Dear Edwin ! Profesionally, your : Thermodynamics of Freedom, is of great (!)importance to my work. The Bell Essay, about map and territory, is very distant from my knowledge base, although I've the intuition that it could help me in these social science problems as well. I can imagine that: www.lifeenergyscience.it could interest you. Even 'simple nature' does not behave like classical physics, so pleae visit the mentioned website. Best wishes and cordially: stephen

    Dr. Klingman,

    Your bio says it all, your recent focus has been on issues of Bell's Theorem, which is quite daunting to the uninitiated. It is clear however that your conclusions which come from questioning Bell's underlying assumption of constraints which essentially impose arbitrary unity in the formulation of his arguments, produce the same results as did Joy Christian's questioning of his choice of topological measurement space. However mathematically contrived, spin is related to identifying rotation as a measurement function, firstly on a complex plane, and the integer and half integer values really only assign which quadrant to look in. Your argument that a continuous rotation in 3 dimensions is not a simple bit of information, is I think self-evident. I'm only qualified to 'watch and learn', as the laggards say on construction crews, so I'll gladly rate with the community. Best Wishes, jrc

      Dear Stephen,

      I'm pleased that you found my ToF essay useful to your work. I've looked at your site, but syntropy to Bretton Woods covers quite a bit of territory, and there's more there, so I've not absorbed all your information. Although I'm sure we will differ on details, I believe that, particularly in your field, going in the right direction is more important than getting all the small details right. Thanks for your comment and my best wishes,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear jrc,

      I've read many of your comments over the years and very much appreciate the above comment. As you note, Bell's theorem is quite daunting to the uninitiated, and not that transparent even to those who study it. I'm glad this FQXi contest allows me to present the ideas contained in my essay. I agree with your statements about spin, from Bell, to JC, to 'not a simple bit of information', and I am happy to have you "watching".

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

      I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled by your paper, and the angle theta. In your paper, you seem to be defining theta to be the angle between the spin direction and some measurement angle. But in Bell's plot of the correlation vs. theta, theta is the angle between Alice and Bob's detectors, and is completely independent of the spin direction, the magnetic field direction, or the angle of either Alice or Bob's detectors relative to the spin and/or field.

      In your figures on page 7, what is the theta angle that you are plotting the correlation against?

      Rob McEachern

      Rob,

      Thanks for inquiring about theta. Your statements are correct. In my paper I believe all references in the text are intended to be the angle between the spin lambda and the local field direction, a or b. In other words, for Alice, theta = (a, lambda) and for Bob theta = (b,-lambda). These angles are (on page 4) in Bell's third assumption and implicitly in my equations (2) and explicitly in equation (3), and, on the next page in equation (4). The angles are shown on page 6 as Alice's vectors on the left and Bob's on the right, and very specifically on page 8 between the field of vector B and magnetic moment mu, and on page 9 in the 'physical system' figure on the left side.

      However, in Bell's theorem theta is the angle (a,b), that is, the angle between the (remote) directions a and b. And in the figures you ask about, on page 7, theta is Bell's theta, that is, the angle between the remote control settings. I apologize for the confusion, the term theta is typically common to both discussions of precession, independently of Bell, and also, as you note, it is used by Bell as above. Thus it's hard to resolve this issue and still be completely consistent with other sources. I hope the above specifics clarify the meaning sufficiently. My references [2] (135 pages) and [4] (23 pages) give more details on this.

      The key results are the ones you ask about on page 7. The local spins in the local fields describe the physics of the problem. Correlations at the top of page 7 derive from my local classical model, and match the QM correlations between a and b and also match the experimental measurements. When I apply Bell's constraints then the second figure on page 7 yields the 'non-local' results which occur when Bell erases the information provided by the local physics. By erasing all local physics information, Bell guarantees that only 'non-local' correlations are obtained. My essay discusses the reasons that Bell made this mistake.

      Thank you for continuing to look at my essay.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Thanks Edwin ! The Website is that of Dr. Ulisse di Corpo (Rome); I mainly thought about his interpretation of the relativity formula and the related work of scientist L.Fantappie. Best: stephen

      Edwin,

      OK, next question (I'm trying to decide if you and Bell are comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges)

      Exactly how are you computing the correlations?

      Are you correlating measured angles? Or are you correlating up/down decisions based upon the measured angles? In other words, to use entangled coins as an example, one could either measure the angles of each coin, relative to some detectors, and then compute the correlations between those angles, or one could be required to declare the coins to be either heads or tails, after the measurements, and then correlate the numbers of heads/tails decisions. What are you correlating?

      Rob McEachern

      Robert,

      Edwin's premise is that Bell assumes a required heads or tails outcome. Those are the constraints he challenges. Apples is. :-) jrc

      Robert,

      Note page 4 of the Klingman essay; Bell's physical assumptions, line #2

      the spin operator is a mixed half-open and closed interval set. So anything that isn't an equal value of plus or minus in the middle of the closed interval portion is excluded. Hence, its all or nothing in counting spin, according to Bell. At least that's how I'm reading it. Onward! through the fog! jrc

      • [deleted]

      • Post #61

      Rob,

      The data of the Stern-Gerlach is shown in the lower figure on page 3. Although Bell interpreted this as +1 or -1, Messiah described it more accurately as a "spread out distribution". The actual measurement is a position measurement, which Bell truncates.

      On pages 4 and 5 I discuss the energy-exchange that occurs and calculate the deflection contribution based on the precession energy. From this I calculate Alice's output position A(a,lambda) and Bob's output position B(b,-lambda). It is these outputs that are correlated and that yield -a.b as shown on page 7. The operation of the model is described on page 6. I am correlating the outputs from Alice and Bob's measurements exactly as described by Bell, minus his constraints. When I apply his constraints, then I get his results. When I do not apply his constraints I get the correct results. The rest of the essay explains why Bell was wrong to constrain the local realism model as he did.

      As jrc points out, the 'heads and tails' aspect is due to Bell's faulty premise.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #62

      Edwin,

      Then you are comparing apples to oranges. The triangular correlation function, for the classical case, is only triangular, when decisions, not measurements are correlated. The question remains, when one is "forced" to make up/down decisions in both the quantum and the classical case, and then correlate those decisions, why do the correlation functions differ?

      You are claiming that it is possible to make measurements in the quantum case, and then correlate those. But the same is true classically. But that is not the issue that Bell is addressing. Bell's issue, is that it is possible to mimic the quantum decision correlation process (rather than measurement correlation) with a classical system, but they do not yield the same correlation function, for the same decision process. Why?

      You have raised another question, about the possibility of measuring quantum systems, instead of making decisions. As interesting as that may be, is not the question Bell is asking.

      Rob McEachern

      Rob,

      It is clear to me that you have not understood what I'm doing, from your questions and your comments. Nor does it appear to me that you understand what Bell is doing. As he is no longer with us we cannot ask him whose interpretation is correct, so we must rely on his own words. Specifically, he asks,

      "...if this [quantum mechanical] statistical element can be thought of as arising, as in classical statistical mechanics, because the states in question are averages over better defined states for which the results would be quite determined."

      I have constructed a local model with better defined states whose outputs are quite determined and whose average or statistical element matches the quantum mechanical statistical element, -a.b.

      Bell further states that:

      "The vital assumption is that the result B for particle 2 does not depend on the setting a, of the magnet for particle 1, nor A on b."

      I completely satisfy that assumption in my local model.

      Bell's Theorem, stated frequently in the physics literature, is that "No local model can produce the QM correlation, -a.b." Contrary to Bell, I have done this and exhibit the results here. I further explain why Bell came to this conclusion, and why it is incorrect. I regret that this does not match your own interpretation of what Bell is doing, but the history of Bell discussions on FQXi seem to show that there are strongly held opinions of what Bell was doing that are irreconcilable.

      In the Oct 2014 issue of 'Physics Today', the monthly magazine of the American Physical Society, Zurek mentions the Quantum Credo. A credo is a statement of religious belief. Unfortunately that is to be taken seriously for some, which removes most hope of logical resolution of differences.

      Finally, you are entirely incorrect to state that I am claiming it is possible to make measurements in the quantum case, and then correlate those. I make no such claim. You appear to be seeing both Bell and my essay through your own lens, for your own purposes. As I suggested earlier, I suspect we have quite a different understanding of quantum mechanics.

      It appears that we simply need to agree to disagree, because I do not expect to convince you that Bell meant what he said.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

      I am an empiricist; observations always trump hypotheses. Since all the actual experiments attempting to test Bell's ideas, have been carried out with decisions, rather than measurements, any experiment that purports to get a different result, when compared to the actual, existing experimental results, must correlate the same thing; decisions, not measurements. Otherwise, they are not comparable - of course one can get a different result, when one measures an entirely different thing.

      Note that your first quote from Bell, begins with an "if" clause. My point is, that the clause is false. Classical statistical mechanics never deals with entities encoding only a single bit of information. That is what makes the quantum case so peculiar, in comparison. When there is only one bit of information in a message, there is nothing to average over, there are no better defined states, precisely because there are no other states at all, by definition of what is meant, by a single bit of information. Since such entities are never encountered in the classical realm, we have no intuitive understanding of how such things behave. But we seem to be observing such behavior, in the quantum case.

      Rob McEachern

      Dear Rob,

      This comment is out of sequence as the FQXi bug will (again) not allow me to enter this comment where it belongs above. I encourage you to write up your view of Bell and QM. You and I have a different understanding of quantum mechanics. Thanks for presenting your perspective. It is not my perspective.

      As I noted on your thread, I do find your ideas expressed in your current essay quite interesting, and wish you luck in the contest.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Gentlemen,

        This has been an interesting and informative exchange, as polite differences generally are. Thank-you. Bell's Theorem seems to be the one topic which concentrates attention on the elusive characteristic of spin. And I say characteristic because it is only because of characteristic behavior both of electromagnetic and particle-like phenomenon that suggests some fundamental physical property. Yet I've found nothing anywhere that seems definitive of what that might be.

        It isn't physical rotation, though its treated that way. As a purely classical puzzle it seems to me to be as much about the question of what is it in a field that exhibits apparent motion, as whether there is an induced angular motion in a particle or waveform. It intuitively seems that Spin is more a measure of a physical property that doesn't undergo a coherent rotation. It's weird! :) jrc

        jrc,

        Glad you enjoyed it. Rob has internalized the information theory perspective and usually has unique and interesting insights into various fields of physics.

        While my local model is essentially classical, and, FAPP may be considered a spinning particle, the QM and QFT 'point-based' particles do have difficulties with this perspective. It's interesting that Dirac's 4-component point-based electron does not yield an eigenvalue equation for spin. Only after the Foldy-Wouthuysen integral transformation to a 2-component wave function as an average over a "Compton-volume" does the fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation fall out. I do have a view of particle physics that is not entirely weird, but I want to stay strictly focused on Bell in this forum. Thanks again,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Rob,

        Although I have hinted that we should terminate this exchange, I think so highly of your basic information theory approach that I've tried to understand where our basic disagreement lies. To this end I reviewed your 2012 essay, in which, discussing Bell's theorem, you state, "when 'spin' was discovered, it was assumed to be analogous to a quantized version of angular momentum... [and] to be describable via multiple components... like an ordinary three component vector." You then imply that it is not a 3-D vector but "a single bit of information", and go into your 'two-sided coin' discussion.

        Is this still your assumption, that underlies your above comments? It appears to me to be so. In your last reply to me above: on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT you say:

        "Classical statistical mechanics never deals with entities encoding only a single bit of information. That is what makes the quantum case so peculiar, in comparison. When there is only one bit of information in a message, there is nothing to average over, there are no better defined states, precisely because there are no other states at all, by definition of what is meant, by a single bit of information. Since such entities are never encountered in the classical realm, we have no intuitive understanding of how such things behave. But we seem to be observing such behavior, in the quantum case."

        In other words, although I have clearly stated that we are not discussing a single bit of information, you seem to insist that we are. If that is the case, we cannot possibly come to an agreement. You ignore the QM assumption of a 3-component vector, putting your own interpretation in its place, and then insist that my treatment, based on the QM assumption is wrong.

        Am I misunderstanding you?

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Thanks Doc,

        That summation directs to good reading and really helped me connect dots in your argument. :-) jrc

        Edwin,

        I am not ignoring "the QM assumption of a 3-component vector", I am disputing it, as a misinterpretation of reality. The problem is not that the quantum world behaves oddly, but that the classical world behaves much more oddly than people suppose.

        The reason people suppose they understand classical behavior, is simply because they have never, ever encountered the one type of classical behavior that they do not understand at all; an object encoding only a single bit of information. Like highly unstable, radioactive atoms, such objects do not exist in the natural world. Hence, they have never been observed; but they can be created. And they do not obey the triangular correlation function, so often discussed in regards to Bell's theorem, in order to claim that quantum and classical behaviors differ.

        Furthermore, the hallmark, the signature, the fingerprint of such an entity, is that it will exhibit only two states, when one attempts to observe it, and it MUST obey the uncertainty principle (which, contrary to popular belief, has nothing to do with QM, but is a purely mathematical consequence of Fourier analysis). This is easily demonstrated if one considers the very poorly understood meaning of Shannon's capacity theorem, and the resulting uncertainty principle.

        Shannon's capacity theorem is virtually always derived and discussed in such a way as to completely obscure its simple meaning:

        The maximum number of bits of information that can be recovered from a signal, cannot exceed the number of bits of digitized data, required to completely reconstruct the continuous signal, to an arbitrary highly degree of accuracy. The latter number is simply equal to the number of samples, multiplied by the number of bits per sample, needed to reconstruct the continuous signal. The number of bits per sample is determined by the signal-to-noise ratio; that is the log-base-two-2 in the expression for Shannon's capacity. The number of samples is the product of the time-duration and the bandwidth; that reduces to the uncertainty principle, in the following special case:

        Consider a signal in which the bandwidth is so restricted, that all samples within the time duration of the signal, have become so highly correlated, that there is only one independent sample. Then suppose that the signal-to-noise ratio is equal to 1.0, so that the single independent sample has only one significant bit. That is the origin of all observations that obey the uncertainty principle, and exhibit only two states; an entity encoding only a single bit of information.

        Here is how to construct such a signal classically:

        1) Create a polarized coin such that one semi-circle of one side is red, and the other semi-circle of the same side is green.

        2) Represent each pixel in the image of the coin by +1 for red, -1 for green.

        3) Correlate the coin against rotated versions of itself, to "decide" if the correlation is better aligned with green of red.

        4) Now compute the decision correlation statistics versus rotation angle; you will get a triangular function

        5) Now add noise and blur the image, such that only a single bit of information remains.

        6) You will not be able to see the polarization visibly, the image is too noisy and blurry.

        7) But you can correlate a clean image against the blurry one and compute the correlation statistics

        8) But you will not get a triangular function.

        Rob McEachern