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

          Edwin,

          I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.

          Great essay and equally fascinating comment sequence. You evidently don't need any help defending your ideas (and theory).

          I realize how busy you are, but if you could somehow squeeze in an answer to at least some of the points that I will make here, it would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps it might clarify for everyone participating in these discussions some of the arguments in the exchanges between Tim Maudlin and yourself.

          Tim Maudlin wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 15:10 GMT (among other things) the following:

          "...But if each particle is not in a state which predetermines the outcome of the experiment, and is completely unaffected by whatever distant experiment is carried out, then enforcing the global conservation means that theory is not local in Bell's sense..."

          Question: Wouldn't the particle that lost its energy simply pass it on to whatever it interacted with while it was being detected? No need to postulate that the second particle should "know" anything about that, since global conservation would be realized by the local interaction.

          Tim Maudlin replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 06:00 GMT that (among other things): "...The entire discussion of the detailed model makes no contact with the theorem..."

          Valid or not, your model contradicts BT. The fact that Tim claims that your model makes no contact with BT is pretty convincing evidence that he thought you should have made contact via logical argument (rather than by actual worldly facts, albeit those are at present only via your model). Does this not support your claim that you deal "in physics" and Tim (although "speaking the same language") is pursuing the issue in terms of logic? (I am aware that he later claims that your model is non-local, and thereby unrelated to BT.)

          Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 4, 2015 @ 01:09 GMT, stating that: "...This "actual experimental record" is not binary but has 13 outcomes. As far as I'm concerned that is proof that your continued statement that "real experiments have binary outcomes" is simply wrong..."

          Question: If one reclassifies each of the 13 outcomes into binary form, and then derives correlations from that binary output, would it not result in correlations that differ from those based on the actual pairs of experimental (analog) results where the results aren't +/-1 (and rather are derived from relative positions of the actual pairs)?

          If it is the case that BT only applies to local-realistic models whose output is binary, then the "verbal" claims about BT should always state so, thereby admitting that BT does not apply to other local models where binary output does not occur.

          In my scorebook, it is Physicist : 10, Philosopher: 0.

          Congratulations Edwin!

          As an aside, consider this... If a particle has no attributes (or has all attributes) before being detected, how does that particle "know" how to present itself to the detector? I won't elaborate on this, and let others explore the ramifications.

          I believe there are many physicists whose instincts tell them that there is something wrong with at least some parts of QM, but for "political" reasons are not speaking out.

          Well, I have certainly overstayed my welcome by now.

          En

            En Passant,

            Thank you for your kind remarks. Before answering the questions in your comment, I would like to relate my reply to your essay, which only Michel Planat and Gary Simpson have so far appreciated. In your essay you note that it is not the 'number' that has significance in physics, it is the quantity of 'something' and

            "The correct selection of somethings and the appropriate selection of the numeric relations among such somethings is physics."

            Stern-Gerlach measures the scattering of particles, depending upon the initial spin, i.e., the spin upon entry to the device. But Bell believes that it is directly measuring only the final spin output from the device, which is (usually) in one of two states, aligned or anti-aligned. Thus, instead of using the 'actual' position measurement, which contains and reflects the physics that goes on in the device, he [mistakenly] assumes an 'idealized' measurement, and, lo and behold, he cannot make his physics model match the actual correlations. Quelle surprise, en passant!

            One must select the right 'somethings' before establishing the relationships.

            You further state:

            "Math without consideration of whether it mirrors the outside world is always tautologic... Once it starts to speak about the world, it becomes physics. At this stage, it can be validated (or not) by experiment, which is the final arbiter of whether your physics is right."

            Bell's physics, of course, is not validated by experiment, but, instead of simply stating "my model fails to produce the correct result", he decided to overthrow local realism. And the physics community went along with him and has continued to go along with him for 50 years. It is downright embarrassing at this point to be forced to go back and look at the actual physics.

            I will answer your questions in the following comment.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            En Passant,

            Your first question relates to Tim Maudlin's initial critique, stating that "enforcing the global conservation [of energy] means that the theory is not local in Bell's sense..."

            That merely reflected the fact that Tim does not take any challenge to Bell [about which he has written books and papers] as worthy of serious attention, because my Energy-Exchange Theorem [proved in the essay, but with one obvious typo] is not about global energy conservation, but about local energy conservation.

            The precessing particle contains local energy of configuration that does not exist once the particle is aligned with the field. Where does this energy go? The particle initially enters on a horizontal axis [say] and exits deflected up or down, with an upward or downward component of velocity [proportional to the initial spin angle] and hence with energy associated with this deflection. Where did this energy come from? I show that, by use of the standard Hamiltonian, it is easy to prove that the energy of one mode is exchanged with (or 'into') the energy of the other mode, in this case from precessional energy into deflectional energy. While this analysis is new to Bell's theorem and to Stern-Gerlach, it is well-known that molecules exchange energy between modes, for example rotational- to vibrational-modes, so I am not making up completely new physics, simply applying it where it has never been applied before.

            After I explained this local conservation, Tim essentially accepted this by never mentioning global conservation again, and never claiming again that this leads to my theory being "nonlocal" in Bell's sense.

            I hope the above answer clarifies your first question, but if not I'll be happy to try further.

            I think I'll address your next point in the following comment.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman