Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

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

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:44 am

gill1109 wrote: I did not say he appeals to decoherence. He has written a number of papers, and I refer to the ideas he discussed with me in correspondence years ago, the ideas which many people before him had also championed. He never used the term decoherence.

Loss of entanglement "as the particles separate" is decoherence. It's remarkable how little you know about quantum theory. Graft never appealed to either decoherence or whatever it is you are talking about. He has always maintained that the singlet is maintained until the measurements at the stations. And you are dissembling about the correspondence. Graft has shared with me the entire history of his correspondence with you. These things were never discussed.
Last edited by local on Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby gill1109 » Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:47 am

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: I did not say he appeals to decoherence. He has written a number of papers, and I refer to the ideas he discussed with me in correspondence years ago, the ideas which many people before him had also championed. He never used the term decoherence.

Loss of entanglement "as the particles separate" is decoherence. Graft never appealed to either decoherence or whatever it is you are talking about. And you are lying about the correspondence. Graft has shared with me the entire history of his correspondence with you. These things were never discussed. Are you now going to fabricate emails?

Are you telling me that Donald Graft shared an entire private correspondence which he had with a third person, with you? I don’t believe for one moment that he would do such a thing. Please retract your daft accusation.

Are you suggesting I would fabricate past email correspondence with him?

To begin with, I would ask for his permission.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:50 am

I am in current correspondence with him. When you started dissembling about the correspondence, he shared the chain with me to show that you never discussed any such thing. Poor Gill, call the whambulance.

I would not put anything past you, based both on your sordid history and your dissembling here.
Last edited by local on Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:51 am

OK guys, let's stop the personal comments.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:59 am

Fred, I posed questions to you that may have been overlooked in the heat of battle. It would be great if you could help with answers to them. I am very interested in Jay's derivation. Thank you.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby gill1109 » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:23 am

local wrote:I am in current correspondence with him. When you started dissembling about the correspondence, he shared the chain with me to show that you never discussed any such thing. Poor Gill, call the whambulance.

I would not put anything past you, based both on your sordid history and your dissembling here.

At the time of my correspondence with Donald, in 2015, I had read the papers which he had then written.

The main one was a 2013 SPIE paper. I just checked it out again. Yes, he wrote there that the “joint measurement” concept was wrong. But at that time he had no alternative approach. He did not claim that the two particles arriving at the detectors were in the singlet state. You are right, he doesn’t talk about decoherence. He was committed to the detection loophole approach as used by de Raedt and collaborators, to get a local realistic modelling of experiments of years ago with a serious detector inefficiency problem. He was committed to local realism. We had a friendly and respectful exchange.

My “sordid history” is a history of pointing out when people make serious errors in mathematics or logic, in the field of Bell’s theorem. It gave me both friends, and enemies.

The experiments of 2015 don’t claim to create the singlet state, and didn’t try to. They don’t find -a.b. What they did find fits well to the QM models which they were trying to engineer in the lab. They did find violations of Bell’s inequality, and hence of local realism, but naturally you may be critical of the sample sizes (Delft, Munich), or of the tiny size of the violation (Vienna, NIST). However there have been major improvements since then. Last I looked, Donald was critical of their random generators, and concerned with time trends in the physical systems. I am also critical of the random setting generation in those experiments. Time trends / drifts/ jumps are fortunately not an issue thanks to the latest generation of martingale based tests, giving us a robust alternative to conventional CHSH, Eberhard, CH, *provided* reliable RNGs are used.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:44 am

local wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It is the magnitude of the cross product and unphysical since a and b are separated. IOW, it's zero.

Fred, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is there a paper that explains and justifies that, or is it just hand-waving? Also, where do I find Jay's derivation?


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

Just backtrack the product calculation to the A and B measurement functions. I will explain it later in more detail without Jay's extraneous commentary about the uncertainty principle.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:57 am

gill1109 wrote: The main one was a 2013 SPIE paper. I just checked it out again. Yes, he wrote there that the “joint measurement” concept was wrong. But at that time he had no alternative approach.

Nonsense. He said that the marginals must be used instead of the joint distribution. The later paper added the Luders projection angle. Use of the marginals is equivalent to null projection.

He did not claim that the two particles arriving at the detectors were in the singlet state.

More nonsense. Graft writes:

"for separated measurements of the correlated spin-1 singlet state at stations A and B"

He was committed to the detection loophole approach...

He believed that miscalibration (first pointed out by him) invoked the detection 'loophole' in the Weihs experiment. It's just rhetoric to say he was "committed to" it. He was interested in all the mechanisms, but papers come one at a time.

The experiments of 2015 don’t claim to create the singlet state, and didn’t try to. They don’t find -a.b.

Yes, we all know that. We know about nonmaximal states, etc. But we are talking about the theoretical prediction for the singlet state.

Last I looked, Donald was critical of their random generators

More misrepresentation. The lack of expected randomness was argued to prove postselection, not to criticize their generators.

@all

Please study Graft's papers carefully and don't rely upon Gill's motivated misrepresentation of them.

FrediFizzx wrote:https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/lrhvcqm-1.1.pdf

Just backtrack the product calculation to the A and B measurement functions. I will explain it later in more detail without Jay's extraneous commentary about the uncertainty principle.

Thank you. I will study it with great interest. And looking forward to your further elaboration about it.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:26 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
local wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It is the magnitude of the cross product and unphysical since a and b are separated. IOW, it's zero.

Fred, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is there a paper that explains and justifies that, or is it just hand-waving? Also, where do I find Jay's derivation?


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

Just backtrack the product calculation to the A and B measurement functions. I will explain it later in more detail without Jay's extraneous commentary about the uncertainty principle.
.

I'm withdrawing Jay's calculation. I discovered an omission in his eq. (5.2). I'm replacing it with this,

EPRsims/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable__Draft__9_28_long.pdf

temporarily. There might be a more recent update for it.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby gill1109 » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:06 pm

local wrote:Please study Graft's papers carefully and don't rely upon Gill's motivated misrepresentation of them.

Do indeed study Graft’s papers carefully. He has some very good points. I recommend his most recent:

https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals ... e-p586.xml
Open Physics | Volume 15: Issue 1
Rhetoric, logic, and experiment in the quantum nonlocality debate
Donald A. Graft

and two older ones:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808
Graft D.A., The Quantum Prediction for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Experiments, Adv. Sci. Eng. Med., 2017, 9, 77-84

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06231.pdf
Graft D.A., Clauser-Horne/Eberhard inequality violation by a local model, Adv. Sci. Eng. Med., 2016, 8, 496-502

I don’t agree with all he says, but he is an eloquent critic of “the establishment view”, and I fully his support his opposition to the dogmatism of powerful editorial bodies in science publishing. One has to keep on fighting for fairness and openness.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby gill1109 » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:23 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
local wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It is the magnitude of the cross product and unphysical since a and b are separated. IOW, it's zero.

Fred, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is there a paper that explains and justifies that, or is it just hand-waving? Also, where do I find Jay's derivation?


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

Just backtrack the product calculation to the A and B measurement functions. I will explain it later in more detail without Jay's extraneous commentary about the uncertainty principle.
.

I'm withdrawing Jay's calculation. I discovered an omission in his eq. (5.2). I'm replacing it with this,

EPRsims/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable__Draft__9_28_long.pdf

temporarily. There might be a more recent update for it.
.

Fred, you write, in the derivation of the singlet correlation in this temporary manuscript [Draft: for feedback only]
“Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State with a Hidden Variable” by Joy Christian, Fred Diether and Jay Yablon, “Upon using the “product of limits equal to limits of product” rule”. What rule do you mean? I think the step from (12) to (13) in http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/EPRsims/QM_Has_a_Hidden_Variable__Draft__9_28_long.pdf is wrong. You are moving a “limit” not only from outside to inside of a product but also from outside to inside of another limit and from outside to inside of an average.

In the draft, the wave function gets multiplied by a random +/-1, a hidden variable. It’s an interesting idea to try to complete quantum mechanics by adding further information to the wave function. (I think it has been tried before. One can not only add a phase but also no longer demand normalisation). But a binary hidden variable is not enough. When we measure two spin half particles, and the measurement directions are neither equal, nor opposite, there are four possible outcomes, not two. The hidden variable which completes the theory has to be more “rich in detail”.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby gill1109 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:04 am

By the way, the insightful remark that a binary hidden variable is not rich enough was given us here, some years ago, by Heinera. Going on from there one sees that if one wants a hidden variable model for all possible pairs of measurement angles, one needs a hidden variable which allows events to be constructed with all probabilities between 0 and 1. So one needs a continuously distributed variable. For instance, a uniformly distributed “hidden direction”. But the model must be non-local or conspiratorial.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:01 am

gill1109 wrote:
By the way, the insightful remark that a binary hidden variable is not rich enough was given us here, some years ago, by Heinera. Going on from there one sees that if one wants a hidden variable model for all possible pairs of measurement angles, one needs a hidden variable which allows events to be constructed with all probabilities between 0 and 1. So one needs a continuously distributed variable. For instance, a uniformly distributed “hidden direction”. But the model must be non-local or conspiratorial.

Nonsense.

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

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby gill1109 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:38 am

A non-local HV model of the singlet correlations:

Input direction “a”
Input direction “b”
Compute - a.b, giving a number “x” in [-1, +1]
Add 1, halve the result, giving a number “p” in [0, 1].
Toss a fair coin, this becomes the outcome +/-1 of Alice’s measurement.
Pick a random number U uniformly distributed between 0 and 1.
If U < p then Bob’s measurement outcome = Alice’s; otherwise Bob’s is the opposite of Alice’s.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:05 am

Fred, in the last paper you cite it is written:

"Even though our A and B measurement functions can produce the correlation analytically via the product, they don’t predict the individual ±1 outcomes correctly even though they do produce ±1’s."

Can you please elaborate on this? It is not clear why it should produce outcomes but they are not correct. If it is correct analytically I would have thought it would be straightforward to have it produce correct outcomes.

Then the next step is to apply a "filter" that effectively excludes events. The cynical among us might say congratulations, you have rediscovered the detection 'loophole'. It seems you cite 3-space topology to justify this step. Is my understanding correct? Thank you.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:06 am

local wrote:Fred, in the last paper you cite it is written:

"Even though our A and B measurement functions can produce the correlation analytically via the product, they don’t predict the individual ±1 outcomes correctly even though they do produce ±1’s."

Can you please elaborate on this? It is not clear why it should produce outcomes but they are not correct. If it is correct analytically I would have thought it would be straightforward to have it produce correct outcomes.

Then the next step is to apply a "filter" that effectively excludes events. The cynical among us might say congratulations, you have rediscovered the detection 'loophole'. It seems you cite 3-space topology to justify this step. Is my understanding correct? Thank you.

Quantum mechanics can't predict the individual event by event outcomes even though we do get the -a.b prediction via the product calculation. Forget about that section on Complete States. You wanted calculations of the QM prediction so here is another one. This temporary version is just what was already posted on the forum. I think I did another version after this with no hidden variable. At any rate, no HV is required.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:24 am

Fair enough, but then it appears to negate your claim to have a plausible simulation. I will study the derivation. May I ask if it proceeds in normal 3D spacetime, or does it require higher topologies? If the latter I will have to come up to speed on that. Thank you for your response.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:38 am

local wrote:
Fair enough, but then it appears to negate your claim to have a plausible simulation. I will study the derivation. May I ask if it proceeds in normal 3D spacetime, or does it require higher topologies? If the latter I will have to come up to speed on that. Thank you for your response.

Just for the record, and to avoid any future confusion, my 3-sphere model and Jay's quantum-mechanics-based model are not the same models. Mine is a purely classical LHV model.

Moreover, your phrase "higher topologies" should not be read as "higher dimensions." The 3-sphere, or S^3, is a three-dimensional space, just like the usual R^3. But unlike R^3, it is a closed and compact space. It differs from R^3 only by the addition of a single point at infinity.

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

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby local » Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:09 pm

Thank you for the clarification, Joy. Studying...

May I ask if there is a physical difference between R^3 and S^3? If so, how would we test which applies to the real world?
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:32 pm

local wrote:
May I ask if there is a physical difference between R^3 and S^3? If so, how would we test which applies to the real world?

Yes, there are physical differences between R^3 and S^3.

Both R^3 (flat) and S^3 (constant positive curvature), together with H^3 (a hyperboloid with negative curvature) are viable 3D physical spaces, according to Einstein's general relativity.

But the cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectra recently mapped by the space observatory Planck now prefers a positive curvature (i.e., S^3) at more than 99% confidence level. See, for example, references [16] and [17] in my latest paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414.

Independently, my claim has been that the observed singlet correlations have nothing to do with quantum entanglement per se. They are evidence that we live in S^3, not in R^3 or H^3.

***
Last edited by Joy Christian on Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library