Esail wrote:Juso, I don't understand what you mean, maybe you cite the passage in the paper you are talking about
*****************************************************************************
"Predicting measurement results for an arbitrary context
We now calculate probabilities for an arbitrary setting of the polarizers; that is, having polarizer PA set to α and polarizer PB set to β. This means changing the selections of the photons. In the initial context (0°/90°), the generated photons with 0° polarization and 90° polarization comprised the selection. Now, the selection is changed and, so, the polarization of the photons —which is defined by model assumption MA3—is also changed.
If PA is set to α, all selected photons 1 which take PA exit α have peer photons 2 which would take a polarizer PB' exit , as we have seen above."
Justo wrote:
It seems that you initially have, for instance, a Horizontal(or Vertical) polarization going to Alice. But then if Alice puts her setting to the selection is changed from 0(or 90) to . What does changing the selection means? How a photon that is Horizontally( or Vertitally) polarized change to ?
Esail wrote:Justo wrote:
It seems that you initially have, for instance, a Horizontal(or Vertical) polarization going to Alice. But then if Alice puts her setting to the selection is changed from 0(or 90) to . What does changing the selection means? How a photon that is Horizontally( or Vertitally) polarized change to ?
See
Model assumption MA3: Selected photons from each wing of the singlet state which would take a polarizer exit α have polarization phi= alpha . With a selection other than the initial context, all information about the origin from the initial context is lost.
A selection comprises all photons which take the same polarizer exit. Photons with polarization α and α+pi/2 come in equal shares, due to symmetry. MA3 accounts for the fact that the polarization of photons from the singlet state is undefined (due to indistinguishability) but changed and redefined by entanglement. Thus, the photons of a selection cannot be distinguished by their polarization. For a selection of the initial states 0° or 90°, the polarization is not changed as it is already equal to the selected state.
Justo wrote:
I still do not know if I understand correctly but it seems that what you say makes sense only if we consider an isotropic population of entangled photons from which the polarizer "select" an entangled pair. I that correct?
gill1109 wrote:Maybe Fred Diether would like to program this model.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Maybe Fred Diether would like to program this model.
You can make a computer program calculating the model results. But you need to implement the contextual properties of the model though. Otherwise you have a non-contextual model which after KS cannot meet the results of QM.
gill1109 wrote:Esail wrote:
You can make a computer program calculating the model results. But you need to implement the contextual properties of the model though. Otherwise you have a non-contextual model which after KS cannot meet the results of QM.
We have been discussing your model in some FaceBook threads. Your model allows statistical dependence between measurement settings and hidden variables driving the physics in source and detectors. If you would try to implement this model in a distributed computer simulation you would be forced either to prevent the experimenter from freely choosing the settings, or to allow communication between the detection systems (possibly via the source). That means: non-local; or retrocausal.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Esail wrote:
You can make a computer program calculating the model results. But you need to implement the contextual properties of the model though. Otherwise you have a non-contextual model which after KS cannot meet the results of QM.
We have been discussing your model in some FaceBook threads. Your model allows statistical dependence between measurement settings and hidden variables driving the physics in source and detectors. If you would try to implement this model in a distributed computer simulation you would be forced either to prevent the experimenter from freely choosing the settings, or to allow communication between the detection systems (possibly via the source). That means: non-local; or retrocausal.
It is a property of photon pairs from the singlet state that if photon 1 hits a polarizer PA set to alpha photon 2 definitely hits a polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2. This doesn't require any communication between the two photons but comes 1. from the initial context with the polarization of the photons orthogonal to each other plus 2. the common parameter lambda.
This property was proved in the paper and has to be implemented in the computer program.
The contextual behaviour (MA3) that photons selected by a polarizer have the polarization given by the polarizer's setting has also to be implemented in the computer program. Together you get the required results.
gill1109 wrote:Esail wrote:
It is a property of photon pairs from the singlet state that if photon 1 hits a polarizer PA set to alpha photon 2 definitely hits a polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2. This doesn't require any communication between the two photons but comes 1. from the initial context with the polarization of the photons orthogonal to each other plus 2. the common parameter lambda.
This property was proved in the paper and has to be implemented in the computer program.
The contextual behaviour (MA3) that photons selected by a polarizer have the polarization given by the polarizer's setting has also to be implemented in the computer program. Together you get the required results.
However, when you sit down and think about that programming task (you can for instance write down specifications which you could give to a programmer) you will discover that it can't be done. ie your maths can't be implemented in that way.
Esail wrote:I've explained the procedure clearly above and in the paper. In order to refute my model you've got to show any contradiction. This is how scientific discussions work.
Justo wrote:Esail wrote:I've explained the procedure clearly above and in the paper. In order to refute my model you've got to show any contradiction. This is how scientific discussions work.
Actually, there is nothing to refute. The model is obviously nonlocal hence cannot be a refutation of the Bell theorem.
Joy Christian wrote:This was pointed out to Esail by several people in an earlier thread. Here is one of my posts in that thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=444&start=40#p11249
The discussion is futile. The model, as you say, is manifestly nonlocal (or remotely contextual). Moreover, it is based on a misunderstanding of Bell's argument regarding contextuality.
.
Esail wrote:
Local means that the measurement results do not depend on superluminal communication between the two sides. (Einstein locality condition)
Esail wrote:
So the outcome for A is determined (at the time of storing the list in Bob’s safe) even before Alice has obtained her measurement results. And the outcome for B is defined before Alice has set her polarizer.
This is clearly local as the measurement results do not depend on superluminal communication between the two sides!
Joy Christian wrote:Your model is manifestly nonlocal in Bell's sense.
.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 17 guests