EEK,

Well researched worthy of scientific publication. Addresses a thorn in everyone's side i.e. non-locality.

- You integrated well a few FQXI questions in the body of your discourse.

- My take on bell's experiment; Once one addresses a single photon polarization, this polarization becomes a quantum number which, under the constraint of the analyzer (measurement) must assume only discrete values: 0 or 90 degrees... Other values are to be rounded off to these two values... My understanding of QM.

very good job,

Marcel,

    Dear Joe Fisher,

    Thank you for your kind remarks. I have responded as you asked on your essay page.

    Best Regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Marcel,

    Thanks for reading my essay and commenting so graciously. As you imply, most Bell-type experiments are performed with photons, which I've not yet analyzed in equivalent detail. But Bell's basic model was based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment on particles in a magnetic field, and all references that I've seen in the literature state that "no local model" can yield the quantum correlation. Thus, while I've not yet analyzed photon experiments, I have shown that the general statement about local realism in the physics literature is incorrect. One might hope this would cause physicists to ask why they have been wrong for 50 years about particles, and perhaps not be so absolutely certain about photon-based experiments. That doesn't seem to be happening.

    I still consider your essay on the logic of the substantial universe to be one of the best ever.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Doc,

    I'm taking a bit of a break, I have a low saturation point, but look in on a few things. Analysis of Aspect type 'photon' experiments opens the classical vs. Quantum can of worms, and either way is structured on the premise that the Planck quanta is indivisibly a fundamental energy action quantity, and a lot of times theoretically taken only as the energy term instead of erg sec.

    Constantinos Ragazas presents strong arguments to support the case that the 'quanta' itself is in reality an empirical experimentally derived; least observable average. I haven't digested it enough to comment ontologically, but at present think it must go to co-incidence of the hyberbolic function Minkowski identified with Lorentz and the parabolic function of the natural exponential function, which is observed when the EM wave is 'stopped' in an absorption event with a relative rest entity in the atomic structure on a detection device. His conclusions are quite disruptive of both Classical and Quantum, because he shows that it is the rapidity trigometrically in any wave that distinguishes the frequency in a continuous flow of energy and that a range of energy content can be carried in any given frequency, which averaged over is what theoretically we ascribe to a 'photon' experimentally.

    So without a rational waveform that we can differentiate as a single wave of specific energy/frequency, and without reliance on the 'quanta' as a matter of expedience lacking source rationale, as we now do with the post hoc/proctor hoc assumption of the quantum leap, Aspect experiments have to be treated with a skepticism you'd find in any towny bar. It's a trick bulb. Now, cutting a deck to pull an Ace, IS simple physics!

    If you have time, you (and others) might like to take a look at a Master's Thesis on Rubidium experiments, cited by Steven Sax, by Amir Waxman which can be found at: http://www.bgu.ac.il/atomchip/Theses/Amir_Waxman_MSc_2007.pdf

    What is found is that staged half-pulses of laser light produce a discretized photon result in the target Rubidium atom. But what may be of interest in your arguments and to distinguish measure systems between Q & C, is that in their protocols the Waxman group specifies 'free precession' but which in the co-ordinate system called 'spin', the axis of precession intersects with the intersection origin of the orthogonal. That does not allow +1,-1 antipodes on the sphere surface to float as is observable in free precession of the wobble of the N&S magnetic poles of the earth, which tracks an ideal axis that does not intersect 'dead sphere center'. Natural precession in a particle can not be constrained to a hypothetical symmetry of an abstract measurement scheme.

    The sun just came out, I'm going to do some messy yard work so I can focus on something that doesn't need much, and so I won't get in the way of what's floating around in my head. I need the well-being of being physical, too. best-jrc

    Edwin Klingman,

    Your essay does a good job addressing the subject and of suggesting experiments that could contradict Bell's theorem. There is ample reason to question the long standing reign of Bell's conclusion. I do have a question which I will post in responce to your comments on my essay.

    Sherman Jenkins

      Dear Sherman Jenkins,

      Thank you for reading my essay and responding as you have. I have responded further on your essay page.

      My best wishes for you,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear jrc,

      I agree that Aspect opens a can of worms, and the θ-dependence that is visible in the SG deflection measurement is subsumed in the "binary" photon count. Which means it will be even harder to convince Bell's followers that the model is oversimplified.

      As for Constantinos Ragazas' treatment of Planck's constant, I too am very impressed, but I too am unsure of its ontological implications. In my view of physics, the basic quantum is that of action (energy x time) and this is a very basic ontology, not a mathematical theorem. I haven't sorted these issues out to my own satisfaction.

      I have tried to interpret the "staged half pulses" and have not found the descriptions sufficient for this. Perhaps the 87 page thesis you linked to will explain it better. I'll also try understand your comments on 'precession'. I'm actually working on precession now with regard to Stern-Gerlach models and energy exchange, in order to better define the experiment to test my theory.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      7 days later

      Dear Edwin,

      Thanks for your kind comment in my blog.

      I always enjoy reading your erudite essays that combine humanity and science. Yes, we do have similar worldview that I think is simply logical, rational and shockingly simple. I agree with you that reality is a brute force one cannot ignore: you put it bluntly: "The physical world does exist, as anyone can prove by jumping from a high place." Another I also believe in: "Specifically, what should we do when map logic conflicts with our physical intuition? I believe that the physical world can be trusted."

      I know community find my essay is too abstracts with many Chinese, Shakespearian and Greek philosophy that difficult to understand but actually it is so simple based on reality as it is like yours. I believe in nature is infinite, thus, everything is paradoxically true like both local and non-local communications and events of nature. I describes this phenomena in KQID. Therefore, your conclusion that Bell's non-local entanglement could be explained also in local causality make sense to me. I believe this is correct. You have done great work and path a new insight of nature as it is.

      Let us work together to make our world a better place for all, including aliens, cyborgs and self-conscious robots and androids. I would like to visit your Caligornia sunny hut and together every morning we declare: we are in paradise! I voted your piece the highest score possible and good luck my friend.

      Best wishes,

      Leo KoGuan

        It is nice that Edwin Klingman confirms Bell's theorem: when, in his local hidden variables model, he forces a reduction of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) to binary (+/-1) he sees correlations which satisfy Bell's theorem bounds.

        I think he should take a look at the state-of-the-art experiments done with photons. Where the outcomes certainly are binary: a detector either clicks in some time interval, or it doesn't.

        Two recent highlights are Christensen et al (2013, PRL) and Giustina et al (2013, Nature).

        http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.130406

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12012.html

        I will discuss the Christensen experiment because it has in my opinion some superior features.

        Christensen et al used a pulsed laser source and a fixed grid of time intervals at the measurement stations. Per time interval: Alice and Bob fix a measurement setting a, b. The settings are chosen at random. Alice and Bob each pick one of two settings (Alice: a1 or a2; Bob: b1 or b2). The choice is done by fair coin tosses. In each time interval there may or may not be detection events in each wing of the experiment. Binary outcomes are defined as follows: +/-1 depending on whether or not there is any event.

        So: "+1" stands for "one or more detector clicks", "-1" stands for "no detector clicks.

        They observed a rather small (physically speaking) but statistically extremely significant violation from Bell's inequality.

        The main problem with Bell and all that, is that for the last 50 years, experimenters were not able to do the experiment. They did surrogate experiments which are superficially similar but actually have major loopholes. They do not follow the necessary strict experimental protocol and hence there is a myriad of alternative (and innocent) explanations for observed violation of Bell's inequality. For the last 50 years, they *couldn't* do the experiment under the strictly necessary protocol *and* get a result worth publishing.

        There are two loopholes in the Christensen et al experiment: (1) the two measurement stations are not spatially separated enough, relative to the length of the time intervals; and (2) the measurement settings were not re-randomised for every single time interval, but only once per so many. So there is a locality and a memory loophole. However other experiments on photons have closed both of those loopholes. Christensen et al's was the first which closed the detection efficiency loophole. It was the first experiment which actually implemented the "+/-1" requirement. In the past, with photons, outcomes were "+1 / -1 / no detection" and the no shows were discarded. Post-selection. Opens up a loophole.

        So a new experimental era in Bell experiments is just opening and I'm afraid it will make a lot of the discussion of the last 50 years superfluous.

          Dear Leo,

          Thank you for reading my essay and for your gracious comments. I agree that we share what is essentially a simple view of physical reality, as both real and trustworthy. Your essays always celebrate the infinite goodness of this marvelous world with classic wisdom and with modern concepts, which sometimes makes it hard to grasp the specifics of your ideas in a short essay, but the overall idea is quite easy to grasp. We live in Paradise.

          My warmest regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Richard Gill,

          Thanks for your comments. It's good to hear from you. You are quite knowledgeable about Bell's theorem, and you have grasped a major point of my approach, which is that my theory does confirm Bell's theorem that quantum correlations cannot be matched when Bell constrains the outputs A(a,λ) and B(b,-λ) to ±1 .

          My further point is that this mathematical restriction is non-physical, based on Bell's oversimplified model, at least in the case of Stern-Gerlach-based experiments.

          Of course you are correct to observe that I should also analyze photon-based experiments, which I hope to do in the future. I am currently attempting to model my proposed SG-experiment and I'm working with others to perform the experiment.

          Thank you for including the links to the Christiansen and Giustina experiments, with a brief overview of these. I'll check them out.

          I also appreciate your comments on the last 50 years of Bell's experiments and I agree with you that it is likely that a new experimental era of Bell's experiments will make a lot of the discussion of the last 50 years superfluous.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Thanks Edwin for the appreciation.

          Bell's theorem (the inequality part) is mathematically speaking a complete triviality. Hence (of course, IMHO) your model confirms that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. Yes. The theorem is about binary outputs.

          Some people identify "Bell's theorem" with a metaphysical statement about non-locality of QM. For sure, I believe that the metaphysical consequences are the astounding thing. But, depending on your inclinations, there are a lot of rather different conclusions which can be drawn. The theorem does not, in my opinion, show that QM is non-local. Non-classical, yes; but non-local, no.

          A present day conventional statement of Bell's theorem (the metaphysical one) would be that quantum mechanics is incompatible with locality realism no-conspiracy. So if you want to keep QM you still have a choice of three items, (at least) one of which must be rejected. Personally I prefer to reject "realism" which is actually a misnomer - it's a rather idealist standpoint.

          Bell points out in his wonderful Bertlmann's socks paper that there are four possible metaphysical stances or positions to take on those consequences. One of them, which he matches to Bohr, is "so what?". Or even "I told you so". That's the one which corresponds to rejecting realism. Bell himself tended to reject locality. He had no sympathy at all with conspiracy (super-determinism). Then it could also be the case that QM is wrong! (That makes four.)

          Later Bell admitted that there was a fifth position possible: that the definitive experiment can never be done, because quantum mechanics itself prevents one from creating the required initial conditions. How to create a quantum state of two subsystems far apart, well localised in time and space, which one can moreover measure rapidly and close to ideally.

          They've been trying for 50 years, getting close now, but there's still quite a way to go ...

          Dear Edwin,

          I don't doubt your conclusion that "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem". But I partly disagree with your map/territory analogy, and I disagree with what you say about numbers. (However, I'm glad we both seem to agree that consciousness is fundamental and physically real, and that there is no platonic realm!).

          You say that math maps cannot necessarily be trusted, that math maps are "imposed on the physical territory", and that "the physical world can be trusted" to verify or disprove the math maps. Seemingly, your implication is that the nature of the underlying physical world black-box can't ultimately be known. This is what I would dispute - because we ARE reality, we are not separate from reality.

          So I contend that every math map is actually somewhat like the territory. I'm not referring to particular mathematical equations, but to the general form of mathematical equations. They are always about 2 basic things: variables/parameters/categories, and relationships between variables/parameters/categories. It's no accident: we ARE reality, and we subjectively experience reality as having this type of fundamental structure. I contend that we can trust that fundamental physical reality has this general TYPE of structure: (what might be described as) categories and relationships.

          The other comment I would make is about numbers and counting. I see counting (of things) as being an inherently complex many-step procedure which involves sophisticated comparisons and distinctions of things that are being counted and included versus things that are not being counted or included. Using our sophisticated comparison and distinction abilities, and using our sophisticated knowledge of the properties of materials, we are able to set up machines (e.g. computers) to represent numbers, and to represent counting.

          I consider that the apprehension of reality always occurs at a granular, subjective level, rather than at an overall, universe-wide level. So I assume that both counting and computer-like representations are far too sophisticated to be occurring at the foundations of reality (i.e. at the particle level). I consider that there must be maximal simplicity at the foundations of reality, and that the subjective apprehension of categories and relationships is about as basic as you can get. Another issue is that categories of reality like mass cannot be represented by the "counting numbers".

          Best wishes,

          Lorraine

            Richard,

            I'd like to address several of your points:

            a.) The essential triviality of Bell's inequality, based on binary outcomes.

            b.) The metaphysical implications: realism, locality, logic (or conspiracy).

            c.) The meaning of your fifth case, "that QM is wrong?"

            To avoid a very long comment, I will limit this comment to a.).

            I certainly agree that (the inequality part) of Bell's theorem is, mathematically speaking, a complete triviality. And, as you note, my local model of spin in a non-constant field shows that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. As Tim Maudlin repeats above in many different ways, "the theorem is about binary outputs."

            The question (to a physicist) is what is the relevance of the theorem about binary outputs to physics? The implication seems to be that QM predicts ±1 and that the QM correlation agrees with experiment. Is that true?

            My interpretation of Bell's model is that he applies the wrong quantum mechanical map, Pauli's equation, which is applicable only to a constant magnetic field. The correct QM map would include the deflection energy in the Hamiltonian and would produce a split continuous spectrum of outputs (as observed in Stern-Gerlach), not a binary output. My local model does produce this continuum, and the values are correlated as both QM and experiment imply.

            The first objection to this might be simply that "the binary model of QM works!" But is that a consequence, or is in an obvious coincidence?

            The question is whether the 'binary' (±1) nature of Bell's (mis-)interpretation of Pauli has anything to do with the correlation? I believe it does not.

            Where, in the QM singlet-based expectation value (see eqn (1) in my essay) does the binary nature exhibit itself? One might claim, and even believe, that the sigma-dot-a and sigma-dot-b must be ±1, but the same correlation is obtained from measurements yielding the X cos(θ) values that my model produces.

            Discussion of Bell's theorem seems to assume a quantum mechanical 'calculation' based on actual measurement values (assumed identically equal to eigenvalues.) But that is not how the calculation is performed. Instead, the formal QM expression is written down [see the singlet eqn (1)] and the formalism assumes that the correct eigenvalues are being measured. Then, the usual approach to calculating the expectation value [see Peres, page 162 or JJ Sakurai, page 165] is based on an identity that is essentially a geometric relation, independent of the values of a or b or sigma-dot-a, etc.

            What is often forgotten is that (per MJW Hall) Bell's theorem includes the physical requirement of perfect anti-correlation when a = b. This implies normalization, since the -1 correlation must obtain, whatever the actual energy eigenvalues. [In fact the 'numbers' are E = ±hw/2, not ±1. I.e., normalization is built-in.]

            I think that it is difficult, on a physical basis, to prove that the expectation value -a.b derives from the binary nature of the Stern-Gerlach measurement. And, having briefly looked at the links you provided above, it is also difficult for me to relate the rules:

            '+1' stands for "one or more detector clicks",

            '-1' stands for "no detector clicks",

            to any underlying physics, whatever the statistical significance.

            But, as I have noted, I have yet to perform an equivalent analysis of photon physics [equivalent to my SG-analysis]. On the other hand, Bell's derivation, description, and explanation of his model is primarily in terms of Stern-Gerlach, so I don't think SG can be just 'written-off' as some seem inclined to do.

            Thanks again for your observations,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Lorraine,

            As you rightly note, we agree on the big things, and the small things will work themselves out.

            From my imposition of mathematical 'maps' on physical 'territory', and my trust in the physical world to tell us (in essence, by answering our experimental questions) which maps are valid and which are not, you seem to conclude that I imply that the nature of the underlying physical world cannot be known.

            As a physicist, developing theories to communicate models of reality to others, that is probably a reasonable conclusion. But as a living individual with consciousness, experience, and intuition, I have a personal understanding of the underlying nature of reality. One of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, said that, in essence,

            "More can be known than can be proved."

            I generally agree with your third paragraph. As for numbers and counting, I believe you are looking at a level above the actual physical phenomena that counters "do". As I understand biology, there are number of "counting" operations that occur at the protein level. And silicon counting chips are really quite simple, despite that they did not evolve but were designed by complex consciousness. But I think your last paragraph conveys what you're trying to say here. I did not mean to imply that individual fundamental particles count. But I don't think that many particles must be put together before a primitive count, applicable to local circumstances, can occur. The more generalized counting, as performed in computers and brains are of course very high level, as you insist.

            Thanks very much for reading my essay and for giving me these comments.

            My best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            Thank you for the well-written and interesting essay.

            In Einstein relativity, an object must be local, meaning a particle cannot be at one location one moment and a different location the next moment going faster than light in the process. Quantum mechanics is non-local, meaning a particle can be anywhere in its associated matter wave (some locations are more likely than others). Bell's inequality shows that (if quantum mechanics is correct) a local unknown variable cannot exist. Some non-local variable can exist and stay true to Bell's inequality. Some feel that is non-local variable in the form of entanglement could be instantaneous. Although instant communication is not disallowed by Bell's inequality it is not require by the inequality, instant communication does violate relativity and has not been found experientially.

            All the best,

            Jeff Schmitz

              Jeff,

              Thank-you. That is the most comprehensible concise statement I've read about the Bell controversy. jrc

              Dear Jeff,

              Thanks for reading my essay and for your thoughtful comment. I agree with your statement about relativity being local. The question of the non-locality of quantum mechanics is less clear and would appear to be interpretation-dependent. A key question is whether the wave function is ontological or epistemological, which, according to my endnotes quotation from Matt Leifer, is currently not known. My own opinion is that the wave function is ontological, and further, is induced by the linear momentum of the particle, |p> providing both real particle-and-wave aspects, as opposed to particle-or-wave. In this perspective, although the actual location of the particle may be known (quantum mechanically) only probabilistically, it is in reality relatively local. My picture is 'Bohm-like' but is not identical to Bohm's.

              Of significance in this picture of a local particle-plus-wave is the particle's spin |s>. As I point out on page 9 of my essay the standard QM wave function |ps> is actually a tensor product |ps> = |p> x |s> which is a mathematical trick to keep these separate entities joined-at-the-hip while making sure that the mathematical operations on the entities remain separate. Although the same quantum formalism is applied to linear momentum |p>, and intrinsic angular momentum, |s>, I do not perceive spin as inducing the deBroglie-like "matter-wave". Much of the weirdness of quantum mechanics is actually associated with the treatment of spin 'as-if' it also had an associated matter wave.

              In other words, I view quantum mechanics as a powerful statistical theory of real particles, not an essentially mathematical, almost non-physical, and rather mystical phenomenon. I agree with jrc that you have concisely summarized the prevailing perspective on QM. If, as I propose in my essay, Bell's model is actually oversimplified, then it is not clear what physical significance Bell's theorem actually has. Of course until I can treat the case of photons, most physicists seem reluctant to doubt Bell. As you noted in your response to my comment on your page, "a useful model is a wonderful thing".

              All the best,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Edwin,

              Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am doubly glad that you did vote, because I had read your essay early on, and neglected to rate it, so I am happy to do that now that you brought it to my attention..

              I just couldn't think of what more to say. Though our mathematical methods differ widely, there are many physical principles on which we agree.

              All best in the competition,

              Tom

              Edwin,

              Many thanks for the encouragement. I see that part of your voting strategy is to vote late. You are a wise man:-)

              Best Regards and Good Luck,

              Gary Simpson