The 64 thousand Euro challenge

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

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:44 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Let's suppose for a minute that it is possible for quantum mechanics to predict the individual event by event outcomes for A and B. How might one go about doing that? Well, we would have to construct measurement functions for A and B,


Well, we know from Bell those functions give the straight line triangle correlation. But that would be the QM prediction for an event by event simulation of an EPR scenario which of course matches other local theory predictions. Of course, the experiments say that it is probably wrong.

gill1109 wrote:Please explain what you mean by your limit notation. How can s converge to a limit which depends on s?

FrediFizzx wrote:It is quite amazing that a mathematician doesn't understand how a limit substitution process works! Ah, but 'tis a typical Gill distraction from the main result that QM might predict the straight line triangle correlation for event by event outcomes.


Dear Fred, you were clearly never trained in the epsilon-delta definitions of basic concepts in calculus.

Never mind. You do say some interesting things. There are indeed QM models which predict the triangle wave rather than the negative cosine. They do allow the modelling of event-by-event outcomes, without conspiracy or post-selection, because they are QM models which satisfy the properties collected under the notion of "local realism". I can give you one, if you like. We could publish it together. It is interesting that you now are promoting such models. Does this mean that you will rewrite your programs for Joy Christian so that they produce the triangle wave instead of the negative cosine? They could then be run on separated computers. They would be eligible for my challenge (could be used to honestly simulate a loophole-free experiment) but would not win it (they wouldn't violate any Bell inequalities).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:42 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It is quite amazing that a mathematician doesn't understand how a limit substitution process works! Ah, but 'tis a typical Gill distraction from the main result that QM might predict the straight line triangle correlation for event by event outcomes.


Dear Fred, you were clearly never trained in the epsilon-delta definitions of basic concepts in calculus. ...

Well, that is complete baloney. I learned it 55 years ago as a senior in high school. Plus three semesters of college calculus. But Mathematica does know about the limit subsitution process,

Image

Which is of course just the Sign[a.s]. Time to put your dunce hat on... again! :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:04 am

gill1109 wrote: ... Does this mean that you will rewrite your programs for Joy Christian so that they produce the triangle wave instead of the negative cosine? ...

It is even more astoundingly amazing that after all these years you still don't understand the simulations we did for Joy's model.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:49 pm

gill1109 wrote:You do say some interesting things. There are indeed QM models which predict the triangle wave rather than the negative cosine. They do allow the modelling of event-by-event outcomes, without conspiracy or post-selection, because they are QM models which satisfy the properties collected under the notion of "local realism". I can give you one, if you like. ...

I already have a good QM local model. Why would I need another one? But sure I showed mine, so let's see what you have.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:19 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It is quite amazing that a mathematician doesn't understand how a limit substitution process works! Ah, but 'tis a typical Gill distraction from the main result that QM might predict the straight line triangle correlation for event by event outcomes.


Dear Fred, you were clearly never trained in the epsilon-delta definitions of basic concepts in calculus. ...

Well, that is complete baloney. I learned it 55 years ago as a senior in high school. Plus three semesters of college calculus. But Mathematica does know about the limit subsitution process,

Image

Which is of course just the Sign[a.s]. Time to put your dunce hat on... again! :mrgreen:
.

Your notation is ambiguous and illegal. There are three instances of “s” in your expression. Two of them are the same, dummy, variable. I’ve renamed them as “t”. The third is a different variable and should have a different name. I’ve kept it as “s”. Mathematica has interpreted your expression as

Sorry, Fred. You are wearing the dunce hat.

Mathematica should have told you that what you wrote was illegal and ambiguous. But it lazily just took a guess and it just happened to guess what you wanted.

But it’s good to understand what you meant! Thanks.

Can you actually recall the epsilon-delta definition of limit from your three semesters of calculus? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%CE%B4)-definition_of_limit
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:22 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It is quite amazing that a mathematician doesn't understand how a limit substitution process works! Ah, but 'tis a typical Gill distraction from the main result that QM might predict the straight line triangle correlation for event by event outcomes.


Dear Fred, you were clearly never trained in the epsilon-delta definitions of basic concepts in calculus. ...

Well, that is complete baloney. I learned it 55 years ago as a senior in high school. Plus three semesters of college calculus. But Mathematica does know about the limit subsitution process,

Image

Which is of course just the Sign[a.s]. Time to put your dunce hat on... again! :mrgreen:
.

Your notation is ambiguous and illegal.

OMG! Just replace the s in a.s with Sign[a.s}a to obtain a.Sign[a.s]a = a.a Sign[a.s] = Sign[a.s]. There are the baby steps for you since your dunce hat must be clouding your mind even more. It is sooo very freakin' simple. Nothing ambiguous or illegal about it. That is why no warning from Mathematica. The limit process is just a simplification of how the polarizer action works on average.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:11 am

To get back on topic: it seems that everyone agrees that it is not possible to win my challenge. The question remains: is it reasonable? I think so. Some people believe that Bell’s theorem is not true. They believe there exist functions A and B, and a probability measure rho, with the usual properties, such that .... Well, if those functions and that probability distribution not only exist, but also can be programmed, then they can win my challenge.

If they do exist in some mathematical sense but can’t be realised in a computer program, even approximately, then the claim of existence seems to me unconvincing.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby minkwe » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:08 am

gill1109 wrote:To get back on topic: it seems that everyone agrees that it is not possible to win my challenge.

I have not stated an opinion one way or another therefore it is wrong to conclude that "everyone agrees". Count me among those who believe that Bell's theorem is false. But you then make a leap to say

Bells theorem = "There exist functions A and B, and a probability measure rho, with the usual properties, such that .... Well, if those functions and that probability distribution not only exist but also can be programmed, then they can win my challenge."

I disagree with that premise.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby Austin Fearnley » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:43 am

Hi Richard

I am writing here as it may be the best place for my post, although I am not interested in challenges or prize money.

I have this morning realised that the same formula and electron structure that drives my backwards-in-time model should also work forwards-in-time.
So now fortunately (or is that unfortunately!) I need to write another 'Bell experiment' paper, which I will do ASAP.
I will get back here if and when my paper is online.

Before I had this idea, my wife had a phone call from the doctor and she will have her first vaccine shot on Saturday. So I guess that good news put me in a happy frame of mind to wonder why QM seems to work forwards-in-time. I expect that the vaccine will be the Pfizer vaccine, which is the one being rolled out this week in England.
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:17 am

gill1109 wrote:To get back on topic: it seems that everyone agrees that it is not possible to win my challenge. The question remains: is it reasonable? I think so. Some people believe that Bell’s theorem is not true. They believe there exist functions A and B, and a probability measure rho, with the usual properties, such that .... Well, if those functions and that probability distribution not only exist, but also can be programmed, then they can win my challenge.

If they do exist in some mathematical sense but can’t be realised in a computer program, even approximately, then the claim of existence seems to me unconvincing.

Your challenge is irrelevant nonsense. What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements? You were going to give some other local QM models and we are still waiting to see them.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:38 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:To get back on topic: it seems that everyone agrees that it is not possible to win my challenge. The question remains: is it reasonable? I think so. Some people believe that Bell’s theorem is not true. They believe there exist functions A and B, and a probability measure rho, with the usual properties, such that .... Well, if those functions and that probability distribution not only exist, but also can be programmed, then they can win my challenge.

If they do exist in some mathematical sense but can’t be realised in a computer program, even approximately, then the claim of existence seems to me unconvincing.

Your challenge is irrelevant nonsense. What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements? You were going to give some other local QM models and we are still waiting to see them.
.

I agree, my challenge is utterly irrelevant. It is only relevant for people who believe that they have a local realist model - ie functions A, B and a probability distribution rho - which reproduce the *so-called* singlet correlations. Such persons are mistaken, hence irrelevant, hence my challenge is irrelevant.

I can give you many other QM models for many other correlations but I don't see the point of doing so. It would be "off topic" anyway. Do you want to work with me on a new paper? Then I would be happy to collaborate with you. Send me a PM.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:38 pm

What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:49 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements?
.

Let me break this to you, Fred: There is no separate prediction for "isolated separate measurements" in QM. It's just the good old one.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:03 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements?
.

Let me break this to you, Fred: There is no separate prediction for "isolated separate measurements" in QM. It's just the good old one.

Nonsense! Let me break it to you! The "good old one" only works if everything happens all at once and everything is local to each other. It's more nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby Heinera » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:06 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements?
.

Let me break this to you, Fred: There is no separate prediction for "isolated separate measurements" in QM. It's just the good old one.

Nonsense! Let me break it to you! The "good old one" only works if everything happens all at once and everything is local to each other. It's more nonsense.
.

Nope, experiments shows that the prediction works anyway.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:38 pm

Let me add some clarification; What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:41 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Let me add some clarification; What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes?

I interpret your question to mean isolated separate measurements with a non-conspiratorial local realistic explanation. I can give you a QM model which reproduces the triangle wave exactly, it needs “continuous variables”/infinite dimensional Hilbert space. I can get the triangle wave to a close approximation using large finite dimensional systems. I can’t get it with two qubits.

Here’s how I do the approximation. The source generates N spin half systems all in the “z +” state. The source then measures them all in the x direction, generate a binomially (N, 1/2) distributed number of “x -“ and “x +” states. Now these N states can be cloned exactly since we know they are all x- or x+. The corresponding two state vectors are orthogonal. So now we can transmit those states to both Alice and Bob’s detectors. The detectors work like this: they measure all those N states in the x direction, count the number of x+ states, whose probability distribution is known, and then transform it using the probability transform method (quantile transform) to an angle approximately uniformly distributed between -pi and +pi. Then the detector reports the sign of the cosine of the angle between the direction just found, and the setting of the detector for Alice, and minus that, for Bob.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:39 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Let me add some clarification; What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes?

I interpret your question to mean isolated separate measurements with a non-conspiratorial local realistic explanation. I can give you a QM model which reproduces the triangle wave exactly, it needs “continuous variables”/infinite dimensional Hilbert space. I can get the triangle wave to a close approximation using large finite dimensional systems. I can’t get it with two qubits.

Here’s how I do the approximation. The source generates N spin half systems all in the “z +” state. The source then measures them all in the x direction, generate a binomially (N, 1/2) distributed number of “x -“ and “x +” states. Now these N states can be cloned exactly since we know they are all x- or x+. The corresponding two state vectors are orthogonal. So now we can transmit those states to both Alice and Bob’s detectors. The detectors work like this: they measure all those N states in the x direction, count the number of x+ states, whose probability distribution is known, and then transform it using the probability transform method (quantile transform) to an angle approximately uniformly distributed between -pi and +pi. Then the detector reports the sign of the cosine of the angle between the direction just found, and the setting of the detector for Alice, and minus that, for Bob.

So..., is that the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes? Straight line triangle correlation?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:15 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Let me add some clarification; What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes?

I interpret your question to mean isolated separate measurements with a non-conspiratorial local realistic explanation. I can give you a QM model which reproduces the triangle wave exactly, it needs “continuous variables”/infinite dimensional Hilbert space. I can get the triangle wave to a close approximation using large finite dimensional systems. I can’t get it with two qubits.

Here’s how I do the approximation. The source generates N spin half systems all in the “z +” state. The source then measures them all in the x direction, generate a binomially (N, 1/2) distributed number of “x -“ and “x +” states. Now these N states can be cloned exactly since we know they are all x- or x+. The corresponding two state vectors are orthogonal. So now we can transmit those states to both Alice and Bob’s detectors. The detectors work like this: they measure all those N states in the x direction, count the number of x+ states, whose probability distribution is known, and then transform it using the probability transform method (quantile transform) to an angle approximately uniformly distributed between -pi and +pi. Then the detector reports the sign of the cosine of the angle between the direction just found, and the setting of the detector for Alice, and minus that, for Bob.

So..., is that the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes? Straight line triangle correlation?
.

It is *a* possibility allowed by QM. I don’t say it is the only QM prediction. Another possibility is the negative cosine. In fact, QM can much more easily generate the full amplitude cosine wave than the triangle wave. The triangle wave needs very many more qubits. The cosine only needs two.

It’s not a question of “using” event by event outcomes. It’s a question of allowing them, and describing them. You can say: measurement (collapse of wave function) happens at the source. The particles and detectors are classical in my model.

I’m not saying it applies to real quantum optics experiments.

QM allows many more correlation functions than just the cosine. Local realism allows many more than the triangle wave.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The 64 thousand Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:12 am

What is the QM prediction for isolated separated measurements using the event by event outcomes? The correct answer would be... Ta Da! QM can't predict the event by event outcomes!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library