Thank you to Eugen Muchowski for suggesting we open a thread to discuss his recent paper On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem, which was published in Europhysics Letters in May 2021.

From the paper's abstract:

"Bell's theorem is refuted by presenting a counterexample that correctly predicts the expectation values of QM. As Bell only ruled out non-contextual models, a contextual model with hidden variables can refute his theorem. Such a model, which is able to explain the spin measurement results with entangled photons or electrons, is presented herein. It is not ruled out by the Kochen-Specker theorem. A physical justification for the contextual behaviour of entangled systems is provided. Consequences for the feasibility of quantum computers are discussed."

The paper states that "The concept of indistinguishability of identical particles could be seen as one of the foundational principles of quantum theory. Quantum systems differ from classic particles, particularly with respect to this effect... The point is simply that the assumptions of Bell's inequality --namely, the restriction to non-contextual models--do not comprehensively describe conceivable physical reality."

The problem is precisely that the assumption that the members of an entangled pair are actually indistinguishable, is a completely false assumption. It was [link:vixra.org/abs/1609.0129]conclusively demonstrated, years ago, by actual construction[/link], that entangled pairs that have been constructed to manifest only one, single bit of information, in common (as defined by Shannon's Capacity) and thus are not identical, will reproduce the observed Bell correlations, with detection efficiencies above the supposed theoretical limit for any classical system.

At the same time, it was also demonstrated that, as a direct result of there being only one, single bit of information present any attempt to measure that actual particle state, will inevitably fail to yield the correct result, whenever the axis of the detector is misaligned with the axis of the particle being measured (which is always the case in every Bell test) and that these numerous, resulting "bit-errors" are the actual cause of the supposedly weird correlations; when all these bit-errors have been systematically eliminated from the correlation analysis, the Bell correlations vanish.

Rob McEachern

    Robert,

    Absolutely!!! Yes! And it is critically important at this strategically pivotal political moment that SIGNINT people recognize the false assumption of mathematical identity in quantum mechanics is not the same thing as physically identical. The symmetry of QM is imposed by the math which is blatantly intended to over simplify for the sake of 'counting pieces parts'.

    We are at a place in the wax and wane of global power shifts that if we as traditional western democratic societies do not meet the challenge of the Chinese monolithic regimentation of their societal programming to outstrip competition in the tech race, we will become a subservient cultural shadow.

    Got to thinkin'. This UFO buzz that's (oddly) just become news (gee what could be more interesting?) does grab the imagination. But without looking into what real reports there might be, such as if these repeated sightings by aircraft are detectable by radar or IR sensors, What if they might be holographic projections? But even if they are not, what might happen if a holographic projection were positioned in the LOS of a Quantum Key transmission from a satellite to earth station? The Chinese have claimed to have achieved nightime transmission of a QKE between Bejing and partner lab in Switzerland in 2017.

    Whatever one wants to think entangled singlet pair production might physically be, technologically what matters is "who gets there first". best jrc

    add edit

    that doesn't read right. The false assumption in QM is that mathematical identity is identical to the physical particle.

    Robert:

    First of all: After Bell's theorem no local model can reproduce spin measurement results with entangled photons or electrons.

    The paper shows there is a local model which can do so thus refuting Bell's theorem.

    It is not necessary that the model replaces quantum mechanics.

    Secondly indistinguishability is not the sole reason why the model works. Model assumption MA4 is also necessary.

    Hi Mr Muchowski, thans for sharing your ideas on FQXi.

    I consider this Bell s theorem very important due to fact simply that our QM is emergent from a deeper logic that we don t know and so implying hidden variables and philosophical limitations. The violations of inequalities seem important in resume. It is a little bit the same that this uncertainty. We have it seems to me many theings to add , and the major problem of these uncertainties and inequalities and violations came from the fact that we don t know really the philosophical and ontological origin of this universe, and nor the foundamental mathematical and physical objects . We don t know really why we exist and from what and why we have this QFT and standard model that I consider like emergent from a deeper logic. The origin of geometries, topologies, matters, fields are not known in resume. We just analyse the surface of problems. The statistics, the probabilities, the mathematical tools utilises or the extrapolations with the lie ggroups of yang mills theory are limited generally , we have not the good partitions towards the universal truths if I can say.

    This Bell s theorem seems so important for me , the EPR experiment also. That gives us a road of humility in fact in accepting these limitations. I consider personally in my theory these 3D spheres and that the hidden variables come from the space vacuum coded and the DM also encoded in our standard model. The aim seems to find these partitions permitting to better understand these unknowns.

    Best regards

      Mr Muchowski, the local model , don t forget is emergent and we see only the surface of properties. The real question is why we have these effects , observations, measurements.

      Eugen,

      Bell's theorem has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate characterization of the real-world, not merely via theoretical analysis, but by actually constructing 1,000,000 peculiar, entangled, classical entities, then measuring and analyzing them as per a standard Bell test, to reproduce the Bell correlations.

      The demonstration exploits the fact that Bell's theorem assumes that the entangled particles being measured are identical. Consequently, Bell's theorem has nothing at all to say about any real world, in which "Mother Nature" does not know how to manufacture such idealistic entities.

      Your "Modal assumptions" begins with the statement that: "With polarization measurements, photons can choose one of the two perpendicular polarizer exits."

      My point is that, in the real world, "the two perpendicular polarizer exits" are not being chosen by the photons, at all. Instead, they are being chosen by a threshold decision process, that is "quantized" and consequently treats all photons as being in either an "up" state or a "down" state, even when any actual measurement, yields an "in-between" state that is neither "up" nor "down". That is what "quantization" is really all about - this was the most fundamental insight discovered by Shannon's Information Theory - measurement errors can, in effect, be entirely eliminated, via a properly constructed, "quantized' decision process.

      In other words, it is the nature of the "quantized" decision process, rather than merely the nature of the entities being "measured" that is the cause for the peculiar effect. To put it bluntly, quantum theory is not describing any "state of matter" at all. It is merely describing that statistical behavior of a very specific type of "quantized" detection process, that is associated with the Born Rule.

      Concerning MA4, your paper states: "Model assumption MA4: If the context of entangled photons, given by a polarizer setting, is changed to the setting of the other polarizer, then for this context we replace δ in all equations with -δ."

      In this regard, you ought to reflect very carefully about the statement in my paper, that "Line number 82 in the script is commented out. If it is uncommented and executed, the "Quantum Correlations" disappear. Even the noise is now identical, except for a sign, for each entangled pair; causing even the bit errors (bad polarity decisions) to now be perfectly correlated."

      The effect that line #82 has, is to replace one member of an entangled pair, with an exact, pixel-by-pixel, identical (negative) copy of the other member, instead of retaining the original, in which the entangled pairs are only "statistically" identical rather than being "exactly" identical. That simple substitution changes everything; in one case, Bell's assumption of exactly identical particles will be met, but not in the other case - and that simple change in the nature of the inputs ("identical twins" versus "fraternal twins) entirely changes the nature of the observed correlations between the entangled pairs.

      Rob McEachern

      Robert, how is it possible to refute this bell s theorem knowing our limitations about the philosophical origin and about what are our foundamental objects. The local realism is a emergent property due to a deeper logic that we don t know.

      You tell that a demonstartion has been made telling that the bell s theorem is inaccurate, a demonstration proving the bell s theorem has been ,ade also.

      That said I agree about what you tell about the photons being under a deeper cause implying their comportments.

      Steve,

      One needs to be careful about what is meant by "refuting" a theorem. One way to do that is to demonstrate that the theorem's conclusion does not follow, logically, from its premises. But that is not the only way. When the theorem is also being claimed to have some relevance to the real, physical world, then it is not sufficient to merely prove that the conclusion follows from the premises, because it must also be true that the premises are actually relevant to the real, physical world, and not just some idealistic world that exists only in some thought experiment.

      The refutation of Bell's theorem is of the latter form; there is no error in the logic being used to derive the conclusion. The error is not a mathematical one, it is a physical one; the premise of "identical particles" seems to be irrelevant to the real world - there do not appear to be any such perfectly "identical" entities, existing outside of idealistic thought-experiments.

      The "philosophical origin" of the EPR paradox lies in the trivially-obvious fact, that if you measure two different objects, in the same manner, and ever expect to get exactly the same result, each and every time, regardless of what you choose to measure, then the two different objects had better be "identical", otherwise you run into the age-old problem of foolishly comparing "apples" to "oranges". So, in the EPR paradox, Einstein proposed a very simple technique for avoiding the problem of having the first measurement of one object, disturb that object so much, that a second measurement of its "original" state will no longer be possible; just make the second measurement on a different (hence undisturbed) object, that just happens to be "identical". That is where the interest in "entangled" pairs of particles originated - pairs of identical particles, that ought to yield the exact same result, whenever they are measured in the exact same manner. Easy to say, in a thought experiment, but not so easy for "Mother Nature" to create, in the real world.

      But when the entangled particles happen to be non-identical, then the entire experiment, every Bell test experiment - turns out to be just an unrecognized case of foolishly comparing "apples" to "oranges", rather than a case of "non-local" correlations existing between "apple to apple" measurements.

      In that case, Bell's theorem is "Not even wrong", to use Pauli's famous expression. It is simply, entirely, irrelevant to any world (such as the one in which we appear to find ourselves) in which pairs of entangled "particles", may not be as absolutely "identical" as has been naively assumed, for the past, entire century. In that case, it is easy to demonstrate that the cause of "Bell correlations" is entirely due to the "non-identicality" of the entangled pairs, rather than any supposed "non-locality" of the real world, in which those entangled pairs actually exist.

      Rob McEachern

      Hi Robert, thanks for developing , I see clearer what you told us. Friendly

      Dear Robert, I have in my model and these 3D spheres considered the cold dark matter encoded in our nucclei and so that implies couplings , the antimatter and higgs are correlated like the quantum gravitation, in fact they are a little bit everywhere but I ask me what could be the best experiment to find them in their couplings, decays ..... do you beleive that it is easier to create an experiment in trying with the neutrons protons , quarks, kaons, pions and their antimatter or is it better in the electroweak interactions or even with the higgs ? it is what I try to create like experiment. I have considered 3 E8 , one for the main codes of the vacuum and the two others are the photons and the cold dark matter, they are like fuels permitting the gravitational and electromagnetic fields when they merge with the codes of the space vacuum of the DE. In logic the mass is correlated and so the higgs also permitting the activation of the mass, that becomes relevant because the photons them are massless, so this cold dark matter is interesting to take into acoount, furthermore the exolution can be correlated and we can predict the future of the universe considering the DM and DE disponible. The WIMPs are a new fields theory at my opinion.

      Re. John Cox edit may 18th "add edit that doesn't read right. The false assumption in QM is that mathematical identity is identical to the physical particle."

      Yes, the particle is an absolute beable. From which different relative ('seen this way") contextual (relating to method) limited, fixed, state measurements can potentially be obtained; that is, prior to measurement, as only one measurement result can be obtained. The singular limited, relative and contextual measured state is very different-categorically -different from the absolute, source beable.

      In the paper's conclusion it is said (paraphrase) that the measurement values already exist but context can change. Measurements as isolated characterizations come into being upon measurement. They can not be prior to that especially if the measurement method and/or apparatus has an altering effect on the beable or it's behavior. Such as polarizers and Stern Gerlach apparatus do.

        What exists before measurement is the value of lambda. Together with a particular setting of the polarizers or the Stern Gerlach apparatus the measurement values are determined.

        This is valid for the singlet state. For single photons the measurement value also depends on the polarization which in case of entangled photons is given by the polarizer setting .

        Eugen, your conclusions are so these ones ,your model refutes the bell s theorem about the fact that the local realistic model are possible. So it is mainly about the indistinguishable particles. You consider so the quantum reality with a better completeness.

        That implies like you refute the Bell s theorem that you consider a local realism and it is due to the experimental reults with polarisation measurements. You consider also that the observations on particles from an entangled pair are generally also valid for single particles.

        It is so mainly about the quantum states before the measurements wich existed already. But is it really a refutation of this Bell s theorem about the local realism ? don t forget that the principles of causalities of course cannot be violated with our actual knowledges and measurements , but if you add deeper parameters and other method of measurements, we cannot conclude in fact simply. The wavefunctions are a result of a cause , and we don t know this cause. We observe and measure emergent effects . So indeed in this case you are right, but if you utilised a different deeper experiment , so maybe there is no refutation of this Bell s theorem. It is still mainly a philosophical problm about the main causes of our local realism.

        In fact in rereading your paper quietly, you are good and relevant . You resume well your ideas about this quantum mechanics, the hypothesis of local hidden variables, the EPR , the measurements , the completeness versus the uncompleteness, the quantum states, the entanglements.

        I asked me if you have thought about the fact to correlate your works with the general ideas of Rovelli resumng the 5 main interpretations of our quantum mechanics, the born rule, the copenaghain intepretations, the qbism, the relational QM,the manyworlds. I believe personally in my model and it is just my intepretation that the superdeterminism is a reality at all scales but like I said the problem is the philosophy of this origin of our universe and also the fact that we don t know the foundamental objects and if we must superimpose this space vacuum and the cold dark matter. So there is a paradox about the realism and the hidden variables because even if these hidden variables exist, they maybe don t interact or change the actual measurements. So it is mainly about scales of knowledges and scales of technology about these observations and measurements.

        The works of Everett about the manyworlds are interesting when we consder this superdeterminism and measurements. Lol Bob and Alice could agree I beleive.

        I beleive and it is just my opinion that all the interpretations and even the works of Bell converge if we sort and if we rank the systems. So in fact you are right but Bell also , like the others interpretations, the local realismmust be taken with relativity. The violations are not real in a specific system of measurements but can be violated in an other with depper parameters added. It is like a spectrum of analysis , we just at this moment analyse a part , and even the hidden variables don t act on this actual system that we analyse.

        In fact, it is very philosphical all this. We cannot affirm in fact conclude really. We can intepret with the multivers, the manyworlds, the wave pilot , the copenaghen interpretation, the hidden variables,the non localities,the born interpretation, the qbism....in fact we cannot simply conclude and generalise about a theory deterministic local with hidden variables. It gives the road to build theories.

        Like I said in all humility , it is mainly about what we take into account and considering still our limitations. The waves, the fields, the particles are things that we measure but the philosophical problem is the main causes and the origin philosophical. Must we consider that the special relativity and the instantaneous signals are in contradiction for the non localities ? even if our QM prove the opposite ? we don t know.

        My theory consider that we have 3 main primoridal series of spheres , not only photons and , the main codes are in this spacevacuum of the DE. And the cold dark matter and the photons in merging with it , they are also series of spheres, so in merging they create the matters, fields, geometries, topologies. So actually we just analyse the GR , and the known fields of our QM with these photons encoded, but if we consider this cold dark matter that we cannot still measure and this vacuum that we cannot measure, so how to really consider all this philosophical problem about the locialities, non localities, hidden variables.... We cannot simply actually conclude because we have too much limitations philosophical and about what are really these particles and why the fields exist.

        That becomes even very complex considering the informations , because if the real informations permitting this reality come from this space vacuum, so the dark cold matter encoded and the photons permitting the lectromagnetic and gravitational fields are just fuels but are not informations. We have us invented the signals with the waves. And for the computing we utilise the annealins, the sound waves and light waves, but in fact it is us who create informaions with these waves, not the universe maybe, that is why the real problem is about the origin of our reality, is it from fields of this GR connected with a 1D at this planck scale inside the ph0otons or have coded particles and the 3 systems that I explain ? we cannot affrim to know the truth simply, so we cannot conclude the generality about the hidden variables.

        Hi Eugen,

        I've found these mentions of lamba near the start in section: " Predicting measurement results for the initial context" "As entanglement connects photon 1 on wing A with photon 2 on wing B by the same value of the parameter λ,..." E. Muchowski "Thus the model correctly predicts the measurement results with perpendicular polarizers on both wings where all photons 1 which hit PA exit α have peer photons 2 hitting PB at ${alpha}+{pi}/2$ . The reason for this is the common parameterλ, and not a non-local action, as we have seen." E. Muchowski

        What is parameter lambda? Not just wavelength? Is it a Part of standard entanglement theory? How does sharing this parameter value give the correlated outcomes?