Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHVQM)

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby Yablon » Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:05 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:So here you have it folks. There can be no further doubt that QM is in fact local for the EPR-Bohm scenario!

Using eigenvalues, Jay's manifestly local measurement functions are essentially equivalent to the following upon implementing the polarizer functions.





where is the hidden variable. This is more of the beginning of "The New Quantum Mechanics".
.

In view of what I just posted about Stern-Gerlach at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412#p10375, I need to modify what Fred earlier wrote to read as follows:





Specifically, I do not think it wise to use the sign function, because in SG you to do not get a + click for certain unless there is a 100% alignment. Put differently, we are mixing apples and oranges if we put a classical result using the sign function, Bell (9), into a formula intended for quantum mechanics. This also requires me to modify my reply to Richard in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412&start=20#p10322 insofar as I accepted the use of the Bell (9) sign function in what Fred wrote.

Additionally, again, I do not like the "lim" because I see no calculus here. I use "obs" to mean that "this is what happens upon observation." I am also refraining from using "collapse" because that too has some connotations about what happens when we observe, which are really not necessary. I can justify the obs with and using the Robertson uncertainty relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertain ... _relations, and will post that proof in detail if someone would like to see it. So far I have simply asserted it without showing it, assuming that most will recognize this as a corollary of how in SG, a magnet reading aligns either parallel or anti-parallel to the z axis.

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:01 pm

Jay, it doesn't matter as it is just different terminology for the same thing mathematically. Now physically, your functions produce the straight lines instead of the negative cosine curve when using the +/-1 outcomes to do the correlation. Basically because QM can't predict individual outcomes event by event by itself. Even though you get -a.b with the proper product calculation which is correct. As I explained to you via email, this is because even though the 3-sphere topology is in the Pauli identity, it is not the whole story of the action of the 3-sphere topology. In order for QM to correctly predict the individual outcomes event by event, you have to add the complete states process.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby Yablon » Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:49 am

To all:

I have updated the "pre-symposium" paper I used to start this thread, and posted the latest DRAFT, only 16 pages for a very complex subject, at:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... qm-1.1.pdf

Abstract: We demonstrate how with a proper understanding of the uncertainty principle as phenomenon that hides elements of physical reality which nonetheless have statistically-observable consequences, Quantum Mechanics itself is seen to be local and realistic without any instantaneous action at a distance, with hidden variables supplied by the uncertainty principle, and is seen to be not incomplete. Bell’s Theorem is either rendered irrelevant, or disproved by contradiction provided by Quantum Mechanics itself.

If somebody can pinpoint any fatal flaws, please do so. If not, I will likely plan to submit this for publication.

Best to all,

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:45 pm

I'm surprised that no one has commented on Jay's profound result that quantum mechanics is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario after all this time. However, I will put forward that Jay's result could perhaps be simplified in regards that a hidden variable is not required to cancel out the a x b cross product. Since a and b are physically separated, the cross product is simply a mathematical artifact and can be set to zero. Plus, it will cancel out over many trials anyways by averaging.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:32 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:I'm surprised that no one has commented on Jay's profound result that quantum mechanics is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario after all this time. However, I will put forward that Jay's result could perhaps be simplified in regards that a hidden variable is not required to cancel out the a x b cross product. Since a and b are physically separated, the cross product is simply a mathematical artifact and can be set to zero. Plus, it will cancel out over many trials anyways by averaging.
.

Of course at that point, one can take the singlet spin vector to be the hidden variable.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby Yablon » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:50 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I'm surprised that no one has commented on Jay's profound result that quantum mechanics is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario after all this time. However, I will put forward that Jay's result could perhaps be simplified in regards that a hidden variable is not required to cancel out the a x b cross product. Since a and b are physically separated, the cross product is simply a mathematical artifact and can be set to zero. Plus, it will cancel out over many trials anyways by averaging.
.

Of course at that point, one can take the singlet spin vector to be the hidden variable.
.

As some of you know I have been focused on quantum gravity for most of this year. In fact, I just posted by latest and most simplified and cogent work on this today, see https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ental_test.

But as regards Bell, I am of the view that Bell was too liberal by allowing anything that somebody might come up with to be a hidden variable. I believe that nature is more stringent, and that any hidden variables must be variables which have their actual value masked by an uncertainty principle, whether e.g. position / momentum uncertainty, or the the case of Bell physics, the directional orientation of the opposite-spin halves of the doublet emerging from a split singlet. This of course, also requires a viewpoint that that these variables hidden by uncertainty are elements of reality notwithstanding the limitations that nature imposes on our ability to observe them. The quantum correlations themselves demonstrate that these variables have observable consequences at least on an aggregate statistical basis. So, anything that affects observation either directly or in aggregate, must be regarded as an element of reality. Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:32 pm

Yablon wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I'm surprised that no one has commented on Jay's profound result that quantum mechanics is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario after all this time. However, I will put forward that Jay's result could perhaps be simplified in regards that a hidden variable is not required to cancel out the a x b cross product. Since a and b are physically separated, the cross product is simply a mathematical artifact and can be set to zero. Plus, it will cancel out over many trials anyways by averaging.
.

Of course at that point, one can take the singlet spin vector to be the hidden variable.
.

As some of you know I have been focused on quantum gravity for most of this year. In fact, I just posted by latest and most simplified and cogent work on this today, see https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ental_test.

But as regards Bell, I am of the view that Bell was too liberal by allowing anything that somebody might come up with to be a hidden variable. I believe that nature is more stringent, and that any hidden variables must be variables which have their actual value masked by an uncertainty principle, whether e.g. position / momentum uncertainty, or the the case of Bell physics, the directional orientation of the opposite-spin halves of the doublet emerging from a split singlet. This of course, also requires a viewpoint that that these variables hidden by uncertainty are elements of reality notwithstanding the limitations that nature imposes on our ability to observe them. The quantum correlations themselves demonstrate that these variables have observable consequences at least on an aggregate statistical basis. So, anything that affects observation either directly or in aggregate, must be regarded as an element of reality. Jay

Well, a hidden variable is not required to demonstrate that quantum mechanics is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario as you have done. In fact, a hidden variable wasn't required in the geometric algebra local model I recently did. The singlet spin vector is the only other variable that is needed. And... I don't think that variable is actually hidden. Maybe I will write it up so that it is clear.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Local Realistic Hidden Variables Quantum Mechanics (LRHV

Postby gill1109 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:24 pm

Yablon wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I'm surprised that no one has commented on Jay's profound result that quantum mechanics is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario after all this time. However, I will put forward that Jay's result could perhaps be simplified in regards that a hidden variable is not required to cancel out the a x b cross product. Since a and b are physically separated, the cross product is simply a mathematical artifact and can be set to zero. Plus, it will cancel out over many trials anyways by averaging.
.

Of course at that point, one can take the singlet spin vector to be the hidden variable.
.

As some of you know I have been focused on quantum gravity for most of this year. In fact, I just posted by latest and most simplified and cogent work on this today, see https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ental_test.

But as regards Bell, I am of the view that Bell was too liberal by allowing anything that somebody might come up with to be a hidden variable. I believe that nature is more stringent, and that any hidden variables must be variables which have their actual value masked by an uncertainty principle, whether e.g. position / momentum uncertainty, or the the case of Bell physics, the directional orientation of the opposite-spin halves of the doublet emerging from a split singlet. This of course, also requires a viewpoint that that these variables hidden by uncertainty are elements of reality notwithstanding the limitations that nature imposes on our ability to observe them. The quantum correlations themselves demonstrate that these variables have observable consequences at least on an aggregate statistical basis. So, anything that affects observation either directly or in aggregate, must be regarded as an element of reality. Jay

Now you’re redefining the notion of “element of reality” to make it superfluous. Anything in a successful physical theory is an element of reality? Reality - that which is mentioned within a physical model which matches observation well? Then Ptolemy’s epicycles were elements of reality for a thousand years.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 63 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library