From your essay:

"Neo: Suppose that the result of measuring some variable for a particle is determined by the value of a variable that is internal to the particle - a hidden variable. I am being careful not to say that the particle 'had' the value of the variable that was measured; that is a stronger statement."

My rewording, substituting "third arm on Anton's body" for "particle":

Neo: Suppose that the result of measuring some variable for a (third arm on Anton's body) is determined by the value of a variable that is internal to the (third arm on Anton's body) - a hidden variable. I am being careful not to say that the (third arm on Anton's body) 'had' the value of the variable that was measured; that is a stronger statement.

This is my concern regarding d'Espagnat's "subtle but important extension of the mean足ing..." that I noted previously. So, does Anton have a third arm or not? If not, then why are we even talking about what it may or may not have internally? And why are we deriving theorems about the nature of such a non-existent entity? The experimentally observed correlations are indicative of an attempt to measure some value associated with the "third arm on Anton's body" - and the world wonders why it all seems so weird - because it all seems so non-local - because no one can determine the location of the "third arm on Anton's body" that they so blissfully assumed they were measuring.

Rob McEachern

If you are going to put words in my mouth then you are responisble for the resulting logic, not me. I am trying to simplify the issue as far as it can be, so as to clarify it, but I am not going to endorse analogies that might not turn out to be equivalent.

I will be happy to assume responsibility for the logic of a classical model, that demonstrates, prevailing wisdom notwithstanding, that such a model can indeed reproduce quantum correlations; and that there is nothing anymore mysterious going on, than a subtle but dubious assumption, in all the claims to the contrary.

Rob McEachern

  • [deleted]

No matter how the subjects collude, if they can't overhear each other's interrogations then you will never get correlations beteen their answer sets of the strength observed in the analogous situation predicted by QM. Please read my "Bell's theorem and Bayes' theorem" paper and then come back with any critique you wish to make. You reckon it must contain a mistake: OK, find it! I am well aware of Shannon's work, by the way.

I do not dispute your claim that "if they can't overhear each other's interrogations then you will never get correlations beteen their answer sets...". As I have stated previously (Jan. 3, 2018 @ 23:29 GMT) "But doing so also renders that scenario irrelevant to anything pertaining to Bell's theorem..." I have simply been trying to point out, that the correlations are critically dependent on the information content of "their answer sets"; specifically, on whether or not their answer sets enable the interrogator to make independent measurements of one, or more than one, bits of information, per entangled pair.

"You reckon it must contain a mistake:" The mistake is that your scenario, like Bell's theorem, only models the latter case, with multiple bits of information, but not the former. But the former seems to be the only one that has any known relevance to explaining what is happening in the QM case, without having to resort to some "weird", non-classical mechanism. In other words, your scenario provides a good model, for the wrong type of thing.

Rob McEachern

So you say. The logic of the two situations is identical and you will find this expounded in my paper. It is not legitimate to deny that without reading it.

"The logic of the two situations is identical..." I have no reason to doubt that. However, if it is identical, then somewhere or other, it must contain the identical "loophole" that d'Espagnat identified 40 years ago - the very loophole I deliberately exploited, to reproduce the quantum correlations with a classical system. There is no need to read your paper, in order to find it, given that you yourself have informed me that it is, in fact, the identical logic (and thus with the identical, subtle loophole) that was analyzed by d'Espagnat.

Rob McEachern

"There is no need to read your paper, in order to find it [a loophole]"

Why say that only now? You do so on the basis of your general no-go theorem, but you are not willing to follow it through and show me where you consider I am wrong in my analysis. Who do you wish to convince?

By invoking noise into your analysis you are making the matter opaque. For you can tweak the noise stats, perhaps inadvertently, and get just about anything you like while still calling it random (a word that is a complete blancmange in meaning). The partition between signal and noise is up to the observer.

"Why say that only now?" Because you claimed that "It is not legitimate to deny that without reading it." But think of the principle of reduction to an absurdity; if you can correctly identify a conclusion as being absurd, and you are willing to concede that the conclusion does indeed follow from the premise and thus contains no error in logic, then it is highly likely that there is an error in the premise. The existence of an error, is thus a deduction that can be made without reading the analysis. In fact, if the error is an unstated assumption, reading the analysis will not even be able to detect it, except by its omission.

I am hardly the first to point out the absurdity of many standard interpretations of QM and the EPR paradox. The entire reason Einstein et. al. introduced the EPR paradox, was precisely to attempt to demonstrate that the absurd conclusion must result from a faulty premise. d'Espagnat correctly identified the premise responsible. Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone else at the time, could imagine how to actually exploit it, in order to produce the observed correlations. But that has now been resolved.

"you are not willing to follow it through and show me where you consider I am wrong" I have already said that I am, but I do not have ready access to your paper. Post a copy where it is accessible.

"The partition between signal and noise is up to the observer." Exactly. And Bell's and all similar theorems seem to have partitioned it incorrectly, by attributing correlations to components, for which there is no signal, but there is noise. This is my point. And you have heard it many times before in connection with QM, and you just repeated it yourself: "It is up to the observer." It does not matter what the observed is doing, if the observer makes the incorrect partition. This is why what the observer does, matters so much in QM. In Information Theory, the observer has to know, a priori, how to make the correct partition; it cannot be deduced from the information content of the thing being observed. The observer has to make a decision (misidentified as the collapse of a wavefunction) - and if the observer frequently gets it wrong and decides (due to noise) that the cat is "dead", when it was actually "alive", then the statistics he computes are going to be "weird". And it has now been demonstrated that the precise character of these "weird" correlations, are identical to those observed in quantum experiments. I am reminded of the practice in the middle ages, of sometimes burying the dead in a coffin with a string attached to a bell above the ground, so that the misidentified dead could signal their own decision to the contrary, in regards to where the partition between life and death should be placed.

Rob McEachern

Einstein wished to preserve locality; he says so explicitly in the EPR paper. But it has to go, as Bell showed. That's why the EPR paper, for all my sympathy with Einstein, is outdated today.

I happen to be away from my desk for seome weeks and cannot get a copy of my paper to you by any means before the FQXI contest closes. I would if I could but I can't. it's no fault of mine or yours, but I suggest that you would do well to refrain from commenting conclusively on something you haven't read. You can get it at a university library or by paying the journal.

To better understand my comments on noise, I think we might need to discuss probability theory. Please see my comments somewhere below my essay on RT Cox (1946).

7 days later

Anton

Yes, of course you cannot handle everything on 9 pages. Thanks.

John-Erik

Dear Dr. Anton Garrett,

You wroye: "Neo: Some people suggest that reality is operator-valued and our perplexities arise because of our obstinate insistence on thinking in - and therefore trying to measure - scalars."

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Anton Garrett,

I greatly enjoyed your essay [I use the same "conversational" vehicle in my essay, which I hope you will read.]

Literally thousands of comments have been spent on FQXi concerning Bell's theorem, which, as you state, "is about logic, not quantum mechanics". Bell's first statement defining the problem is his equation (1) in which he defines measurements A and B to have +/- unit values. The logical outcome is completely determined from this point!

Bell essentially asks for a "classical" explanation [the 'hidden variable'] while insisting on a "quantum" result. Stern-Gerlach did not find "quantum" results. Their deflection data is smeared over an upper "lip" and a lower "lip" which are arbitrarily called +1 and -1 to fit the naïve quantum picture of spin. But which picture? Pauli's, Dirac's, Feynman's? As you obviously spent time and effort on this topic I hope you might look at Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell.

Pauli conveniently chose half integral eigenvalues, which Bell uses unquestioningly, while Dirac, who many think more fundamental, derived a four component equation that is no longer an eigenvalue equation. Indeed, it is only "converted into" an eigenvalue equation by the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation which smears the particle with spin over a region of space. Only after this integration do we arrive at a Dirac-based eigenvalue equation.

Perhaps if Bell had thought more deeply about spin he would've had more reservations than he did about this issue. Unfortunately, about the same time Bell developed his theorem, Feynman, deeply in love with the two slit experiment, decided to apply the analogy to Stern-Gerlach-as-two-slit and [of course!] the two state "wave function" worked. [What a surprise -- Pauli invented a workable 'wave-function' when he used O|+> = +|+> and O|-> = -|->.] Thus deBroglie's linear momentum-based wave function, with wavelength proportional to inverse momentum, compatible with experimental tests, was conceptually extended to angular momentum, with no logical justification for associating a wavelength with electron spin. [Spin waves in condensed matter or solid-state physics are not spin wave functions.] But, like Einstein, it is today verboten to question Feynman, so we are stuck with "wave functions" for spin analogous to wave functions for particles with momentum. This leads to superposition concepts for particles going through non-homogeneous fields that are entirely inappropriate but unquestioned, although never demonstrated.

Nino says: "I presume physicists... are now looking for a theory that predicts what happens each time you put a particle through successive Stern-Gerlach apparatuses."

Neo answers: "Actually we are not."

Actually we are. Or were. Two other physicists and myself [one received the National Medal of Technology at the White House in 2014] began this experiment in 2015. We produced fine healthy silver atomic beams but finally decided that single atom detectors were far beyond our resources.

If the first SG detector is used to prepare atoms from the oven in a particular state, say + (up), and the second SG detector is offset at angle theta from the first, then the deflection of the particle from the second device will be a factor of theta.

Here's the kicker: according to my theory (which does violate Bell's theorem classically) only + particles will be detected from the second SG device. According to Feynman's two slit spin analogy, the wave function will predict some - states will be found.

If spin is actually 3D, then the deflection of SG can be shown to depend on the angle between the spin and the field. This is what is actually seen in the SG data. But as you imply, no one wants to test this. Even suggesting it is to be drummed out of the corps.

But if spin is actually 3D, then the measured deflection is not +1 or -1 but is ~cos(theta). This conflicts with Bell's definition A,B= +/-1. Using real theta-based measurement results (i.e., deflection) it is easy to show the correlation cos(a.b). Using Bell's +1 or -1 constraints it is logically (not physically) impossible.

In Modern Classical Spin Dynamics see figure 6 on page 20 wherein the classical model overlays SG data almost exactly, and in Bell was simply wrong see page 6 where the energy-exchange model is shown to yield cos(a.b) while the Bell-constrained version cannot accomplish this.

So, to repeat, if one accepts Bell's requirement that measurements be +1 or -1 , instead of actual deflection seen in the SG data, then one is logically bound to fail. If one allows actual deflection data the classical model obtains the quantum correlation cos(a.b) violating Bell's theorem and removing even the suggestion of "entanglement".

This is further complicated by loose thinking, such as Nino's statement "but nevertheless only one of the detectors actually goes off." If this is applied to Stern-Gerlach, it means only that every particle is deflected up or down based on initial state, but does not imply A,B= +/-1. On the other hand, Bell is not tested with SG atoms but with photons which are detected (+1) or not (0).

Due to Feynman's beloved two-slit-spin-analogy, people consider atomic spin wave functions and photon wave functions to be the same, thus on/off photon detection results are conflated with the SG deflection results.

Confusion reigns.

Nino says "quantization is indeed a mental rather than a physical procedure." Bell forces classical physics into a quantized mold that is mental rather than physical. When this artificially constrained logical problem leads to the conclusion that classical physics cannot yield the measured correlation we invented "entanglement". This nonlocality that has ruled physics for fifty years is a farce, but one which cannot be challenged without forfeiting one's establishment position. The natives should be restless.

Congratulations on a very fine essay,

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    If you have a testable prediction which differs from that of QM then I hope you will be able to test it. Good luck!

    Anthony,

    Very good essay, nice format, well written, sound points well made. Excellent.

    Your abstract attracted;

    "..the successes of quantum theory in conjunction with its strangeness and 20th century metaphysics have led us to excuse its shortcomings".

    then..

    "you can't prove that something is impossible without assumptions. So you should expose and question those assumptions (such as locality and causality). Don't accept any axioms that are intrinsic to quantum theory, because your aim is to go beyond quantum theory."

    Sensible chap that Nino, shame he's not still around, we need more like him!

    But now VERY seriously. I need your help/advice. By changing QM's starting assumptions slightly (essentially Maxwell's state pairs replacing Bohr's assumed 'spin up/down' states) I seem to have found a classical mechanical sequence to reproduce all QM's predictions, loophole free and including 'non-locality', CHSH >2 etc.

    Would you please take a close look (at my essay). It includes a simple cheaply repeatable experimental proof. Declan Trail's essay also has a mathematical code entirely compatible giving the same results.

    It seems most here consider challenging QM way above their pay grade, but it needs falsification by someone with some understanding of the problem.

    Doubtless you'll have questions. Many thanks in anticipation.

    Peter

      Anton.

      Thanks, but DID, that's what the essay reports on - a classical reproduction!!

      I give the mechanical ontology and Declan (presently top!) the matching code.

      So what does one do now when all ignore it? (Editors slam the door as it's off doctrine) Did you read it?

      Isn't lip service rather pointless if it's not followed up?

      Peter

      There are many scenarios that can be reproduced by classical local models. But you need only one that cannot be, and which is confirmed experimentally, to verify that the ontology of the universe is nonlocal. The analysis in my "Bell's Theorem and Bayes' Theorem" paper to which my FQXI essay refers provides such, and is matched by the predictions of QM. If you reckon that no truly loophole-free experimental Bell test has actually taken place, let us wait for one that we agree is loophole-free and then see what the outcome is. I'm betting on QM.

      Dear Anton,

      I may have given you 'too much information' above (after all, we've just met) but nevertheless I hope you will read my current essay and comment if you find it interesting.

      Thanks for your kind attention.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      5 days later

      Hi Anthony John Garrett,

      Your words "looking at quantum theory that promotes progress and matches Einstein's scepticism about God playing dice with the universe. Nothing could be more fundamental. We can predict properties of the electron to one part in a billion today, but we cannot predict its motion in an inhomogeneous magnetic field inside apparatus designed a century ago." are really wonderful dear Anthony John Garrett............... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

      I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

      Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

      -No Isotropy

      -No Homogeneity

      -No Space-time continuum

      -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

      -No singularities

      -No collisions between bodies

      -No blackholes

      -No warm holes

      -No Bigbang

      -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

      -Non-empty Universe

      -No imaginary or negative time axis

      -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

      -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

      -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

      -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

      -No many mini Bigbangs

      -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

      -No Dark energy

      -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

      -No Multi-verses

      Here:

      -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

      -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

      -All bodies dynamically moving

      -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

      -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

      -Single Universe no baby universes

      -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

      -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

      -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

      -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

      -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

      -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

      -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

      -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

      - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

      I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

      Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

      In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

      I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

      Best

      =snp