SciPhysicsForums.com

In another thread, Heine suggested that everybody take a look at the Peres reference. So, let’s actually take a close look at Peres:

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

Here are a few particularly important passages:

On page 160 at the start of section 6–3:

“The title of Bell’s second paper is ‘On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,’ but, contrary to the EPR argument, Bell’s is not about quantum mechanics.” (original emphasis)

Middle of page 162:

“Figure 6.6 shows the expressions (6.20) and (6.23): the quantum correlation is always stronger than the classical one, except in the trivial cases where both are 0 or ±1.”

Near the bottom of page 162 at the start of the subheading about Bell’s Theorem:

“Bell’s theorem is not a property of quantum theory.” (original emphasis)

In view of the foregoing, the following is the essence of what I am exploring and will be putting on the table prior to the symposium. My present draft of this undertaking can be found at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... e-4.3a.pdf:

At the present time quantum mechanics is widely understood to be a non-local theory. IF — and I emphasize that I am using the hypothetical word IF — IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant. I did not say “wrong.” I said “irrelevant.” Because, as Peres has made clear, Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.

As to Joy Christian‘s theory, it would then become necessary to demonstrate that this is simply the hypothesized local realistic quantum mechanics in a different mathematical language, namely, the language of geometric algebra. IF this can also be demonstrated, this would use the “quantum mechanical exemption” to Bell’s theorem to move Christian’s theory outside the zone of relevance for Bell’s Theorem, just as is quantum mechanics.

Jay

Yablon wrote:... At the present time quantum mechanics is widely understood to be a non-local theory. IF — and I emphasize that I am using the hypothetical word IF — IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant. I did not say “wrong.” I said “irrelevant.” Because, as Peres has made clear, Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.

As to Joy Christian‘s theory, it would then become necessary to demonstrate that this is simply the hypothesized local realistic quantum mechanics in a different mathematical language, namely, the language of geometric algebra. IF this can also be demonstrated, this would use the “quantum mechanical exemption” to Bell’s theorem to move Christian’s theory outside the zone of relevance for Bell’s Theorem, just as is quantum mechanics.

Well, there are lots of people working in quantum foundations who think and argue that QM "as it is", is local. I mention for instance Andrei Khrennikov, Theo Nieuwenhuizen, Gilles Brassard and Paul Raymond-Robichaud. They don't have any need for an alternative framework, either, since they are happy with what they already have.

But if indeed Christian's framework would be "just" conventional QM in another language, that would be nice. But already, the famous "GA in physics" pioneers showed how to write conventional QM in the language of GA. Only it didn't catch on...

Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?

Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").

Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?

Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").

Peres uses counterfactual definiteness (which he does discuss) as synonymous to realism. Bell himself took realism for granted. He could not see any sense in doing physics without realism.

By the way, I dealt with Peres's discussion in his book way back in 2009, in this early paper of mine, which brings out his mistake quite explicitly: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3078.pdf.

***

Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?

Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").

I think most people dealing with QM and reality refer to this quote from the EPR paper:

"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."

jreed wrote:

Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?

Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").

I think most people dealing with QM and reality refer to this quote from the EPR paper:

"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."

Sure, but that statement is not exclusive.
.

The answer to the question in the title is YES.

Joy Christian wrote:Peres uses counterfactual definiteness (which he does discuss) as synonymous to realism.

Well, in that case the question in the title can be answered in the negative with certainty.

Also, I think Jay should know that in the physics community, questioning the correctness of Bell's theorem has about the same status as claiming special relativity is inconsistent because of the twin paradox.

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:Peres uses counterfactual definiteness (which he does discuss) as synonymous to realism.

Well, in that case the question in the title can be answered in the negative with certainty.

Also, I think Jay should know that in the physics community, questioning the correctness of Bell's theorem has about the same status as claiming special relativity is inconsistent because of the twin paradox.

Unfortunately, those who are in the business of equating "the physics community" with "the followers of the Bell-dogma" appear to have no scruples about betraying Nature and science.

As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics even if it were correct, which it is not. To recognize Bell's mistake, all one has to do is read this short paper.

***

Joy Christian wrote:As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics

We can certainly agree on that.

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics

We can certainly agree on that.

Yes, I agree too. It had a huge impact and has been a major driver of modern "quantum information science". The future goes on, from here.

Joy Christian wrote:
Unfortunately, those who are in the business of equating "the physics community" with "the followers of the Bell-dogma" appear to have no scruples about betraying Nature and science.

As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics even if it were correct, which it is not. To recognize Bell's mistake, all one has to do is read this short paper.

gill1109 wrote:

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics

We can certainly agree on that.

Yes, I agree too. It had a huge impact and has been a major driver of modern "quantum information science". The future goes on, from here.

A typical dishonest tactic by the Bell-believers. Note how they have twisted my original statement, out of context. This is not an isolated incident of dishonesty by the Bell-believers. They have been using such dishonest tactics even within scientific discussions about my mathematically and physically impeccable local-realistic model for the strong (or quantum) correlations.

***

Yablon wrote:In view of the foregoing, the following is the essence of what I am exploring and will be putting on the table prior to the symposium. My present draft of this undertaking can be found at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... e-4.3a.pdf:
...
IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant.

jreed wrote:

Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?...

I think most people dealing with QM and reality refer to this quote from the EPR paper:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."

Heine:

1) You asking me this question shows that although I did my homework, you did not do yours. You recommended taking a look at Peres, which I did, and I even started this new thread to discuss his presentation of Bell’s Theorem.

But I provided a link https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... e-4.3a.pdf to the present draft of my pre-symposium paper, where, in sections 4 and 5 I deal with the notion of reality extensively, in the context of spin half. Moreover, I gave quite a bit of attention to “counterfactual definiteness“ based on your earlier good suggestion for everybody to take a look at this. Your reply indicates to me that you did not take any time at all to look at any of what I wrote. Please do so in the future before you ask questions which I or others have already answered. If, after you review this material, you believe that something is amiss, I would be happy to hear that and discuss it.

FrediFizzx wrote:The answer to the question in the title is YES.

Heinera wrote:Well, in that case the question in the title can be answered in the negative with certainty.

2. Fred made an affirmative assertion based on his belief in Joy’s model, as well as his having now acquired the conviction that that model is merely an alternative mathematical expression of quantum mechanics.

I used a question in the title, rather than an assertion, because I do not believe in making assertions one way or the other until I can provide hard proof of those.

But, Heine, you have asserted that quantum mechanics is not and cannot be local and realistic. “With certainty.“ But I have no comprehension of how you can make such a categorical negative statement.

My best guess is that you are simply applying Bell’s Theorem by reflex, even though Peres, whom you recommended we all look at, makes abundantly clear with emphasis that Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.

So unless you want to point to something other than Bell’s Theorem to assert that quantum mechanics cannot be made local and realistic, I would suggest that you admit you were overreaching here, and that you retract that statement.

Yablon wrote:IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant. I did not say “wrong.” I said “irrelevant.” Because, as Peres has made clear, Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.

Heinera wrote:Also, I think Jay should know that in the physics community, questioning the correctness of Bell's theorem has about the same status as claiming special relativity is inconsistent because of the twin paradox.

3. First, never anywhere did I say that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect. I said that if quantum mechanics can be shown to be local and realistic in accordance with commonly accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant. And Heine’s own recommended author Peres made clear that Bell’s Theorem is irrelevant when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Nonetheless, after putting words in my mouth that were not there, Heine pulls out the idealogical canard that questioning Bell’s Theorem is equivalent to questioning the special theory of relativity which has sustained itself against more than a century of efforts on multiple fronts to find contradictions to it. While there are many things I am tempted to say about this sort of tactic which is nothing more than an attempt to bully people out of undertaking certain areas of honest scientific research for fear of being personally and professionally discounted, I will not dignify it with any response at all.

Jay

Yablon wrote:My best guess is that you are simply applying Bell’s Theorem by reflex, even though Peres, whom you recommended we all look at, makes abundantly clear with emphasis that Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.

And this is where you misunderstand the arguments of both Bell and Peres. Bell's theorem applies to all counterfactually definite and local theories. It gives an upper bound for the correlations of those theories. In that sense it does not apply to QM, since QM is not counterfactually definite and local (which is the whole point of their argument). Your lapse of logic is that you now conclude that since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to QM, it means there is a possibility that QM could itself be counterfactually definite and local. But if it were, Bell's theorem would then apply, and you would have a contradiction. That is the argument of Peres.

Heinera wrote:

Yablon wrote:My best guess is that you are simply applying Bell’s Theorem by reflex, even though Peres, whom you recommended we all look at, makes abundantly clear with emphasis that Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.

And this is where you misunderstand the arguments of both Bell and Peres. Bell's theorem applies to all counterfactually definite and local theories. It gives an upper bound for the correlations of those theories. In that sense it does not apply to QM, since QM is not counterfactually definite and local (which is the whole point of their argument). Your lapse of logic is that you now conclude that since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to QM, it means there is a possibility that QM could itself be counterfactually definite and local. But if it were, Bell's theorem would then apply, and you would have a contradiction. That is the argument of Peres.

Fair enough, so let’s follow that logic through:
QM predicts a correlation -a.b. If it could be proved that QM was counterfactually definite and local, without losing the correlation prediction -a.b, how would you interpret that?

PS: I can only post to the forum right now when I am near a Wi-Fi network. And I will be out of range for the next eight hours or so.

Yablon wrote:3. First, never anywhere did I say that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect.

No, you didn't. This was simply something I inferred from the fact that you are co-author on the draft "Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State with a Hidden Variable." If the two functions in (8) and (9) in that draft actually produced the QM correlations as claimed, it would be a clear counterexample to Bell's theorem, which would then have to be incorrect.

Yablon wrote:Fair enough, so let’s follow that logic through:
QM predicts a correlation -a.b. If it could be proved that QM was counterfactually definite and local, without losing the correlation prediction -a.b, how would you interpret that?

I wouldn't feel the need to interpret that. I would go looking for the certain error(s) in the proof, if I had time.

Yablon wrote:Nonetheless, after putting words in my mouth that were not there, Heine pulls out the idealogical canard that questioning Bell’s Theorem is equivalent to questioning the special theory of relativity which has sustained itself against more than a century of efforts on multiple fronts to find contradictions to it. While there are many things I am tempted to say about this sort of tactic which is nothing more than an attempt to bully people out of undertaking certain areas of honest scientific research for fear of being personally and professionally discounted, I will not dignify it with any response at all.
Jay

I'm sorry if you felt this like bullying, that was not my intention. I was just trying to give you an honest situation report on how the physics community views any attempts at making QM "local and realistic". On another note, Bell's theorem actually has a higher standing than special relativity, if that is even possible. Bell's theorem is, well, a theorem, while SR is a physical theory, which may after all be superseded by something else (much like Galilean relativity was superseded by SR). It is however at theorem that SR is internally consistent. That will never be disproved.

Heinera wrote:I was just trying to give you an honest situation report on how the physics community views any attempts at making QM "local and realistic". On another note, Bell's theorem actually has a higher standing than special relativity, if that is even possible. Bell's theorem is, well, a theorem, while SR is a physical theory, which may after all be superseded by something else (much like Galilean relativity was superseded by SR). It is however at theorem that SR is internally consistent. That will never be disproved.

Bell's theorem is not a theorem. It is a belief system. It is largely sustained by politics and academic thuggery. Papaers revealing the flaws in Bell's claims are suppressed by the Bell mafia.

***

Heinera wrote:

Yablon wrote:3. First, never anywhere did I say that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect.

No, you didn't. This was simply something I inferred from the fact that you are co-author on the draft "Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State with a Hidden Variable." If the two functions in (8) and (9) in that draft actually produced the QM correlations as claimed, it would be a clear counterexample to Bell's theorem, which would then have to be incorrect.

Fair enough, let me reply. I want to be clear out of fairness to Joy and Fred that I am only speaking for myself.

1. Joy and Fred have been at this Bell business for years. I am a relative newcomer over the last few years, and I only got really involved in February of this year after Richard approached me with the idea of a symposium and asked me to mediate and moderate between him and Joy, which I did and have done and will continue to do.

Joy and Fred have a very firm belief in the correctness of Joy‘s theory. Richard has (I think) a very firm belief in the correctness of Bell’s Theorem. I am not prepared at this juncture to assert that Joy is correct or incorrect, nor am I prepared at this juncture to assert that Bell is correct or incorrect. As I said earlier, I refrain from making definitive assertions until I am comfortable that I can back them up with rigorous and careful proof. And then I will only assert a conclusion at the same time that I offer the proof for my assertion.

2. What I am prepared to assert right now are the following principles:

A. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the mathematics of quantum mechanics. But I do believe that there are some problematic interpretations of that mathematics which need to be corrected. Especially, I have problems with Schrödinger‘s Cat versus predictability with certainty, which I will leave there for now without saying anything more.

B. As a consequence of all that we know from the general theory of relativity, I am of the firm belief that the natural world is invariant with respect to the mathematical language that we choose to use for its description.

C. Geometric algebra, and the Pauli spin operators and their wavefunctions and eigenvalues, are alternative and isomorphic mathematical languages which we are using to describe the same physical phenomena. Therefore, what is correct in one must be correct in the other, and what is incorrect and one will signal an incorrectness in the other.

D. As a result, the method I am using to weigh Joy‘s theory against the exclusions of Bell and arrive at the point where I am comfortable making my own assertions, is to work through the exact same problem that Joy is working through, but using the mathematical language of quantum mechanics.

3. All of the above I am doing, because I feel it incumbent on me, now that I have been entrusted with moderating this symposium, to thoroughly study these problems for myself and lay out my own study in the light of day before the symposium, to facilitate complete transparency and scientific honesty and integrity not only by me, but by all participants.

4. Joy and Fred suggested that I join them as a co-author, not because of any willingness on my part to assert that Joy is correct or that Bell is wrong, but because all three of us agreed with my proposal about the wisdom of studying the same set of Bell / correlation / local realism problems using the language and tools of quantum mechanics and looking for the isomorphic relationships with Joy’s geometric algebra representation of these problems.

I appreciate that you correctly note that the paper is a “draft.“ Moreover, it is a draft that is being put in front of all of you to beat up on as necessary for appropriate vetting and correction. Which in the end will make everybody here collaborators, to the degree that they are comfortable being acknowledged as such. Moreover, you will see and I suggest you again read the statement that I had added at the end of that paper.

So: when and if I personally am comfortable with a particular measurement function to properly reproduce the strong quantum correlation on a local and realistic basis, and with all of the development necessary to back that up, and believe I can present a rigorous proof, I will say so. At this point in time I have not said so.

Jay