Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

[FrediFizzx]

The reason I brought up Bell's (9) is that in (10) he shows that this approach won't reproduce the quantum correlations. Peres elaborates a bit on this.

Does Bell or Peres pay any attention to the geometry and topology of the physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments?

No, they don't.

Therefore their claims have little or no physical value.

***

Bell and Peres and others explain very clearly why the geometry and topology of the physical space in which we are confined to perform our experiments play no role whatsoever. Because Bell's argument relies only on basic notations of causality, which themselves only use the most basic features of our understanding of space and time.

Sorry, but both Bell and Peres made mistakes. They didn't use Joy's hidden variable.
.

[Joy Christian]

The reason I brought up Bell's (9) is that in (10) he shows that this approach won't reproduce the quantum correlations. Peres elaborates a bit on this.

Does Bell or Peres pay any attention to the geometry and topology of the physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments?

No, they don't.

Therefore their claims have little or no physical value.

***

Bell and Peres and others explain very clearly why the geometry and topology of the physical space in which we are confined to perform our experiments play no role whatsoever. Because Bell's argument relies only on basic notations of causality, which themselves only use the most basic features of our understanding of space and time.

Sorry, but both Bell and Peres made mistakes. They didn't use Joy's hidden variable.

Besides, no flawless proof of Bell's theorem exists. All proofs are based on one form of sleight of hand or another (see, for example, my explanation: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876).

***

[Yablon]

All of this means that at collapse, the spin is transformed such that:

(1)

[...]
Jay

This is basically equations (9) in Bell (1964).

Have you read Peres' "Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods"? If not, you should certainly do so. A google search with keywords fisica quantum theory concepts will point you to a free pdf-version of the book.

Found it:

https://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantic ... ethods.pdf

It looks to contain a fairly standard recounting of Bell’s Theorem. Is there anything particular that you want people to take a close look at to illuminate the current discussions?

[Heinera]

Sorry, but both Bell and Peres made mistakes. They didn't use Joy's hidden variable.
.

It's not hard to show that the in your formulas has no effect on the correlations, so you could just as well drop it.

[FrediFizzx]

Sorry, but both Bell and Peres made mistakes. They didn't use Joy's hidden variable.
.

It's not hard to show that the in your formulas has no effect on the correlations, so you could just as well drop it.

I guess you missed the title of this thread. Joy's HV shows that the correlation is local!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

[Heinera]

I don't consider thread titles to be proof of anything. If you want to see the simple proof that the has no effect on the correlations, I'll be happy to show you. If you want to first try to figure it out yourself, that's also OK.

[FrediFizzx]

I don't consider thread titles to be proof of anything. If you want to see the simple proof that the has no effect on the correlations, I'll be happy to show you. If you want to first try to figure it out yourself, that's also OK.

No need. We have already included that proof in the paper. But that is not the point. The point is that QM with Joy's HV is local for predicting the correlation. No more spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Heinera]

I don't consider thread titles to be proof of anything. If you want to see the simple proof that the has no effect on the correlations, I'll be happy to show you. If you want to first try to figure it out yourself, that's also OK.

No need. We have already included that proof in the paper. But that is not the point. The point is that QM with Joy's HV is local for predicting the correlation. No more spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except that you overlooked the fact that can be removed from the formulas (8) and (9) without changing the correlation.

[FrediFizzx]

I don't consider thread titles to be proof of anything. If you want to see the simple proof that the has no effect on the correlations, I'll be happy to show you. If you want to first try to figure it out yourself, that's also OK.

No need. We have already included that proof in the paper. But that is not the point. The point is that QM with Joy's HV is local for predicting the correlation. No more spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except that you overlooked the fact that can be removed from the formulas (8) and (9) without changing the correlation.

Thanks. Yep, we have killed the need for the HV by using sgn(n.s)n in the limits. If correct then QM is local without an HV. So I doubt that is correct. I was beginning to suspect it wasn't correct before you posted this.
.

[Heinera]

Thanks. Yep, we have killed the need for the HV by using sgn(n.s)n in the limits.

This is correct, if by HV you mean Joy's HV .

If correct then QM is local without an HV.
.

Nope. First, you still have a HV, but it's now the (continuous) spin vector s. See (9) and (10) in Bell (1964). Second, your model does not reproduce the QM correlations, but "just" the triangle correlations.

[FrediFizzx]

Thanks. Yep, we have killed the need for the HV by using sgn(n.s)n in the limits.

This is correct, if by HV you mean Joy's HV .

If correct then QM is local without an HV.
.

Nope. First, you still have a HV, but it's now the (continuous) spin vector s. See (9) and (10) in Bell (1964). Second, your model does not reproduce the QM correlations, but "just" the triangle correlations.

Nope, the random spin vector is not a hidden variable as I have pointed out previously. It is just a plain old random vector like a and b. "So I doubt that is correct." "It" means having sgn(n.s)n in the limits.

[Yablon]

All of this means that at collapse, the spin is transformed such that:

(1)

[...]
Jay

This is basically equations (9) in Bell (1964).

Have you read Peres' "Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods"? If not, you should certainly do so. A google search with keywords fisica quantum theory concepts will point you to a free pdf-version of the book.

I took a good read through the relevant sections of Peres earlier today. Following, I started a new thread at: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=387

[FrediFizzx]

Thanks. Yep, we have killed the need for the HV by using sgn(n.s)n in the limits.

This is correct, if by HV you mean Joy's HV .

If correct then QM is local without an HV.
.

Nope. First, you still have a HV, but it's now the (continuous) spin vector s. See (9) and (10) in Bell (1964). Second, your model does not reproduce the QM correlations, but "just" the triangle correlations.

Nope, the random spin vector is not a hidden variable as I have pointed out previously. It is just a plain old random vector like a and b. "So I doubt that is correct." "It" means having sgn(n.s)n in the limits.

I'm going to take that back. Having sgn(n.s)n in the limits is close to the correct action for the polarizers. And we in fact have shown that QM is local via the product calculation that produces -a.b. Now, that doesn't rule out the hidden variable because it also works with the hidden variable. A most important result is that QM is in fact local. No spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

[gill1109]

I'm going to take that back. Having sgn(n.s)n in the limits is close to the correct action for the polarizers. And we in fact have shown that QM is local via the product calculation that produces -a.b. Now, that doesn't rule out the hidden variable because it also works with the hidden variable. A most important result is that QM is in fact local. No spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

I think your main problem now is to convince some mathematicians that there are no mathematical errors in Joy's work.

[Joy Christian]

I'm going to take that back. Having sgn(n.s)n in the limits is close to the correct action for the polarizers. And we in fact have shown that QM is local via the product calculation that produces -a.b. Now, that doesn't rule out the hidden variable because it also works with the hidden variable. A most important result is that QM is in fact local. No spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

I think your main problem now is to convince some mathematicians that there are no mathematical errors in Joy's work.

Qualified mathematicians are already convinced that the claims of "errors" in my work had been bogus. The claims were either motivated by politics or stemmed from incompetence and lack of qualifications of those who promulgated the claims. I have explained this elsewhere: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

***

[FrediFizzx]

I'm going to take that back. Having sgn(n.s)n in the limits is close to the correct action for the polarizers. And we in fact have shown that QM is local via the product calculation that produces -a.b. Now, that doesn't rule out the hidden variable because it also works with the hidden variable. A most important result is that QM is in fact local. No spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

I think your main problem now is to convince some mathematicians that there are no mathematical errors in Joy's work.

Apparently there must be something you still don't understand in the paper. I think we covered your problem with the limits sufficiently so what is it that you don't understand that we can help you with now? That might help us improve the paper for a better understanding. Thanks.
.

[FrediFizzx]

So these functions,

,
,

work without the HV, , to give the correct QM predictions for outcome possibilities and also gives the result of via the product calculation. So what has happened here? What has happened is that without the HV, the process is simply counting the left handed particles as right handed. The correct physics has to have the HV in the calculation. It is not complete without it. It is not hard to demonstrate that the singlets will be left or right handed. But the really profound result is that either way, QM is in fact local.
.

[gill1109]

I'm going to take that back. Having sgn(n.s)n in the limits is close to the correct action for the polarizers. And we in fact have shown that QM is local via the product calculation that produces -a.b. Now, that doesn't rule out the hidden variable because it also works with the hidden variable. A most important result is that QM is in fact local. No spooky junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

I think your main problem now is to convince some mathematicians that there are no mathematical errors in Joy's work.

Apparently there must be something you still don't understand in the paper. I think we covered your problem with the limits sufficiently so what is it that you don't understand that we can help you with now? That might help us improve the paper for a better understanding. Thanks.
.

I don’t understand the notation of the limits in formulas (8) and (9). You didn’t cover the problem. You just continued to give no information whatsoever.

The notation is non-standard, and you moreover want to connect the two dummy variables in the two equations to one another, which is also non-standard. Maybe you should write some simple computer pseudo-code to show how you interpret these formulas. You are”getting around” Bell’s theorem by going outside conventional mathematics. That’s why nobody is paying any attention to Christian’s papers any more. Where are the papers which take his ideas further? Where are the popularisers, the tutorials, the YouTube films, the lecture courses? Please don’t tell me it’s an establishment conspiracy. There are plenty of vociferous establishment critics around. What does Sabine Hossenfelder have to say?

[Heinera]

What they mean with



is that you can just replace with in the expression that follows.

And yes, I know it's silly.

[Heinera]

So these functions,

,
,

work without the HV, , to give the correct QM predictions for outcome possibilities and also gives the result of via the product calculation.
.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you guys completely botched up the math. When fed into a computer (you should try it sometime) these functions give the classical triangle correlations.

But I guess you don't belive in computers.