Calculations of QM prediction of -a.b

[local]

Very interesting. Thank you!

[local]

Joy, may I ask you to cite the paper of yours that most simply and directly derives -a.b for S^3 topology? Sorry for my ignorance about it, but I am learning.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

As Joy pointed out the calculation has nothing to do with his model other than the HV. It does proceed in normal 3D spacetime.
.

[Joy Christian]

Joy, may I ask you to cite the paper of yours that most simply and directly derives -a.b for S^3 topology? Sorry for my ignorance about it, but I am learning.

You can try this no-frills, one-page derivation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879.pdf.

***

[local]

Perfect, thank you.

[local]

I am studying it. I need to learn some new mathematics to be able to digest both it and your critique. Who knows, I may or may not end up having anything significant to add to the debate.

While I have you here... You know Graft has spent a good deal of time debunking Weihs, Christensen, Giustina, and Hensen, and has become tired of repeatedly debunking silly experiments. It's tedious to have to debunk all these exeriments, so I ask you: Of the so-called "loophole-free" experiments circa 2015, which is the single one that you think most persuasively demonstrates 'quantum nonlocality'. I don't think having multiple faulty experiments increases the odds of nonlocality, so I want to concentrate on the one experiment that you think is closest to being decisive. Then working together Graft and I will debunk it.

BTW, the Quantum Randi Challenge is unfair because it has stricter constraints than are imposed on the experiments.

Please just call me by my name Albert in preference to "Local", which is in any case incorrect. Thank you.

[gill1109]

I am studying it. I need to learn some new mathematics to be able to digest both it and your critique. Who knows, I may or may not end up having anything significant to add to the debate.

While I have you here... You know Graft has spent a good deal of time debunking Weihs, Christensen, Giustina, and Hensen, and has become tired of repeatedly debunking silly experiments. It's tedious to have to debunk all these exeriments, so I ask you: Of the so-called "loophole-free" experiments circa 2015, which is the single one that you think most persuasively demonstrates 'quantum nonlocality'. I don't think having multiple faulty experiments increases the odds of nonlocality, so I want to concentrate on the one experiment that you think is closest to being decisive. Then working together Graft and I will debunk it.

BTW, the Quantum Randi Challenge is unfair because it has stricter constraints than are imposed on the experiments.

Please just call me by my name Albert in preference to "Local", which is in any case incorrect. Thank you.

Dear Albert

I don't find any of the four experiments of 2015 (Delft, Munich, Vienna, NIST) "convincing" as "experimental disproof of local realism". I do find them very exciting because of their innovative character.

Delft and Munich use entanglement swapping in a three location experiment. Alice and Bob each send a photon to Caspar. Caspar lets the two arriving photons interfere and measures them after interference. According to QM, *after* his measurement, if it has a particular outcome, the two remaining "Nitrogen-vacancy electron spins in diamonds" are in an entangled state. Now, those spins don't go away. You can measure them pretty accurately, just how you like.

Vienna and NIST use a wonderful idea due to Eberhard whereby one can get a violation of a Bell-like inequality at much greater non-detection rates through using a far from maximally entangled state and using measurements quite different from the usual Tsirelson bound attaining measurements. Moreover one sends the photons through a polarizing beam splitter but only has a detector for one of the two polarization directions.

Delft and Munich have far too small sample sizes.
NIST and Vienna have astronomically huge sample sizes but have only engineered a tiny, tiny violation of Bell's inequality.

I think that all four have problems with their random number generators for the setting choice.
I'm not aware of anything really better at this moment. I can ask around, what other people think.

I'm not impressed by the experiment using signals from the deep past to set the settings, since the signals from those quasars are analysed by apparatus close by the detectors, and one is told to believe that the signal actually already existed billions of years ago.

I'm pretty impressed by the experiment where crowd-sourcing was used to get random settings dreamt up out of their heads by hundreds of members of the public. That was organised by the Barcelona people.

I like the experiments which used settings generated from a maximally compressed zip file of the movie back to the future.

[FrediFizzx]

All the off-topic nonsense was deleted from this thread. I will continue to delete such nonsense unmercifully. Stay more on-topic.
.

[FrediFizzx]

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.
.

It is quite wonderful that no one noticed that calculation was still using Jay's eigenvalues that I withdrew from since I discovered an omission in Jay's calculation. NOT! I did start on a version with no hidden variable but did not finish it. So, here it is finished.

EPRsims/QM_local_functions__Draft.pdf

It is actually quite simple.
.

[FrediFizzx]

A person via private email was having much trouble figuring out the product calculation. It is quite amazing that a mathematician should be so mathematically challenged. Here is the calculation in Mathematica using Pauli matrices.



BAM! Entanglement is dead forever at least for the EPR-Bohm scenario.
.

[FrediFizzx]

A guest poster via a spoofed IP address thought the above was the standard QM calculation. Anyone care to tell them why it is not? At any rate, here is a standard QM calculation again for comparison.



BTW, guest posts from spoofed IP addresses will not be allowed because they could be from banned posters.
.

[FrediFizzx]

I did the local QM product calculation with the same matrix form as that for the standard calculation for a more direct comparison. Mathematica should have an abbreviation for PauliMatrix[].



Easier to see that we have simple local products compared to the standard QM calculation.
.

[local]

How do you get from the last line with Out[] = to -a.b?

[FrediFizzx]

How do you get from the last line with Out[] = to -a.b?

(ax bx + ay by + az bz) = a.b and -(ax^2 + ay^2 + az^2) = -1.
.

[local]

Thank you.

[FrediFizzx]

Thank you.

You're welcome. Does this put the kibosh on your assertation about the -a.b prediction can only be obtained via joint measurements? This is clearly two separate measurements.
.

[local]

I need to see the entire calculation. Is it in a paper I can read? Can I also see the full program code? Sadly, I don't have Mathematica, but I do have MatLab. Any chance you can port it?

Why do you go to a limit with a but not b? I just don't understand what you are doing.

I strongly doubt that it puts the kabosh as you say, but I'm willing to look at it. You should be able to make an event-by-event simulation and collect Richard's money if this is true.

How do you get from the last line with Out[] = to -a.b?

(ax bx + ay by + az bz) = a.b and -(ax^2 + ay^2 + az^2) = -1.
.

Can you explain these equations and why you think they are true? Why won't your program yield those (by simplification)?

I'm seeing this for the first time so give me time to try to understand it.

I hate your can't make another post so soon check.

[local]

If both terms go to a limit depending on a then it is not local. And why do you even need a limiting operation?

[FrediFizzx]

If both terms go to a limit depending on a then it is not local. And why do you even need a limiting operation?

Look back in the thread for the paper that goes with this. The limit operation is simply the polarizer function, s--> +/-n. By the time the limit is taken, simple scalar numbers are being crunched with no locations. Is -a.b non-local? Of course not; it is just a scalar number. Once the s--> a limit is taken, there is no "s" to take the s--> b limit. What is going on here is say we identify s1 for A and s2 for B. Well, up until the limit happens (polarizer function), s1 = s2 = s.
.

[FrediFizzx]

How do you get from the last line with Out[] = to -a.b?

(ax bx + ay by + az bz) = a.b and -(ax^2 + ay^2 + az^2) = -1.
.

Can you explain these equations and why you think they are true? Why won't your program yield those (by simplification)?

It is pretty simple vector algebra. I'll see if there is a way to do that in Mathematica but I don't think so.
.