On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

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?

Steve,

I think the fine point is simply that in the technical construction of what is deemed "an entangled state" whether an assummed material particle singlet pair, or whatever a 'photon' physically is; it is theoretically treated as that entangled state being the parametric physical properties of that whole (two pieces) closed system. And the peculiarities predicted by QM are simply due to the assumption that splitting that two-fold closed system into two observations will expect that each of the particles or photons will be absolutely identical, when naturally they are only very much alike. best jrc

John, that's what the paper, and Robert advocate. However, don't you think ,as you mentioned measurements being different from actual particles, that it is the measurement process responsible. If the method/ protocol/ apparatus only allows certain fixed outcomes, the measurements are forced to comply. "Cutting to size going on." So pre-measurement the particles have a relation that would fit the inequalities if they could be measured without alteration of their relationship. But having to fit what method/ protocol/ apparatus allows, the relationship between many particles is altered away from fitting the inequalities, as seen in the measurement results. The relation of measurements is not the same as the relation of unmeasured particles. So Bell's inequalities do not apply to the outcomes. Violation of the inequalities is to be expected.

Hi Georgina,

You ask: "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?"

lambda is a hidden variable and insofar a physical property of a particle. More is not needed for the purpose of the model but can be subject for further research.

How sharing this parameter value gives the correlated outcomes is described in the paper.

Because what ask Georgine is important. It is there that thishidden variable must have a cause and an origin. We have several possibilities . If we take the GR only and the photons , so we can extrapolate with the strings and so we can consider the fields permitting the hidden variables, the geometrical algebras can help. Now if we consider an other logic like in my model, we have the codes of this space vacuum also . There are also other possibilities. It comes from what for your ?

You are going to better understand me, it is important what you have found because it gives many roads of researchs about this hidden variable lambda. All is a question of philosophy. If we take the fact that these photons are dedictaed to be encoded and are not really an information, so they are just photons, but in the stheory of strings it is different than in my model because at their planck scale in 1D they are connected with a 1D cosmic field of this GR and there there are informations for these photons permitting to change their properties. But in my reasoning they are a fuel and are encoded in something that we don t know still and so there are like fields or others in this space vacuum of matters, and like you uilise matters for the experiments so they can be under these hidden variables, like if they wanted to be encoded due to something. If they are under these fields or others of the GR or this space vacuum, so indeed they change their properties . The values of this parameter lambda in logic must change in repeating the experiements even.

Hi again, Georgi,

Yes, kind of. But it gets wordy fast, eh.

We do have to make the real distinction between Bell-Aspect experiments (photons) and Stern-Gerlach type experiments (particles), and accept that so far no one can agree on what physically constitutes a rationale defining a material particle. So the only thing that the two types of experimental apparatus have in common is the confusing flip of polar orientation once the clusters of either particles or photons interact with the electromagnetic domain range of the elements of the apparatus. Your familiarity with topology gives you a recognition that it is very much like in physical reality, that electromagnetic interaction evolves what mathematically would be describable as a pseudovector at the interaction threshold. So I guess, yes to your above observations.

My questions seem to always go to what can we glean from various physical experiments that would suggest what the realistic material form might be for a particle and what volumetric form might be for a photon. best jrc

Hi ,

John, it is sure that we must differenciate the particles and waves even with this wave particle duality. If the photon is takend as a particle in fields related to the interaction of material with light that is absorbed and emitted and can be taken also as a wave in regions relating to light propagation. That s why what you tell is important about the interactions with the matters of the apparatus. Furthermore we can go deeper in considering that the photons are just a fuel for the universe and that this space vacuum can imply changes also . These hidden variables in fact if we take the generality of interactions are so complex and never the same.

Steve,

That is the direction I go. But do you see what I mean by the EM domain range(s) interaction evolving a pseudovector? If we have a union of right hand rule sets, then the interacting fields share a common axial radii so that should mean that the polar orientation is deterministic. But that would only be in Blackboard R3 which lacks a time dimension. In real time S3 even if we have an intersection of right hand rule axial radii and thus a commonality, the non-zero torque on each of the separate fields is found to be counter-rotating to each other's field. Hence; local but non-deterministic. Given enough insight, we might be able to define a particulate moment or volumetric solotonic wave that would be predictable given known contours of electromagnetic configuration at the threshold and time-wise through the transit of fields interaction. best jrc

Georgina,

I wish this topic had an edit tag, but back to your point... I agree that in actual experimental process we inevitably pre-arrange the orientations of the projected particles or photons. I have long said the bartender's answer to the Bell-Aspect experiments is that "It's a trick bulb". best jrc

John, reading Bell's theorem, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy; I didn't realize how 'entangled' the theory is with space-time But if we instead have uni-temporal 'becoming, the second same outcome only comes to be if and when selected. It isn't already existing in space-time. Arguing against outcome determinism, (Realism.) The absolute beables without relative perspective and measurement context applied have the potential to give a variety of outcomes, which depending on what measuring is made. Not a collection of outcome states or values but undefined potential. Correlation found due to common cause at origin affecting same measurements not measurement of 1 causally affecting 2 I think that common causes is called lambda.

Compare:3 observers travelling at different velocity relative to an object and each taking a measurement of the 'object's velocity'. That's 3 different outcomes; and potentially many more values could be obtained with more observers.. Although velocity is said to be a property of the object measured. it can be seen that belongs to the relation between the measured object and ('relative to this/ 'viewed this way') measuring apparatus. The beable object has the potential to be viewed many ways but does not have a store of measurement outcomes as its property. Measurement outcomes which are singular, fixed and limited should not be confused with absolute beable objects. The measurement is not what the object is/ about the object alone/ It is a product of the particular interaction with it, that has taken place.

Georgina,

how fast is the object going in which direction compared to what, and how fast does time go?