Gordon,

Please digest the information I have given you. You show no sign of understanding it.

As I have expressed to you several times, and has been proved on other FQXi threads over thousands of comments, as soon as one gets into the mathematical details the physics goes out the window and all comments begin to focus on irrelevancies. If you doubt this go back and review the thousands of JC comments.

My essay in this contest is intended to present a local model that I have described in full detail and that I have shown the results of in figures on page 7. Those results produce the cosine correlation curve that Bell claims to be impossible. They were derived from the equations and in the manner that I have described here numerous times. If you believe that is not a cosine curve correlation on page 7 simply state so and we can terminate this series of exchanges. Otherwise, none of these suggestions and criticisms that you have made above bear any relevance to that curve. My focus in this essay contest is not upon convincing you that I know how to do math. It is on convincing physicists who believe that Bell proved it is impossible to derive that curve. The important aspects of the problem have to do with the physical reasoning that led to Bell's mistake, not with any mathematical questions. No math, and probably not even experiments, will convince the Bell believers unless and until they understand the error in physical reasoning that Bell made. That is where I intend to keep the focus. No one besides you is questioning the math. They are arguing the physics. That is where the appropriate argument lies.

As for questions at 20:35 on March 5: 1.) No. 2.) Yes, it uses the same random inputs. Each run of the model is with and without the constraints applied. 3.) I generate random a, b, and λ. That is merely the distribution in this run based on 3 million random numbers. It will change slightly with each run. 4.) Theta has already been discussed, as well, I believe, as the 3D nature of a and b.

For the reasons I have explained several times I am not going to go into the Mathematica code in this forum.

I do not recall the exact source of the neutron data, and it has zero relevance to my essay. My essay does not in any way depend on the neutron data which I found by googling "neutron and Stern-Gerlach" in response to a comment from Tim.

Your insistence stated above in "Here's the problem" tells me that you have not in any way understood my answer to your previous comments. You inject square roots of two into a model that has no such entities. Please take a little time to understand the answers I have already given you. It is not yet clear to me that you have the slightest comprehension of the model that I describe in my essay and have described to you, because your comments bear little relevance to my model.

You state above: "I would be pleased if you would bring your component probabilities into the discussion." I do not use "component probabilities" in my analysis or in my calculations, other than the random distribution of a, b, and λ. Apparently you wish to formulate my model in terms of your model, which is a nonstandard model, and this is of no interest to me. As you know I was much taken with your symbolism that represented the transformation from the initial state to alignment with the final state, (λ -> a) and I still think that it is a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics that has much to recommend it. But I have no interest in comparing my model to your paper 1406.0184, which is one I never signed off on. In your #13 on page 3 in that paper you constrain Alice's output to +1 and -1. I have explained dozens of times in this series of comments that that is a problem. Your nonstandard treatment of the problem changes nothing with respect to my essay and my local model. As I explain in the following comment your model is non-local because you bring all of the parameters together in a way impossible for a local model. My local model does not ever bring these parameters into one place. It does not deal with the probabilities other than the actual post-experiment probability distribution of correlated local results.

In an earlier series of comments someone wanted to compare my model to his nonstandard theory treating spin as simply 'a bit of information'; my response was that we can just agree to disagree. If you feel the need to bring more arguments from your nonstandard treatment into this thread I would ask that you present it in-line here. I do not intend to expend any more effort on irrelevant comparisons to your nonstandard treatment. My focus is and will continue to be the physical reasoning that led Bell to his false conclusions about non-locality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

The Klingman Model (TKM). Problem 1: Alice's calculation.

In all Bell-tests known to me, Alice is the agent (human or robot) that freely sets the direction a of detector A. So Alice is correctly shown "out of sight" in top figure, p.6: for she (normally) has no other role to play.

However, at p.6, Alice calculates local deflection ﾎ"xj via eqn (4): which may be written

ﾎ"xj = X - X(1-cos(a,ﾎｻj)) = Xcos(a,ﾎｻj); (1A)

where X is the first term in parentheses in (4).

Given that Alice knows a: how does she make this calculation?

PS: On p.6 it says that "Bob will see initial spin ﾎｻ' = -ﾎｻ ...". I'm taking this to be a colloquialism and that such variables cannot be seen?

Gordon Watson: a local realist interested in the physics behind TKM.

Gordon,

Bell states that "since the quantum mechanical wave function does not determine the result of an individual measurement, this predetermination [ i.e., a = b => -1 ] implies the possibility of a more complete specification of the state." In my local model that more complete specification is the initial spin, λ, which has dynamical significance. What is in question is the physics of this "hidden" variable which is 'hidden' from quantum mechanics. It may or may not be hidden from Alice and Bob. Whether or not it is measurable is not specified by Bell's theorem. There are several cases possible. If Alice knows the value of λ, she can compute the deflection. If she does not know λ, the deflection will still be determined by the laws of energy exchange physics, and will be the result as I have specified. In that case, in principle, Alice can recover the value of λ (or at least the value of angle (a, λ) that the spin makes with the local field) from the actual deflection, which she measures and sends to the statistical unit. Same for Bob. It is these measured values, determined by the energy exchange physics, that determine the correlation. In addition the theory can be checked by preparing a known λ and presenting it to Alice, and -λ to Bob.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thanks Ed; it's good to see some agreement returning between us. I hope to show that I understand the physics of your local model very well ... and that some clarifying simplification is possible. Since we each proclaim ourselves to be "local realists", I suspect that we might only differ when it comes to a definition of "realism".

Now, re simplification: I would have your Alice be exactly the Alice that is discussed in Bell-tests. She simply sets a once -- ie, once for each each experimental run -- and has a snooze.

While she sleeps your "black-box" A will send each ﾎ"xj to your module D until an experimental run of N paired-tests has been conducted (N large). Similarly Bob's box B sends each paired ﾎ"x'j to your module D.

I accept: (i) independent of Alice and Bob, it is these paired ﾎ"s that determine the correlation; (ii) in addition your theory can be checked by preparing a known ﾎｻj and presenting it to Alice, and a paired ﾎｻ'j to Bob.

I must run right now (so E & OE), but if you'd let me have your views on the above simplification (I believe it avoids unnecessary complications), I'm keen to move to another.

Best; Gordon

Gordon,

Your 'simplification' is what my model does already. For each pair of settings [ a , b ] there are 10,000 experimental runs, i.e., 10,000 random λs are sent, and the paired results correlated. Every point in the curves on page 7 represents the correlation of 10,000 λs for a fixed [ a , b ] pair, so I don't believe that a "known" λ adds anything to my model. Actually, each λ is known to me, if I wish to print it out. The fact that it is randomly generated does not prevent my knowing it if I wish to do so. In fact, I dynamically generate the vectors shown in the middle of page 6 just so I can see for myself that random spins are occurring. Further, that is definitely the way the physical experiment must be run to test my theory. The point of the experiment to test my theory is not to produce any correlation; it is to show that the A(a,λ) is not ±1, but depends on (a,λ) in the manner I state.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ed, your responses often represent the exact opposite of my position or statement; some to the point of nonsense. Maybe this reflects your past experience at the hands of Bell's supporters -- but (NB; like you) I too am a local realist.

Now, until now, I've refrained from addressing the issue. But we have here another example: You say: Your 'simplification' is what my model does already.

However, in line with my concern above, the simplification that I proposed (the first of several on offer; see my earlier posts) was specifically this: To solve what I defined as Problem 1 with your model: Alice's calculation, my simplification was to eliminate any hint of, or need for Alice (and, of course, Bob) to do any calculations at all.

An immediate consequence of that simplification was to revert Alice and Bob back to the roles that they have forever occupied in the Bell literature: they would thus be the agents responsible for the settings a and b, respectively; with no other responsibilities, and certainly none to do with calculations!

Your essay has this (p.6): "Alice chooses a as the direction of her Stern-Gerlach magnetic field; she will calculate a scattering angle with a component given by eqn (4). Bob will see initial spin λ' = -λ with angle θ' =(b,λ') and calculate the local deflection predicted for his SG apparatus."

Then there are the complex arrangements that you present so recently at "Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 00:31 GMT", "Bell states that "since the quantum mechanical wave function does not determine the result of an individual measurement, this predetermination [ i.e., a = b => -1 ] implies the possibility of a more complete specification of the state." In my local model that more complete specification is the initial spin, λ, which has dynamical significance. What is in question is the physics of this "hidden" variable which is 'hidden' from quantum mechanics. It may or may not be hidden from Alice and Bob. Whether or not it is measurable is not specified by Bell's theorem. There are several cases possible. If Alice knows the value of λ, she can compute the deflection. If she does not know λ, the deflection will still be determined by the laws of energy exchange physics, and will be the result as I have specified. In that case, in principle, Alice can recover the value of λ (or at least the value of angle (a, λ) that the spin makes with the local field) from the actual deflection, which she measures and sends to the statistical unit. Same for Bob. It is these measured values, determined by the energy exchange physics, that determine the correlation. In addition the theory can be checked by preparing a known λ and presenting it to Alice, and -λ to Bob."

Now you say it's you that wants to talk physics (not maths) but by any standard the job you have Alice and Bob doing is both confusing and unnecessary.

Thus, to be clear: my simplification was intended to eliminate my Problem 1 with your model: Alice's calculation by saying: Alice makes NO calculation! May I proceed on that (hopefully agreed) basis?

PS: To finish on this issue, your state: "In my model they [the numbers] are calculated locally and only the numeric result is sent to the statistical module. To understand this, assume that Alice calculates [according to the energy exchange physics] the number 36. Did this come from 1x36, or 2x18, or 3x12, or 4x9, or 6x6? These are local numbers that no one but Alice knows."

Question: Could you clarify for me please, the range of values that Alice generates via such calculations? An approximate range will do for, to my mind, they will now be the direct outputs of A-module; top figure, p.6. Also, what are these modules physically, please?

For this might make a nice segue to my next problem -- for which I see a similar simplification.

Gordon Watson: a local realist interested in the physics behind the EEK model.

Gordon,

You are correct that there is some nonsense going on, but we differ as to the source of it. There are physical phenomena, a.k.a. "reality" and there is physics, a.k.a. "a model of reality". The behavior of magnetic dipoles in an inhomogeneous field scatters the particles as shown in the iconic postcard and as described in classical mechanical textbooks.

Bell addresses the question of whether a physical model exists that allows computation of local results, that also yields the relevant correlations. Whether Alice does the local calculations or someone else does the local calculations is a piece of nonsense that I am not concerned with. A physical model that cannot calculate local results is incomplete. You insist that you understand my model and you understand the physics, but that is not apparent in your communications. I am open to reasonable questions, but I do not see much reason in your comments, and as there are many new essays posted, and only finite hours in the day, I am uninterested in devoting too much time trying to change your mind, which gives all appearance of already being made up.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ed, There's a bit here that's not clear to me: "I am uninterested in devoting too much time trying to change your mind, which gives all appearance of already being made up."

Where do your believe that we differ, please? In other words: what part of my thinking would you like to see change?

That will enable me (if we differ) to summarise my case so that I too can get on with other things.

Thanks; Gordon

Gordon,

Your focus on whether Alice does the calculations, or someone else does the calculations, strikes me as foolishness. If you have a point, make your point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Excellent job Ed!

You definitely made your point here. I think it's absolutely true that Dirac's approach to helicity is both general and fundamental, while the expression used by Pauli is a special case. I like that you use the word provisional. The subtlety of the error you point out, and its self-concealing nature, mean that you probably have as many objections to deal with as Joy did. But you seem to be up to the challenge, and perhaps with enough of an even temper to refrain from pushing your detractors into defensive posturing.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

    Dear Jonathan,

    Thank you very much for your kind comment and your encouragement. You definitely understand the point, and you clearly also see the problem.

    And of course the problem is subtle, as your brilliant use of the term "self-concealing nature" shows. Only something as "self concealing" as this would keep it hidden from physicists for 50 years. So thank you again. Your clear, clean, wise comment is most appreciated.

    I read your essay today, and find that we are in even more agreement than usual. I will comment on your thread soon.

    With best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Good show!

    I am glad that my insights are valuable. But your paper is deserving of kind attention.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Hi Edwin,

    Through forty years of monthly doses of Scientific American, I've been led to believe that Bell, supported experimentally by Aspect, had a knock down riposte to EPR, so I am very interested to see you have taken him on. I like to think I might one day put the effort into mastering the mathematics required to understand your argument technically, but in the mean time I find the idea of Bell "using the wrong map" persuasive. As you know, I am passionate about reaching beyond instrumentalism in understanding this universe of ours, and I believe you are extending into that realm. I thoroughly enjoyed your essay Edwin,

    Cheers,

    Rowan

      Ed, is your model realistic?

      I agree your model is local -- as you state above -- finding my own local model hiding within yours: see equations (3)-(6) at my local model; version 1.** But there I made a planned second step: introducing realism (and matching QM) with equations (8)-(13).

      In other words: In that you and I (as local realists) require a model to be both local AND realistic: the above model was a deliberate pedagogic step to the fully local and realistic version at (8)-(13). See also my essay in this contest when it is available.

      So, not seeing how your model is realistic (nor how it moves beyond that first step above), I'd be pleased to learn:

      1. What is your definition of realism, please?*

      2. How does your model meet that definition?

      * Because until we define realism in local and testable terms, our opponents define realism in their own unrealistic terms.

      ** PS; to be clear: Per my earlier analysis here and comparison with equations (3)-(6) at http://viXra.org/pdf/1406.0184v1.pdf my local model; version 1.

      With best regards; Gordon Watson

      Hi Edwin,

      Thank you for your comments on my essay. I will respond to them on the page for that essay.

      Reading your essay, I find myself in general agreement with your views about how physicists use mathematics. I agree that we can look at mathematical description or analysis of physical phenomena as a map for the phenomena. For any given aspect of the world, there are many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?

      Of course, the point of interest in your essay is not this general truism, but the specific application you make of it. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient background to say anything useful about the application. I am well aware that the consensus view among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. Against this consensus, you state, "Bell simply applied the wrong map to the territory." Since I cannot render an independent judgment on the matter, I can only wait to see how the discussion turns out. I am glad to see that your essay has received many comments. With this exchange of views, scientists who are conversant with the issues should be able to gain a better understanding of your ideas.

      Best wishes for this contest and for your work.

      Laurence Hitterdale

        Edwin,

        Thanks for your kind comments on mine. You give a great presentation and analysis of the same truth from a slightly different viewpoint which is so logical I'd expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue. (they'll stay lost as they have the wrong map!)

        I do now understand your references to 'precession' as the result of the 'higher order' interaction effects referred in my own conception. I do also have a slight quibble as to Bells 'view', which I found a little more subtle than the (common) representation you use. Though showing the mathematical limits using the "freely adopted" assumptions of QM he firmly stated his opinion that those assumptions were, somewhere, wrong, so his theorem would be circumvented. In a way I agree with Tim Maudlin on not being a 'counterexample' to Bell's 'theorem', yet Tim is quite wrong suggesting Bell's used no assumptions! he clearly wrote otherwise.

        I don't think you've read my recent joint paper with full analysis agreeing that view and deriving the Gell Mann 'quasi' classical solution, paralleling your own. A full set of Bell's quotes is given plus all flawed assumptions identified. I hope you'll comment on it.

        https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglement_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2

        I also take the helicity question further than my last 2 essays using a physical dynamic model of 'fractal like' higher order spin states in this short video, showing it's resolving power is even more immensely broad than you expose here. http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs I hope you'll comment on that too.

        If you haven't read Alan Kadin's essay yet I think you should. I still also think it's about time to address and overcome the troglodites successful 'divide and conquer' method. But that's another matter.

        Well done for an excellent contribution, of far more value than will likely be seen.

        Peter

          Hi Rowan,

          Yes, the popular press reflects the establishment press and, based on acceptance of Bell's oversimplified model of Stern-Gerlach, no one was able to puncture Bell's logic. Thus, when Aspect derived experimental evidence that the EPR correlation actually agreed with quantum mechanical predictions, it was [falsely] interpreted to support non-locality. But there is nothing in Aspect's [or others'] experiments that "supports non-locality". All that the experiments do is prove that Bell's model does not match reality!

          I argue that Bell's model does not match reality because he ignores the actual physics that occurs in a non-constant field with his oversimplified treatment of Stern-Gerlach as a constant field, thus describable by Pauli's eigenvalue map, which is the wrong map, as it is based on a Hamiltonian that is missing the key term based on the field gradient.

          Thank you for reading my essay and extracting the key point.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Laurence,

          Thanks for reading and extracting the essence of my essay. You are correct when you say "for any given aspect of the world, there many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?"

          And of course you are correct that the consensus now among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. And, in general, he was. But in the specifics of Stern-Gerlach his "constant-field" model leads to an immediate contradiction, as a constant-field Stern-Gerlach apparatus yields zero, not ±1. This seems like the first hint. The second hint would be the actual data, shown on the iconic postcard. The third hint would be the extremely counter-intuitive concept of non-locality.

          As Aspect points out in his introduction to Bell's 'Speakable...', Bell went against the conventional wisdom among physicists that "the 'founding fathers' of quantum mechanics had settled all the conceptual questions." Aspect claims Bell "helped physicists to free themselves from the belief that the conceptual understanding that had been achieved [20 years earlier] was the end of the story." How ironic that now Bell is the 'founding father' and this belief in the 'end of the story' is now 50 years old!

          Thank you sincerely for your kind comments and best wishes.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Peter,

          Thanks for reading my essay, and thank you for finding it so logical that you would "expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue." You sure got the "simply look away" part right.

          You are also correct to observe that Bell's theorem is based on assumptions. And I agree that my approach does not counter his "Theorem", which is a valid mathematical treatment of his faulty assumptions. It only challenges his conclusion, that "no local model can produce quantum correlations."

          I look forward to reading the link you have provided with Bell's quotes plus all flawed assumptions identified. I will comment on it after I've read it.

          As I'm sure you are aware, "simply looking away" is merely a delaying action, not an effective argument. We can hope that the "drip, drip, drip" of truth and logic that year-by-year appears in FQXi essays is slowly acquiring critical mass, to the point that it will no longer be possible to "look away". But, as Thomas Erwin Phipps remarks in a comment on his thread (February 26, 2015@21:33)

          "Worldwide Professors United, though not a recognized organization, nevertheless exists and knows how to close ranks in defense of the status quo. This means that progress can occur only from inside, and at a snails pace."

          Thanks again for your thoughtful comment,

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman