Discussion/Opinions sought

[thray]

http://phys.org/news/2017-01-nrl-topolo ... tates.html

[FrediFizzx]

Not sure why this is important. What are your opinions, thoughts?

[thray]

This is the paragraph that drew my interest:

"Topological insulators constitute a new quantum phase of matter where the bulk is nominally an insulator, but the surface layer is occupied by linearly dispersing metallic states populated by massless Dirac fermions that are topologically protected from perturbations to their environment. The existence of this class of material was predicted from the study of 'topology,' a branch of mathematics that describes properties that only change step-wise. The 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three physicists for utilizing topological concepts to study exotic phases of matter which manifest novel quantum properties that may improve future electronics, superconductors, and lead to quantum computers."

This seems to me in line with Joy's comment: "... any free object is a boson, whereas any linked object is a fermion."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-01-nrl-topolo ... s.html#jCp

[thray]

Joy,

Einstein is supposed to have said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

I don't bother to attempt posting at RW, so I'll reproduce it here, your post of 9 Jan 0732:

Lord Jestocost
“No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics“.

There exists no proof in the literature of the above claim. Indeed, there cannot possibly exist a proof of such a blanket statement with undefinable terms such as “physical theory” and “local hidden variables.” In 1964 John Bell attempted to prove the above claim by claiming that it was impossible to reproduce the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics for a specific quantum state, namely for the singlet state or the EPR-Bohm state. It is however easy to prove that:

(1) Bell’s supposed proof for the above specific claim is flawed, because the CHSH inequality on which his proof is based can be derived without assuming locality and realism, as done in the appendix of this paper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12655/ . There the CHSH inequality is derived by assuming only that Bob can measure along b and b’ simultaneously while Alice measures along either a or a’, and likewise Alice can measure along a and a’ simultaneously while Bob measures along either b or b’, *without assuming locality*. The experimental “violations” of CHSH inequality therefore only means impossibility of measuring along b and b’ (or along a and a’) simultaneously.

And

(2) It turns out that, contrary to Bell’s claim, the singlet correlations E(a, b) = -a.b can in fact be reproduced using purely local functions A(a, h) and B(b, h), in a manifestly local and realistic manner. A detailed and explicit local-realistic derivation of the correlations -a.b is presented in the paper withdrawn by Annals of Physics, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 , which also includes references to several event-by-event computer simulations of the correlations. The code and a plot of one such simulation is available at the following link:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=296#p7322 .

Thus Bell’s blanket claim quoted above (a) remains unprovable, (b) is intrinsically flawed for the reason explained in (1), and (c) Bell’s specific claim that it is impossible to reproduce the singlet correlations E(a, b) = -a.b local-realistically also turns out to be false, as evident from the theoretical counterexample and its event-by-event simulations presented in (2) above."

Apparently, the referees at AoP have no grandmothers they can run this by. And they don't recognize the profound significance of your observation: "No measurement was ever made except in some direction" -- which is something that everyone's grandmother understands.

[Joy Christian]

Apparently, the referees at AoP have no grandmothers they can run this by. And they don't recognize the profound significance of your observation: "No measurement was ever made except in some direction" -- which is something that everyone's grandmother understands.

Thank you, Tom.

You may have noticed that Heinera (a.k.a."HR") has now started to ask me to predict eight numbers based on my local model, even though quantum mechanics does not predict them. Nor are they observed in experiments. Indeed quantum mechanics is a statistical theory and makes only statistical predictions. And even in classical physics we cannot predict an outcome of a single coin toss. All we can say in advance is that there will be 50 / 50 chance that the coin will land on its Head or its tail. And yet Heinera demands prediction of eight individual numbers from me. Such are the double-standards Bell-fanatics resort to when they are pushed into a corner.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Apparently, the referees at AoP have no grandmothers they can run this by. And they don't recognize the profound significance of your observation: "No measurement was ever made except in some direction" -- which is something that everyone's grandmother understands.

Thank you, Tom.

You may have noticed that Heinera (a.k.a."HR") has now started to ask me to predict eight numbers based on my local model, even though quantum mechanics does not predict them. Nor are they observed in experiments. Indeed quantum mechanics is a statistical theory and makes only statistical predictions. And even in classical physics we cannot predict an outcome of a single coin toss. All we can say in advance is that there will be 50 / 50 chance that the coin will lend on its Head or its tail. And yet Heinera demands prediction of eight individual numbers from me. Such are the double-standards Bell-fanatics resort to when they are pushed into a corner.

***

Yeah, and he is asking for CHSH numbers for which we have already demonstrated that CHSH is bogus. Besides, what can you possibly tell from the 8 numbers he picked? Nothing. Now if you picked A(0, +1) and B(0, +1), etc. you could at least tell if they are anti-correlated or not. Which they are anti-correlated.
.

[FrediFizzx]

What it all boils down to at RW with the Bell fanatics is that they are rejecting Joy's S^3 postulate and / or just ignoring it. They won't even say that Joy is right if the S^3 postulate is true. It is quite obvious that if the S^3 postulate is true, then the model gives all the QM predictions of the EPR-Bohm scenario. It is quite a shame that they don't even admit that.

[Joy Christian]

What it all boils down to at RW with the Bell fanatics is that they are rejecting Joy's S^3 postulate and / or just ignoring it. They won't even say that Joy is right if the S^3 postulate is true. It is quite obvious that if the S^3 postulate is true, then the model gives all the QM predictions of the EPR-Bohm scenario. It is quite a shame that they don't even admit that.

I just made the following reply to Heinera's silly comment at RW. It is still in the moderation queue: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1248909.


***

[FrediFizzx]

So... I think the discussion at RW is pointless because the Bell fanatics won't even admit that if S^3 is true then you are right. Or... are we doing something wrong? I don't think so.

[Joy Christian]

So... I think the discussion at RW is pointless because the Bell fanatics won't even admit that if S^3 is true then you are right. Or... are we doing something wrong? I don't think so.

We are not doing anything wrong (apart from being politically incorrect). The entire physics community -- and especially the Bell-fanatics -- are stuck in the flatland.

***

[thray]

Quantum theorists would like to see spacetime go away. I don't see any resolution of this conflict until a successful, compelling, experiment -- in the quantum domain -- settles it. Since quantum theorists refuse to assign a physical co-domain to their experiments, they are indeed stuck in flatland. What you see is what you assumed.

I think we are going to have to walk around this log, rather than trying to climb over it.