Gull and Gill's theory

[local]

In quantum field theory we have quantumness plus special relativity. It is a totally local theory. So obviously there is a conflict with the conventional (benighted) interpretation of standard QM. Acknowledgement of the distinction between joint and separated measurement removes nonlocality from standard QM and reconciles it with quantum field theory.

[Joy Christian]

The derivations cited by Gill and Heinera are for the quantum joint prediction. They are not applicable to EPRB. The Graft paper too gives that derivation. But he follows up with a derivation for separated measurements as encountered in space-like separated EPRB. As I said before, Gill is a dilettante in quantum theory (he admits that several times) and does not understand the distinction and continues to bore us with stuff we already know. The difference between joint and separated measurement is a real physical matter and different derivations are required, as Graft clearly showed. At this point, because I have explained this many times, we have to conclude that Gill is being intentionally obtuse and duplicitous about this.

I agree with the above comments. This is the reason why I have absolutely no interest in the so-called Gill's theorem or his computer simulation challenge. It is a fraudulent challenge.

***

Uhh. Do you agree with Donald Graft's theory that separated measurements will not produce the cosine correlations?

I have not read Graft's paper. What I agree with is that all textbook derivations of the singlet correlations are for joint measurements at the two ends of the EPRB experiments. You can find detailed (and two different) derivations of the correlations in my first and last papers on the subject:

1) https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0703179.pdf

2) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414

***

[local]

Do you agree with Donald Graft's theory that separated measurements will not produce the cosine correlations?

Separated measurement can give -a.b, if Luders projection occurs. But that violates special relativity. Therefore, argues Graft, Luders projection cannot be applied. Guys, read Graft's paper! Gill has refused to read it because it doesn't address his silly experiments, but it is a theory paper. Gill and the other quantum mysterians are in see-no-evil mode. What choice does he have when his entire career in quantum foundations is based on nonsense?

[Heinera]

I have not read Graft's paper. What I agree with is that all textbook derivations of the singlet correlations are for joint measurements at the two ends of the EPRB experiments.

Do you agree with Donald Graft's theory that separated measurements will not produce the cosine correlations?

Separated measurement can give -a.b, if Luders projection occurs. But that violates special relativity. Therefore, argues Graft, Luders projection cannot be applied.

***

So we should not expect -a.b for separated measurements?

[local]

You quoted both of us so it is not clear who you address this question to. If you are asking me, yes, -a.b cannot be obtained for space-like separated measurement, unless you allow violation of special relativity. If you are asking Joy, let's see. Unlike the quantum mysterians, Joy is a seeker after truth so we'd expect an honest answer that respects the theoretical demonstrations. He hasn't read Graft's paper, however, so he may prefer to abstain on that question at this point.

[Heinera]

You quoted both of us so it is not clear who you address this question to. If you are asking me, yes, -a.b cannot be obtained for space-like separated measurement, unless you allow violation of special relativity. If you are asking Joy, let's see.

I was addressing it to you, yes. Thanks for the clarification. I know what Joy means about this issue.

[local]

You're welcome, sir. Please note that we speak of space-like separation. For non-space-like the conclusion does not follow (information can be transferred subluminally, although we would be entitled to ask what the mechanism for that is). However, -a.b is asserted by the mysterians to be valid for any separation. That's why they claim nonlocality. It's all nonsense.

[gill1109]

Do you agree with Donald Graft's theory that separated measurements will not produce the cosine correlations?

Separated measurement can give -a.b, if Luders projection occurs. But that violates special relativity. Therefore, argues Graft, Luders projection cannot be applied. Guys, read Graft's paper! Gill has refused to read it because it doesn't address his silly experiments, but it is a theory paper. Gill and the other quantum mysterians are in see-no-evil mode. What choice does he have when his entire career in quantum foundations is based on nonsense?

I have read Donald Graft’s papers. I have communicated with Donald Graft. He has a good point. I like his work. I don’t agree with his conclusions.

I have a career in mathematical statistics. “Quantum foundations” is for me a hobby — a pleasant diversion from freeing innocent and falsely convicted alleged serial killer nurses, or proving theorems about the asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators, or fighting edit wars on Wikipedia’s “Monty Hall Problem”.

I find the quantum correlations a mystery, so you can even label me a “quantum mysterian” if you want to. I have an open mind. Yours is all made up, “local”?

[local]

Yours is all made up, “local”?

Another ad hominem from the admitted amateur who refuses to address the technical points, thinking it is more relevant to quibble about the state of my mind, or to brag about freeing rapists.

As I said before, this thread is great, not only because it exposes Gill, but because it gives welcome exposure for Graft's important analysis.

[Joy Christian]

The derivations cited by Gill and Heinera are for the quantum joint prediction. They are not applicable to EPRB. The Graft paper too gives that derivation. But he follows up with a derivation for separated measurements as encountered in space-like separated EPRB. As I said before, Gill is a dilettante in quantum theory (he admits that several times) and does not understand the distinction and continues to bore us with stuff we already know. The difference between joint and separated measurement is a real physical matter and different derivations are required, as Graft clearly showed. At this point, because I have explained this many times, we have to conclude that Gill is being intentionally obtuse and duplicitous about this.

I agree with the above comments. This is the reason why I have absolutely no interest in the so-called Gill's theorem or his computer simulation challenge. It is a fraudulent challenge.

***

Uhh. Do you agree with Donald Graft's theory that separated measurements will not produce the cosine correlations?

I have not read Graft's paper. What I agree with is that all textbook derivations of the singlet correlations are for joint measurements at the two ends of the EPRB experiments. You can find detailed (and two different) derivations of the correlations in my first and last papers on the subject:

1) https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0703179.pdf

2) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414

Here are the precise predictions of quantum mechanics:


***

[gill1109]

Here are the precise predictions of quantum mechanics:

That’s what I thought, too, Joy. Thanks.

[local]

Gill, that's the joint prediction, as Joy clearly stated. As an amateur you are unable to appreciate the distinction between joint and separated measurement, or you willfully ignore it. You say you disagree with Graft's paper. Specifically, what do you find in error? It is a mathematical derivation. You have an opportunity here to contribute positively to the discussion.

[Heinera]

Gill, that's the joint prediction, as Joy clearly stated.

Now it would be interesting to hear what you mean is the difference between "joint" and "separated" measurements, as Joy Christian is certainly not making any such distinction in his papers.

[local]

Please read the paper, everything is in there. There is also an earlier paper, where Graft develops the distinction in a classical way, using spinning disks:

Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 8832 (2013)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1309/1309.1153.pdf

The later paper develops things in a purely quantum manner.

The basic idea is that for a joint measurement there is a single sampling that has access to both measurement settings, while for separated measurement there are two independent samplings, each of which has access to only the local measurement setting. Sampling is referred to because a measurement samples the relevant probability distribution.

Regarding Joy's work, if we denote the elimination of quantum nonlocality from physics as Rome, we can say there are many roads to Rome.

[Heinera]

Please read the paper, everything is in there. There is also an earlier paper, where Graft develops the distinction in a classical way, using spinning disks:

Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 8832 (2013)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1309/1309.1153.pdf.

And that paper clearly states that EPRB experiments rely on separated measurements. But Joy's papers predict the cosine correlations for EPRB experiments.

[local]

In a subsequent edit to my previous post I added: Regarding Joy's work, if we denote the elimination of quantum nonlocality from physics as Rome, we can say there are many roads to Rome.

[Heinera]

But here it seems that the roads end up in two different places: Joy, the cosine correlations, and Graft, the marginal distributions.

[local]

The final destination is the same: the elimination of quantum nonlocality from physics. Also, Joy works in higher topologies and I do not take any position on that. My intent is not to refute Joy's work, nor do I think I have done so. In fact, I am only familiar with it in a passing way. You be the judge of whether the joint/separated distinction is relevant. I believe Graft has made an unassailable case for that.

And again, I have acknowledged domains where -a.b can theoretically be valid for separated systems, i.e., EPRB without space-like separation and with Luders projection. It is the space-like separation that kills -a.b because Luders' rule is unphysical for such separation.

So you could say that Joy takes the mysterians' position at face value and argues that it does not imply quantum nonlocality, whereas Graft prefers to challenge the mysterians' position at its base.

[gill1109]

Yours is all made up, “local”?

Another ad hominem from the admitted amateur who refuses to address the technical points, thinking it is more relevant to quibble about the state of my mind, or to brag about freeing rapists.

As I said before, this thread is great, not only because it exposes Gill, but because it gives welcome exposure for Graft's important analysis.

I have never worked on freeing rapists. I have worked on miscarriages of justice involving incorrect use of statistics leading to life sentences for nurses falsely accused of serial murder, when actually it was finally determined that their patients had died because of the medical errors of medical specialists. Said medical specialists had moreover lied to police and to courts concerning their treatment of their own patients.

I am not quibbling about anyone’s state of mind. I am proud of some of my past achievements. I am not claiming they are relevant to the present discussion.

This thread certainly exposes Mr (or Ms) “local” who themself refuses to address technical points. They seem more intent on insulting other participants of the forum. So far they have not said one word on Gull’s proof sketch of Gull and Gill’s no-go theorem using Fourier theory, nor on another proof by Prof. H. Razmi from Qom, nor on Gill’s, Peter Bierhorst’s, David Elkouss and Stephanie Wehner’s proofs via a CHSH modification, of Gull and Gill’s no-go theorem.

It’s a theorem about classical distributed computer simulation of a correlation -a.b between +/-1 valued outcomes of measurements with settings a, b at two distinct locations, modelled by programs running on two classical and not communicating (after initial set-up preparations) PC’s. The theorem says that it cannot be done. I think “local” would agree, since elsewhere he has said that Bell’s theorem is true. There do not exist functions A, B, rho such that, etc etc.

As I have argued in my new paper, if A, B, rho did exist, with the given properties, and if the functions A and B could be computed on PC’s (to good approximation), and if repeated independent draws from the probability distribution rho(lambda) d lambda could be simulated (to good approximation), then that classical computer simulation could be performed.

Perhaps “local” can tell us their opinion on that question.

[local]

Gill did ask me whether my mind is open or "made up", so now he is quibbling about the meaning of "quibbling".

I don't care about Gill's unrelated accomplishments or his proof of Bell's inequality, which has been proved many many times before by more important thinkers. I care about Gill's failure to provide a derivation of -a.b for separated systems, or to acknowledge the real physical distinction between joint and separated measurement. Those are the technical points that I referred to and Gill well knows that. His duplicity is obvious for all to see. What choice does he have when his entire career in quantum foundations is based on nonsense?

You know, I am so proud of my bricklaying on a wonderful building in Prague. But who cares in our context here? Unlike Gill, my ego is under control.