No spooky action at a distance

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

No spooky action at a distance

Postby Esail » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:13 am

I've developed a model that correctly predicts the quantum measurement results with entangled photons thus refuting Bell's theorem. It can be found on ResearchGate
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem"
DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29860.22403
As a consequence, we cannot conclude any more nature is nonlocal. Experimental results with spin or polarization measurements can be explained without assuming non-local effects.
Also, the concept of superposition which implies the simultaneous existence of incompatible physical states is in question. If measured values exist beforehand mutually exclusive values cannot exist simultaneously.
Hence, the concept of a quantum computer is in question as it relies upon the assumption that a quantum system bears simultaneously information about two mutually exclusive outcomes.
Comments are welcome
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:26 pm

This is not new. Joy Christian described a local realistic model for Bell type phenomena more than ten years ago.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:53 pm

Heinera wrote:This is not new. Joy Christian described a local realistic model for Bell type phenomena more than ten years ago.

What is more, is that Jay Yablon showed that quantum mechanics itself is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412&p=10488#p10488
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Esail » Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:40 am

FrediFizzx wrote:What is more, is that Jay Yablon showed that quantum mechanics itself is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412&p=10488#p10488
.

The arguments in this draft are not convincing. Quantum mechanics is indeed incomplete as it does not provide spin measurement outcomes.
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:35 pm

Esail wrote:I've developed a model that correctly predicts the quantum measurement results with entangled photons thus refuting Bell's theorem. It can be found on ResearchGate
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem"
DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29860.22403
As a consequence, we cannot conclude any more nature is nonlocal. Experimental results with spin or polarization measurements can be explained without assuming non-local effects.
Also, the concept of superposition which implies the simultaneous existence of incompatible physical states is in question. If measured values exist beforehand mutually exclusive values cannot exist simultaneously.
Hence, the concept of a quantum computer is in question as it relies upon the assumption that a quantum system bears simultaneously information about two mutually exclusive outcomes.
Comments are welcome

Dear Eugen Muchowski
My executive summary of Bell’s theorem is that QM is incompatible with locality + realism + no-conspiracy. And we now also have the 2015 “loophole free” experiments which show that the real world does not admit a description which has the three just-mentioned properties.

You introduce a *contextual* realistic model. It violates *locality*. You do not contradict either Bell’s theorem nor the Kochen-Specker theorem.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Esail » Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:55 am

gill1109 wrote:
You introduce a *contextual* realistic model. It violates *locality*.


Can you, please, explain where my model violates locality?
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:14 am

Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
You introduce a *contextual* realistic model. It violates *locality*.


Can you, please, explain where my model violates locality?

Remarkable claims require remarkably strong evidence. I have argued with people like you for numerous times during the last 20 years. Obviously, my arguments never convinced my opponents. Who do share some characteristics with flat-earthers, anti-evolutionists, people who have a proof of the Riemann hypothesis or that P=NP, etc. I respect such people, good for them! Original voices should not be silenced by an evil establishment. Occasionally, just occasionally, they are onto something really important.

I found that it was finally more effective to issue a computer challenge. In a nut-shell, this is it:

Please program your model such that it verifiably satisfies the conditions on spatial-temporal separation of various subsystems, which are nowadays standard requirements of a loophole-free experiment, as described in Bell’s “Bertlmann’s socks” paper, and successfully implemented in the famous 2015 experiments in Delft, Munich, Vienna and at NIST (Boulder, Colorado). Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).

We can discuss the fine details of a challenge acceptable to both parties and adjudicated by a jointly trusted jury on the present forum, if you like.

My most recent publication on this issue can be found via https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103

You could also tell me what is the mathematical error in the main theorem in this paper.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Esail » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:16 am

gill1109 wrote:
Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).



I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:15 pm

Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).



I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.

Nope. His "challenge" is rigged as far as matching QM goes. You have to beat CHSH by a certain amount using the +/-1 A and B outcomes only. IOW, you have to be able to do what the QM experiments do. Well..., that is certainly what Nature does but QM can't predict the correct individual event by event outcomes. So he wants you to do more than what quantum mechanics can do.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:08 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).



I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.

Nope. His "challenge" is rigged as far as matching QM goes. You have to beat CHSH by a certain amount using the +/-1 A and B outcomes only. IOW, you have to be able to do what the QM experiments do. Well..., that is certainly what Nature does but QM can't predict the correct individual event by event outcomes. So he wants you to do more than what quantum mechanics can do.

Let me add three more points to Fred's comments:

(1) A local-realistic theory is under no obligation to predict what quantum mechanics cannot predict. Its obligation is to reproduce only the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics.

(2) If experimentalists have observed "violations" of the Bell-CHSH inequality using only +/-1 outcomes, then they have observed something that goes beyond what quantum mechanics can predict and do. In other words, they have observed that Nature can do more than what quantum mechanics can predict and do. Why, then, do people still believe that quantum mechanics is a correct theory of Nature? Apparently, it cannot even reproduce a routine procedure of one of the most elementary of experiments.

(3) In fact, no experiment has ever "violated" any mathematical inequality. The experiments are done using a bait-and-switch tactic of replacing the Bell-CHSH inequality with Tsirelson's.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:30 pm

Sure, a local-realistic theory is under no strict obligation to predict what quantum mechanics can't predict as far as Bell's junk physics theory goes. But just the same, you might expect the theory to be able to model Nature and successfully predict individual event by event outcomes. That IMHO would be the ultimate realistic theory. And... it may not have anything to do with QM.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby gill1109 » Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:32 am

Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).

I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.

Please send me the program (or better still, publish it on internet) so we can find out whether or not it satisfies the requirements specified in my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103.

I am not going to do your programming work for you, nor check your mathematics for you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You think you have overturned more than fifty years of work in physics and mathematics and computer science. I think it is more likely that you have misunderstood what Bell did. Of course, I might be wrong. If you are right, you can easily prove to the world that you are right, and you will almost certainly get the Nobel prize and revolutionise physics. Once your programs are published and validated, no establishment conspiracy can stop the word from getting out.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:56 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).

I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.

Please send me the program (or better still, publish it on internet) so we can find out whether or not it satisfies the requirements specified in my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103.

I am not going to do your programming work for you, nor check your mathematics for you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You think you have overturned more than fifty years of work in physics and mathematics and computer science. I think it is more likely that you have misunderstood what Bell did. Of course, I might be wrong. If you are right, you can easily prove to the world that you are right, and you will almost certainly get the Nobel prize and revolutionise physics. Once your programs are published and validated, no establishment conspiracy can stop the word from getting out.

I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby gill1109 » Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:50 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).

I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.

Please send me the program (or better still, publish it on internet) so we can find out whether or not it satisfies the requirements specified in my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103.

I am not going to do your programming work for you, nor check your mathematics for you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You think you have overturned more than fifty years of work in physics and mathematics and computer science. I think it is more likely that you have misunderstood what Bell did. Of course, I might be wrong. If you are right, you can easily prove to the world that you are right, and you will almost certainly get the Nobel prize and revolutionise physics. Once your programs are published and validated, no establishment conspiracy can stop the word from getting out.

I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.

Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.

A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:26 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:...
I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.

Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.

A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.

"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Heinera » Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:04 am

With QM, when we apply the Born rule to the wave function of an entangled pair, we get a joint probability function P[x; a, b]for the outcomes x {(1, -1), (-1, 1), (-1, -1), (1, 1)} that depends on both detector settings a and b. The function looks like this:

P[(1, -1); a, b] = (1 + cos(a.b))/4

P[(-1, 1); a, b] = (1 + cos(a.b))/4

P[(-1, -1); a, b] = (1 - cos(a.b))/4

P[(1, 1); a, b] = (1 - cos(a.b))/4

This is what a local hidden variables theory must reproduce when you aggregate a lot of outcomes.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:02 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.

A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.

"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.

Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because

(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),

so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:09 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.

A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.

"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.

Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because

(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),

so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.

***

Joy, of course but not exactly what I am talking about here. Haven't you already done that? :D
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:16 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because

(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),

so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.

Joy, of course but not exactly what I am talking about here. Haven't you already done that? :D

Yes, we have done all of this before. But I thought you were trying to program the model that started this thread and Gill and Heinera were trying to distract you from that task.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: No spooky action at a distance

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:23 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because

(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),

so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.

Joy, of course but not exactly what I am talking about here. Haven't you already done that? :D

Yes, we have done all of this before. But I thought you were trying to program the model that started this thread and Gill and Heinera were trying to distract you from that task.

***

I wasn't trying to program the model yet. The "challenge" means you have to model Nature and has nothing to do with Bell. Bell's case has already been shot down is the point I am making.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library