell in his 1964 paper. On the other hand, the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876 brings out the incorrect implementation by Bell of the criterion of reality by EPR in his so-called theorem. See, especially, the homely illustration of Bell's mistake in the footnote 3 on page 2 of this preprint.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2271**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Yablon wrote:I agree that the definitions are important. I take as a guiding principle the wisdom of EPR that "The elements of the physical reality [and other definitions as well] cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." I believe that in the opening four sections in https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf I have stayed solidly planted within the realm of science in defining R and HV (and also "predictability with certainty" and "completeness"), in the context of intrinsic spin, with more to come, particularly the main event which is locality. Have you read what I wrote in those four sections? And did I get anything fundamentally wrong or drift out of the realm of science?

Yes, this thread is about what Jay has presented in the paper linked above. Please read it and comment on what is in that paper. Thanks.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular correlation.

This claim is false on at least two counts.

To begin with, the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality arises entirely from considering incompatible physical experiments about four mutually exclusive directions:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876

The Bell-CHSH inequality comes from considering four experiments, each of which could have been done. It does not assume that any experiment is done at all, let alone one of the four. Of course, there are further assumptions - locality and realism, bundeled together into what we nowadays call “local realism”. (What is local and what is not local depends on what you think is “real”, and when and where you locate it in space-time!).

If you don’t like the inequality, then your conclusion is that local realism, as defined by Bell, is false. So please come up with a new concept of “local realism”, and please give very careful arguments for it.

Joy Christian wrote:Moreover, there exists at least one local-realistic framework that exceeds the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality just as any quantum mechanical prediction does:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392

There are lots and lots of publications each with the same claim but each with yet another new model. Karl Hess recently said he was no longer going to participate in discussions like this one, because no two Bell deniers ever agreed with one another. They all think that they are the first and only one to have properly disposed of Bell. I guess he is bitter because the Hess-Philipp model was not enthusiastically adopted by all the other anti Bell folk!

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1758**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

Let's try to keep this thread focused on Jay's paper. Thanks

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

18 posts
• Page **1** of **1**

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 7 guests