Gull and Gill's theory

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

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:43 pm

minkwe wrote:Another point Jaynes makes is: According to QM
for all
ie, knowledge of the setting for the A measurement does not change any predictions at B. Yet simultaneously, according to QM

Why do you think . Do you think this is due to non-locality or any spooky reason? If you do, then you've misunderstood even more of what Jaynes is saying in which case I would ask you to again describe step-by-step how you would calculate/estimate from the same experimental data above obtained from your distributed computing experiment. And please be careful to explain why you would use a different procedure to calculate from the one used to calculate .


It is perfectly unsurprising that . What goes on at the two detectors is influenced by what happened at the source. Given a and b, B helps us predict A.

I estimate P(B|Aab) by #ABab/#Aab and P(B|a) by #Ba/#a, how would you do it?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:21 am

minkwe wrote:[...]
Why do you think .

This is true not only for the QM predictions, but for most LHV models as well, and is perfectly unsurprising as Richard says. Why do you think it has any relevance for Bell's theorem?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:01 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:[...]
Why do you think .

This is true not only for the QM predictions, but for most LHV models as well, and is perfectly unsurprising as Richard says. Why do you think it has any relevance for Bell's theorem?

Indeed.

Of course P(B|b) = 1/2 doesn’t have to be true. But P(B|ab)= P(B|a) is called no-signalling and it needs to be true by the principles of relativity theory.

Amusingly, Pearle’s detection loophole model does not satisfy another kind of no-signalling: the rate of double detections depends on both settings. Pearle knew this very well. Gisin & Gisin’s model does not have that defect.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:50 am

gill1109 wrote:I estimate P(B|Aab) by #ABab/#Aab and P(B|a) by #Ba/#a, how would you do it?

You did not explain why you calculate them differently. Practically, the conditioning is used to select the sub-sample within which the calculation is done. It implies nothing about no-signaling or non-locality. There is no difference in how you calculate that from an experiment, irrespective of whether you assume a local or a non-local theory. You do it exactly the same by comparing the data from both sides, and selecting the subset within which outcome A was obtained while settings (a,b) were in force, and then within that subset, you calculate the relative frequency of the specific B outcome. You must always use the A outcome to select the subset for P(B|Aab). It is this information about the A outcome that is "non-local", not anything physical happening in the long-completed experiment.

gill1109 wrote:Of course P(B|b) = 1/2 doesn’t have to be true. But P(B|ab)= P(B|a) is called no-signalling and it needs to be true by the principles of relativity theory.



You think P(B|ab)= P(B|b) is no-signalling, therefore QM forbids it because according to QM P(B|ab)= P(B|b) = 1/2.

Do you think P(B|Ab) = P(B|b) is also no-signalling? Because according to QM P(B|Ab) =/= P(B|b) which according to you should imply signalling no?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:30 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:[...]
Why do you think .

This is true not only for the QM predictions, but for most LHV models as well...

So "most LHV" theories also allow signaling?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:01 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:[...]
Why do you think .

... Why do you think it has any relevance for Bell's theorem?


Jaynes explains why by making another the crucial point that all the inequalities are therefore not required and we can avoid half a century of arguments about inequalities by doing just this simple experiment to test QM directly, using



And a simple photon-correlation experiment in which is 90 degrees.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:38 am

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:[...]
Why do you think .

This is true not only for the QM predictions, but for most LHV models as well...

So "most LHV" theories also allow signaling?

But your inequality does not imply signaling. Just consider any LHV model that gives opposite results for Alice and Bob when they use identical settings, e.g. Peres' "exploding balls" model. Anyone who knows Alice's result can predict Bob's result with certainty. If they don't know, it's 50/50. So . This has nothing to do with signaling.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:06 am

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:[...]
Why do you think .

... Why do you think it has any relevance for Bell's theorem?


Jaynes explains why by making another the crucial point that all the inequalities are therefore not required and we can avoid half a century of arguments about inequalities by doing just this simple experiment to test QM directly, using



And a simple photon-correlation experiment in which is 90 degrees.


This doesn't make sense. You have a dependency on A in the lhs, yet it is nowhere to be found in the rhs.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:56 am

Heinera wrote:This doesn't make sense. You have a dependency on A in the lhs, yet it is nowhere to be found in the rhs.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe you need to relearn probability theory.

shouldn't make sense to you then because there is no on the rhs.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:02 am

Heinera wrote:So . This has nothing to do with signaling.


Does have anything to do with signalling?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:24 am

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:So . This has nothing to do with signaling.


Does have anything to do with signalling?

Yes. Because it means that Bob can learn something about Alice's setting by seeing whether or not B happens (while, of course, knowing b). The probability of what he sees varies, depending on Alice's setting a. So he can rightly make different bets on what b is, depending on whether or not B happens (while knowing, of course, b).
Last edited by gill1109 on Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:26 am

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:This doesn't make sense. You have a dependency on A in the lhs, yet it is nowhere to be found in the rhs.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe you need to relearn probability theory.

shouldn't make sense to you then because there is no on the rhs.

But then your expression

is simply wrong, if you mean that the lhs is the same value for any A. Do you want me to write the correct expression for you?
Last edited by Heinera on Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:29 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:This doesn't make sense. You have a dependency on A in the lhs, yet it is nowhere to be found in the rhs.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe you need to relearn probability theory.

shouldn't make sense to you then because there is no on the rhs.

But then your expression

is simply wrong, if you mean that the lsh is the same value for any A. Do you want me to write the correct expression for you?

I think that Michel means "Alice's outcome is +1" by the event A. Similarly, "B" means Bob's outcome is +1. And AB is the event "both outcomes are +1".
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:37 am

AB? He writes ab. I thought lower case letters indicated detector settings.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:44 am

Heinera wrote:AB? He writes ab. I thought lower case letters indicated detector settings.

He writes both. "AB" means, for him, I think, both outcomes are +1. "ab" means, for him, both settings. Michel can tell us what he means. Everyone gets used to their own notation.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:46 am

gill1109 wrote:He writes both. "AB" means, for him, I think, both outcomes are +1. "ab" means, for him, both settings.

Yes, that's how I understand it, and then everything I wrote is correct.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:51 am

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:So . This has nothing to do with signaling.


Does have anything to do with signalling?

Of course it does. Alice can control the setting a and thus can use it for signaling. But Alice cannot control the outcome A, so that can't be used to signal.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:07 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:This doesn't make sense. You have a dependency on A in the lhs, yet it is nowhere to be found in the rhs.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe you need to relearn probability theory.

shouldn't make sense to you then because there is no on the rhs.

But then your expression

is simply wrong, if you mean that the lsh is the same value for any A. Do you want me to write the correct expression for you?

I think that Michel means "Alice's outcome is +1" by the event A. Similarly, "B" means Bob's outcome is +1. And AB is the event "both outcomes are +1".

Correct! I thought it was clear from the mention of Jaynes what this is all about? See https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf pages 10-15. Gull is mentioned on Page 15.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:28 pm

minkwe wrote:Correct! I thought it was clear from the mention of Jaynes what this is all about? See https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf pages 10-15. Gull is mentioned on Page 15.

Yes, we have sorted that out. I have used this meaning throughout in all my replies. Hopefully we can now get back to the topic.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:57 pm

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:So . This has nothing to do with signaling.


Does have anything to do with signalling?

Of course it does. Alice can control the setting and thus can use it for signaling. But Alice cannot control the outcome , so that can't be used to signal.

Mathematically, there is no difference between and since A and "a" are just random variables. But according to you, one represents signaling and the other does not, which means it is not the mathematical expression that conveys signaling but your interpretation of it.

Does Alice have any influence over the outcome? If not then why does she bother changing at all? If she does, influence outcome by changing the setting then it would appear your distinction is superficial.

But first, what do you understand by "signaling"?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library