"Bell's theorem refuted" now published by EPL

[Esail]

Could you please outline your model in terms of instructions to a computer programmer, who is programming three computers: S standing for source, A standing for Alice's detection apparatus, B standing for Bob's detection apparatus. S sends some information defining the state of two photons to both to A and B.

From the inseparability of the singlet state follows that defined states of the photons on either side do not exist independent of a selection. That is the reason why Bell's model based upon A(a, lambda) and B(lambda) failes to reproduce the quantum results. Thus your computer S has to take account of the setting of the context defining polarizer be it PA or PB whatever you want to choose. This is what my model does in a local way.

[gill1109]

Could you please outline your model in terms of instructions to a computer programmer, who is programming three computers: S standing for source, A standing for Alice's detection apparatus, B standing for Bob's detection apparatus. S sends some information defining the state of two photons to both to A and B.

From the inseparability of the singlet state follows that defined states of the photons on either side do not exist independent of a selection. That is the reason why Bell's model based upon A(a, lambda) and B(lambda) failes to reproduce the quantum results. Thus your computer S has to take account of the setting of the context defining polarizer be it PA or PB whatever you want to choose. This is what my model does in a local way.

You call it local, I call it non-local! But anyway, we seem to agree that my computers could not be programmed to simulate your model, without extra communication between them.

You believe in quantum mechanics, hence ‘local realism’ is not an interesting concept for you. Your definition of “local” depends on what you take to be real, and whether or not real things are located in ordinary space-time. Philipe Grangier argues that, after one has defined “local”, “real”, and “complete” in suitable ways, then QM is local, real, and non-conspiratorial, but incomplete. I think his point of view is original, interesting and illuminating.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09736

You are free to assume that QM is true, free to define “local” differently from everyone else, and then to argue that QM is local from your point of view. Is it a useful point of view? I don’t see that it has any interesting physical consequences. Nor that it is a useful way to go about inventing new physics. Please tell me if you think I’m wrong.

[Esail]

You are free to assume that QM is true, free to define “local” differently from everyone else, and then to argue that QM is local from your point of view. Is it a useful point of view? I don’t see that it has any interesting physical consequences. Nor that it is a useful way to go about inventing new physics. Please tell me if you think I’m wrong.

As you refused to read the paper your arguments about wether my model is local or not do not have much substance. A physical consequence of a refutation of Bell's theorem is that the existence of hidden variables cannot be excluded anymore with the effect that the simultaneous existence of incompatible states is likely to be impossible which affects the supremacy of the quantum computer.

[gill1109]

You are free to assume that QM is true, free to define “local” differently from everyone else, and then to argue that QM is local from your point of view. Is it a useful point of view? I don’t see that it has any interesting physical consequences. Nor that it is a useful way to go about inventing new physics. Please tell me if you think I’m wrong.

As you refused to read the paper your arguments about whether my model is local or not do not have much substance. A physical consequence of a refutation of Bell's theorem is that the existence of hidden variables cannot be excluded anymore with the effect that the simultaneous existence of incompatible states is likely to be impossible which affects the supremacy of the quantum computer.

I did not refuse to read your paper. I read it numerous times. I found it incomprehensible.

You did not answer my question, whether or not you think that a network of classical computers could simulate the EPR-B correlations, subject to the causal restrictions which I mentioned. I asked you for an outline of a program based on your theory. That outline certainly does *not* allow itself to be implemented on networked classical computers subject to the restrictions I wanted to impose.

So what do you think about that? Was I wrong to forbid direct communication between computers A and B?

If you think that I was wrong to make those restrictions, then it tells me that your conception of locality is different from mine. Personally, I don't find your conception useful or interesting. You think that your notions imply that supremacy of quantum computers is impossible. But quantum computers do not depend on non-locality of quantum mechanics. They just depend on the standard minimal statistical interpretation of the rules of QM which, it seems, you agree with. After all, you claim that you can reproduce the EPR-B correlation in what *you* call a local realistic way. Well, that is fine. Then you can have no objection at all to the idea of the future possible supremacy of quantum computers.

[local]

I found it incomprehensible.

Me too.

[Esail]

I found it incomprehensible.

Me too.

local:
Let me repeat the proof here partially in short:
Referring to the initial state we chose the set up PA,PB = alpha, pi/2 with an initial photon polarization phi1, phi2 = 0°, pi/2.

On side A we have delta1 = alpha-0° =alpha and for this A(alpha,lambda) = 1 for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha) according to model assumption MA1. Here delta1 is the difference between the polarizer setting and the photon polarization.
Assuming now a polarizer setting PA,PB= 0°, alpha+pi/2 without changing the context we would get for the same photon pair delta2 = alpha+ pi/2 - pi/2 = alpha and B(alpha,lambda) = 1 as well for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha). Here we used model assumptions MA1 & MA2. Hence we see that if photon 1 is selected by polarizer PA at alpha its peer photon 2 is selected as well and hits a polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2 with certainty.
Do you agree?

This is local as we get the same values for A and B just because of the same arguments and not because of communication between them.
Do you agree?

MA3 says: Selected photons from each wing of the singlet state which would take a polarizer exit alpha have polarization phi = alpha. Thus the polarization of the selected photon 1 and photon 2 are alpha and al-pha+pi/2 respectively.
Do you agree?

Matching events occur for a polarizer setup PA,PB = alpha, beta if the peer photons 2 with polarization alpha+pi/2 hit a polarizer PB set to beta.

Do you agree?

The probability that photons 2 with polarization alpha +pi/2
would pass PB set to beta is cos**2(alpha+pi/2-beta)
given by eq. (9)
Do you agree?

[local]

You don't need to repeat your proof as I have your paper. It's still incomprehensible to me and I am not interested in a 20 questions game.

Please make a working computer simulation and share the code. If you cannot program, then give a complete pseudocode description that I can program for you. Richard also asked for this. I cannot understand why you do not do this as it is clearly the way to get traction for your ideas. Perhaps you know that such a simulation is not possible without manifestly nonlocal actions?

[Esail]

I have explained my approach again in individual steps so that you and others can get an exact picture of how the results are derived from my model. Anyone who has objections can explain this using the individual steps described above. As I already explained to Gill above, a computer that is supposed to simulate the photon pairs has to take into account the indistinguishability of the particles, in particular that the polarization of a selection of particles depends on the polarizer position. That is probably not possible as computer objects are generally distinguishable.

[local]

Are you saying that the singlet photon reaching B is undefined (per QM) until a measurement angle a is set at A (or until a measurement at angle a occurs), at which point it is projected to a + pi/2? Sounds like nonlocal projection (collapse) to me.

What do you mean by indistinguishability of the photons and how does that preclude a simulation? QM itself can be simulated so why should your model be any different?

It's up to you to give us more than hand waving.

[Esail]

Are you saying that the singlet photon reaching B is undefined (per QM) until a measurement angle a is set at A (or until a measurement at angle a occurs), at which point it is projected to a + pi/2? Sounds like nonlocal projection (collapse) to me.

What do you mean by indistinguishability of the photons and how does that preclude a simulation? QM itself can be simulated so why should your model be any different?

It's up to you to give us more than hand waving.

Here you see how photon 2 is selected (projected)

Referring to the initial state we chose the set up PA,PB = alpha, pi/2 with an initial photon polarization phi1, phi2 = 0°, pi/2.

On side A we have delta1 = alpha-0° =alpha and for this A(alpha,lambda) = 1 for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha) according to model assumption MA1. Here delta1 is the difference between the polarizer setting and the photon polarization.
Assuming now a polarizer setting PA,PB= 0°, alpha+pi/2 without changing the context we would get for the same photon pair delta2 = alpha+ pi/2 - pi/2 = alpha and B(alpha,lambda) = 1 as well for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha).

Here we used model assumptions MA1 & MA2. Hence we see that if photon 1 is selected by polarizer PA at alpha its peer photon 2 is selected as well and hits a polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2 with certainty.

Do you agree?

This is local as we get the same values for A and B just because of the same arguments and not because of communication between them.
Do you agree?

Was this hand waving?

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

Indistinguishability means that photons cannot be distinguished by their polarization. Selected photons have the same polarization. This is what the model says and how nature works.

[Mikko]

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

This is non-local. In a local model what happens at the source is independent of what the settings will later be. In real experiments the settings are often chosen after the emission of the particles.

[Esail]

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

This is non-local. In a local model what happens at the source is independent of what the settings will later be. In real experiments the settings are often chosen after the emission of the particles.

To make it clear:
The source emits photons in singlet state with no specific polarization.
By selection with a polarizer the selected photons exhibit a polarization given by the polarizer setting. This is a local property of the photons in singlet state in order to assure all selected photons have the same polarization. This property is generated with the creation of the entangled state. See Fig. (1) of the paper. The only way to have the same polarization is the polarization given by the polarizer setting. It is not a result of a physical action of the polarizer. So you can say for any assumed polarizer setting alpha the selected photons have the polarization alpha.

[gill1109]

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

This is non-local. In a local model what happens at the source is independent of what the settings will later be. In real experiments the settings are often chosen after the emission of the particles.

To make it clear:
The source emits photons in singlet state with no specific polarization.
By selection with a polarizer the selected photons exhibit a polarization given by the polarizer setting. This is a local property of the photons in singlet state in order to assure all selected photons have the same polarization. This property is generated with the creation of the entangled state. See Fig. (1) of the paper. The only way to have the same polarization is the polarization given by the polarizer setting. It is not a result of a physical action of the polarizer. So you can say for any assumed polarizer setting alpha the selected photons have the polarization alpha.

@Esail, you are using words which belong to a theory. A theory called "quantum mechanics". You say: "the theory says: "the property is not a result of a physical action of the polarizer".

The mathematical content of the theory says no such thing. You must distinguish between what the theory says about the real world, and what the theory is interpreted to say about objects which the theory talks about.

The mathematical content of QM does not tell us how the mathematical objects in that theory should be interpreted. It only tells us what the correspondence is at the level of laboratory experiments. Detectors click, or don't click. QM tells us the probability of these events. It does not tell us that the clicking of Alice's detector is, in no way, connected to what Bob does. QM does not explain why that which does happen, does indeed happen. It just gives us a framework for calculating probabilities. Anyone is free to add some kind of intuitive story to that framework. It is not obligatory. You can just "shut up and calculate", and Feynman thought it was wiser to do just that.

You are talking about figments of your imagination. Photons? I never saw a photon. My mind sometimes presents an image of a pinprick of light, and sometimes it doesn't. You are some kind of witch doctor who says, ah, that is what we witch doctors call a photon, they behave in strange ways but I know all about them, and I know that their behaviour is not magical and certainly not non-local. Just trust me.

It's a religion! I trust quantum physicists because they are good at predicting the future and good at engineering stuff which has commercial, industrial, military, medical value. But I'm under no obligation to use the same words as they do to describe what is written in their holy books.

[local]

Here you see how photon 2 is selected (projected)

No, I don't see that. You just repeated what you said before and did not answer my question.

Was this hand waving?

Yes.

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

As Mikko said, that is not local.

[Esail]

Here you see how photon 2 is selected (projected)

No, I don't see that. You just repeated what you said before and did not answer my question.

Please tell me what is left open with your question

[gill1109]

Are you saying that the singlet photon reaching B is undefined (per QM) until a measurement angle a is set at A (or until a measurement at angle a occurs), at which point it is projected to a + pi/2? Sounds like nonlocal projection (collapse) to me.

What do you mean by indistinguishability of the photons and how does that preclude a simulation? QM itself can be simulated so why should your model be any different?

It's up to you to give us more than hand waving.

Here you see how photon 2 is selected (projected)

Referring to the initial state we chose the set up PA,PB = alpha, pi/2 with an initial photon polarization phi1, phi2 = 0°, pi/2.

On side A we have delta1 = alpha-0° =alpha and for this A(alpha,lambda) = 1 for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha) according to model assumption MA1. Here delta1 is the difference between the polarizer setting and the photon polarization.
Assuming now a polarizer setting PA,PB= 0°, alpha+pi/2 without changing the context we would get for the same photon pair delta2 = alpha+ pi/2 - pi/2 = alpha and B(alpha,lambda) = 1 as well for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha).

Here we used model assumptions MA1 & MA2. Hence we see that if photon 1 is selected by polarizer PA at alpha its peer photon 2 is selected as well and hits a polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2 with certainty.

Do you agree?

This is local as we get the same values for A and B just because of the same arguments and not because of communication between them.
Do you agree?

Was this hand waving?

A simulation is possible if we accept that the photons do not have a specific polarization unless the are selected by a polarizer. This means we have to choose the context first so that the source emits photons with a polarization given by the setting of a polarizer. This can be a or b depending on which context you choose.

Indistinguishability means that photons cannot be distinguished by their polarization. Selected photons have the same polarization. This is what the model says and how nature works.

This is what conventional QM says, on the surface. It's just a verbal description of the usual calculations with wave functions, projections, Hilbert spaces.

It's not a description of *how nature works*, it's a description of *what we see nature do, if we look at nature through a certain pair of glasses*.

Or: @esail says that in nature two photons at two distant locations are indistinguishable hence what happens to one happens to both. He says this cannot be simulated in a computer because the mere fact of putting information about two photons into a computer makes them distinguishable.

Now it is true that the indistinguishability of certain aspects of things in quantum theory is responsible for weird quantum behaviour. In the sense - in the sense that it some comforting coherence to what otherwise seems crazy. But two photons at two distant locations at two points in space-time are distinguishable by their locations. @esail is not *explaining* quantum weirdness. He's just telling us where it is kind of unavoidable in the weird math framework which he seems to think that educated person now accepts as intuitive, natural, obvious. But people didn't think that 120 years ago. Of course, people used to think that Maxwell's theory was weird, and before that, Newton's. Maybe in 100 years no one will think quantum theory is weird.

I think they will just have been sufficiently brainwashed and motivated by fun technological gadgets or new devastating weapons not to see it's weird.

Long long ago, people thought that the number zero was weird, and negative numbers were weird. Complex numbers were imaginary. Irrational numbers were ... irrational.

Feynman said: shut up and calculate. And that one does not come to understand new mathematical structures, one just gets to become familiar with them.

I think that @esail has got so used to the quantum formalism that he now thinks it is utterly intuitive. Nice for him. But the important question is: has his paper contributed anything new? I don't see that! In my opinion he has mystified, not clarified. I *do* think that indistinguishability of some features of some physical systems, sufficiently de-coupled from anything else, is the big thing making quantum physics so different from anything else. It makes it so different that it is literally "inconceivable". Maybe even "spooky". But that doesn't stop you doing the calculations. And getting "intuition" with them. Shut up and calculate...

[local]

Please tell me what is left open with your question

I asked if you were asserting that the side A measurement projects the photon at B. You said:

"Here you see how photon 2 is selected (projected)"

But selection and projection are not the same thing so your answer is cryptic. Are you or are you not asserting projection? Here I use the standard QM meaning of projection, i.e., wave function collapse. What are you saying that differs from standard QM? It would be silly to claim that QM refutes Bell's theorem, so you must be asserting something different from QM. What is it?

[Justo]

To make it clear:
The source emits photons in singlet state with no specific polarization.

Ok, the photons are generated without polarization. Very clear.

By selection with a polarizer the selected photons exhibit a polarization given by the polarizer setting. This is a local property of the photons in singlet state in order to assure all selected photons have the same polarization. This property is generated with the creation of the entangled state. See Fig. (1) of the paper.

You talk of selected photons in plural. I suppose you mean one photon on the right and the other on the left. You must agree here that if "selection of photons" is a local event then you must have two independent selections. One is made on the left and the other on the right. If those events are local they also must be independent.

The only way to have the same polarization is the polarization given by the polarizer setting.

Notice that you are talking in the singular here. You only talk about one polarizer setting when you actually have two different and independent polarizer settings. So what you are actually saying here is that the only way to have the same polarization is through a nonlocal effect: the selection of one polarizer determines the behavior of the photon at the other extreme. This is also what your mathematical model clearly says.

It is not a result of a physical action of the polarizer. So you can say for any assumed polarizer setting alpha the selected photons have the polarization alpha.

Again, how can the photon at the other extreme know that alpha was selected?

It is incomprehensible for me and apparently for everyone else what is in your mind to claim that your model is local.

In your answer to my comment, you say that my reasoning is wrong because we do not have the same pair of photons when the context is changed. This means the context is changed by Alice's choice of her polarizer orientation. Clearly, you are saying that Bob's photon changes according to Alice's choice of her setting. How can Bob's photon know that Alice changed her choice without nonlocal influences?

[FrediFizzx]

This thread is going around in circles. I'm locking it. Start a new thread with something new if you wish. If it goes around in circles it will be locked also.
.