Yablon wrote:OK, I am going to throw my weight around, such as it is, as the symposium moderator. Besides that the current month is June, can we all agree about the following five matters?
1) Using a prepared singlet state, Quantum Mechanics (QM) predicts a strong correlation ? And that this has robust empirical support?
2) This correlation in #1 above is stronger that the linear correlation , with , at all except 0, 90 and 180 degrees, where they are equal?
3) At, say, , #2 is larger than #1 above by a factor of which is traceable to the outer bounds of the CSHS inequality for QM, versus just 2 for linear correlations?
4) One we agree about #1, #2 and #3, we really don't need to talk any further about the inequality, but can just talk about the correlations, because we can all figure out how that translates to the inequality?
5) The prevailing view is that QM is not a "local," "realistic," "hidden variable" theory, as those terms are generally defined? (I am not asking at the moment for a debate about these terms.)
Anybody have a disagreement with any of the above? Or, can we at least put this into the same basket as agreeing that it is June?
Jay
Yablon wrote:OK, I am going to throw my weight around, such as it is, as the symposium moderator. Besides that the current month is June, can we all agree about the following five matters?
1) Using a prepared singlet state, Quantum Mechanics (QM) predicts a strong correlation ? And that this has robust empirical support?
2) This correlation in #1 above is stronger that the linear correlation , with , at all except 0, 90 and 180 degrees, where they are equal?
3) At, say, , #2 is larger than #1 above by a factor of which is traceable to the outer bounds of the CSHS inequality for QM, versus just 2 for linear correlations?
4) One we agree about #1, #2 and #3, we really don't need to talk any further about the inequality, but can just talk about the correlations, because we can all figure out how that translates to the inequality?
5) The prevailing view is that QM is not a "local," "realistic," "hidden variable" theory, as those terms are generally defined? (I am not asking at the moment for a debate about these terms.)
Anybody have a disagreement with any of the above? Or, can we at least put this into the same basket as agreeing that it is June?
Jay
Yablon wrote:I have revised what I wrote to start this thread to incorporate comments, see below. Heinera I agree, made that change. Joy I went to lowercase. Richard, I have clarified " stronger" as "i.e., has a larger numeric magnitude." And you now have your own thread for discussion of the triangle wave paper. You can ask people to stay on topic on your thread; I will ask them to do so on mine.
Is everybody OK with they way it is worded below, before I move on to the next round? Please reply yes, or if not, why not. Jay
1) Using a prepared singlet state, Quantum Mechanics (QM) predicts a strong correlation ? And that this has robust empirical support?
2) This correlation in #1 above is stronger, i.e., has a larger numeric magnitude than the linear correlation , with , at all except 0, 90 and 180 degrees, where they are equal?
3) At, say, , #2 is larger than #1 above by a factor of which is traceable to the outer bounds of the CSHS inequality for QM, versus just 2 for linear correlations?
4) One we agree about #1, #2 and #3, we really don't need to talk any further about the inequality, but can just talk about the correlations, because we can all figure out how that translates to the inequality?
5) The prevailing view is that QM is not all of a "local" and "realistic" and "hidden variable" theory, as those terms are generally defined? (I am not asking at the moment for a debate about these terms.)
Yablon wrote:1) Using a prepared singlet state, Quantum Mechanics (QM) predicts a strong correlation ? And that this has robust empirical support?
2) This correlation in #1 above is stronger, i.e., has a larger numeric magnitude than the linear correlation , with , at all except 0, 90 and 180 degrees, where they are equal?
3) At, say, , #1 is larger than #2 above by a factor of which is traceable to the outer bounds of the CSHS inequality for QM, versus just 2 for linear correlations?
4) One we agree about #1, #2 and #3, we really don't need to talk any further about the inequality, but can just talk about the correlations, because we can all figure out how that translates to the inequality?
5) The prevailing view is that QM is not all of a "local" and "realistic" and "hidden variable" theory, as those terms are generally defined? (I am not asking at the moment for a debate about these terms.)
Yablon wrote:Yablon wrote:1) Using a prepared singlet state, Quantum Mechanics (QM) predicts a strong correlation ? And that this has robust empirical support?
2) This correlation in #1 above is stronger, i.e., has a larger numeric magnitude than the linear correlation , with , at all except 0, 90 and 180 degrees, where they are equal?
3) At, say, , #1 is larger than #2 above by a factor of which is traceable to the outer bounds of the CSHS inequality for QM, versus just 2 for linear correlations?
4) One we agree about #1, #2 and #3, we really don't need to talk any further about the inequality, but can just talk about the correlations, because we can all figure out how that translates to the inequality?
5) The prevailing view is that QM is not all of a "local" and "realistic" and "hidden variable" theory, as those terms are generally defined? (I am not asking at the moment for a debate about these terms.)
I am going to assume that everyone agrees on the above and will now go on to round 2. I am focusing on QM, not any other theory. Can we all agree on the following, and if not, why not?
Yablon wrote:7) Does anybody have any problem with connecting to a correlation as that term is defined in statistics, to arrive at:
(1.20)
gill1109 wrote:OK, maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned. From here on, some old man's ramblings, connecting this all to the very important topic of old Dutch genever. Which I hope to enjoy with many of you when our Symposium and Workshop finally materialises. At which we will be able to admire, on a wall, the genuine and original signatures of Einstein, Lorentz and Ehrenfest.
gill1109 wrote:Yablon wrote:7) Does anybody have any problem with connecting to a correlation as that term is defined in statistics, to arrive at:
(1.20)
Jay: I need to know how you think that the term "correlation" is defined in "statistics" before I can make any comment on this statement.
I do have pretty firm ideas about what "statistics" is and how "correlation" is defined in statistics - I've been teaching statistics to mathematicians, economists, astronomers, and psychologists, and data-scientists, for 45 years.
Heinera wrote:I guess my reply to Jay is that it's not clear to me where this is going, and whether it will be worth the time to keep following the development.
My issue here is that we need to stick with the definition of a "hidden variable" in the sense of Bell. I could write down the letter on a piece of paper, bury it in my garden and claim I had a hidden variable, but it would not be what Bell had in mind. The main takeaway from Bell's theorem is that no tweaking of classical theory that retains realism and locality can replicate QM theory. So QM is in some sense fundamentally different. Introducing an extra (and probably superfluous) variable into QM, and calling it "hidden", won't change that fact.
FrediFizzx wrote:Perhaps let's not say "replicate QM theory" but a classical local realistic theory that gives the same predictions as QM.
.
Heinera wrote:And furthermore, can someone please refrain from this endless plugging of Joy Christian's theory? It's like Cato, who reputedly ended all his speeches in the Roman senate with "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendamt" (Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed.)
gill1109 wrote:Yablon wrote:Yablon wrote:1) Using a prepared singlet state, Quantum Mechanics (QM) predicts a strong correlation ? And that this has robust empirical support?
2) This correlation in #1 above is stronger, i.e., has a larger numeric magnitude than the linear correlation , with , at all except 0, 90 and 180 degrees, where they are equal?
3) At, say, , #1 is larger than #2 above by a factor of which is traceable to the outer bounds of the CSHS inequality for QM, versus just 2 for linear correlations?
4) One we agree about #1, #2 and #3, we really don't need to talk any further about the inequality, but can just talk about the correlations, because we can all figure out how that translates to the inequality?
5) The prevailing view is that QM is not all of a "local" and "realistic" and "hidden variable" theory, as those terms are generally defined? (I am not asking at the moment for a debate about these terms.)
I am going to assume that everyone agrees on the above and will now go on to round 2. I am focusing on QM, not any other theory. Can we all agree on the following, and if not, why not?
Sorry I wasn't finished with your first round. I agree with #1, #2 and #3; but I disagree with #4.
We don't want to talk *only* about the cosine wave and the triangle wave.
There are many, many more correlation curves allowed by QM and indeed engineered in the lab and used for Bell type experiments. In fact, the Vienna and Boulder experiments very deliberately used a not maximally entangled state. They used the only state which allows you to get away with only 75% detector efficiency. They had just slightly better...
There are many, many more correlation curves allowed by LR (or LHV or LRHV).
Bell's theorem, and Tsirelson's theorem, tell us about the *sets of all correlation curve*s allowed under each of the two theories (QM and LR respectively). One *set* is contained in the other. The famous 2 sqrt 2 comes from choosing a particular metric and then looking for the point in the QM set which is furthest from its own closest LR set. Those two curves - ie solutions of a minimax problem - are indeed the cosine and the triangle wave.
Heinera wrote:I guess my reply to Jay is that it's not clear to me where this is going, and whether it will be worth the time to keep following the development.
My issue here is that we need to stick with the definition of a "hidden variable" in the sense of Bell. I could write down the letter on a piece of paper, bury it in my garden and claim I had a hidden variable, but it would not be what Bell had in mind. The main takeaway from Bell's theorem is that no tweaking of classical theory that retains realism and locality can replicate QM theory. So QM is in some sense fundamentally different. Introducing an extra (and probably superfluous) variable into QM, and calling it "hidden", won't change that fact.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests