Hidden Variables
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Printable Version

+- Hidden Variables (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables)
+-- Forum: Foundations of Quantum Theory (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Violation of Bell's Inequalities (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? (/showthread.php?tid=8)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 07-24-2016

Whenever I do look into these issues I wind up agreeing with Richard Gill. We seem to be "on the same page" - not surprising, since we have similar academic backgrounds. I don't want to say the anti-Bell camp is just "wrong" but you guys are looking at things in a different way which, from a standard math-logic point of view, just doesn't make sense to me. Admittedly the type of non-locality demonstrated by Bell-Aspect (etc) is very subtle and maybe your view has some justification. Perhaps someday I'll "get" it. Until then, my opinion is probably going to be the same as Gill's. But of course until I study Hess myself I don't blindly agree with Gill, or anyone else.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 07-24-2016

Fair enough, Secur.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - FrediFizzx - 07-24-2016

(07-24-2016, 01:12 PM)secur Wrote: FrediFizzx: "We know what the explanation is for the "new" phenomena; space has unique spinor properties."

Ok, but this is a vague statement. Please give a reference explaining what space having "unique spinor properties" has to do with Bell's theorem.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 07-24-2016

secur wrote " ... you guys are looking at things in a different way which, from a standard math-logic point of view, just doesn't make sense to me."

To be frank, I was put off by Joy Christian's title, "Disproof of Bell's theorem" (I have since made peace with it) because it immediately ensured that hardly any mathematician would ever read it.

You know as well as I that a theorem is a theorem, and a disproof of such is itself a theorem.

Which brings us to our differences in your 'logic lesson.'  You claim

A = local realism
B = Bell's theorem

I claim

A = local realism
B = nonlocality

You say Bell's theorem introduced new physics, and so is an honest comparison to Einstein's construction of local realism.  However, in what way may Bell's theorem be said constructive?  Einstein described such things as "attempts to breathe in empty space."  

Einstein's theory ever and always depended on the fundamental physical reality of spacetime.

By renouncing spacetime, Bell's theorem (and quantum theory based on it) has renounced relativity, and its proofs run in circles.  If you don't believe it -- get Richard Gill to define a measure space for Bell-Aspect; get him to describe what happens if Planck's constant goes to zero.

The problem is, relativity is solid -- LIGO is only the latest in a long line of spacetime validation.  Have you noticed the quantum theoretical fringe trying to do away with spacetime? -- they know it that kills Bell's theorem as a fundamental result.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - gill1109 - 07-24-2016

(07-24-2016, 04:36 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Richard Gill's criticism is refuted. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212085.pdf

[...]

That paper is not a refutation but a confirmation of the criticism of myself and others. See page 4, point (vii), and the further discussion on page 5. The Hess and Philipp model is not a local hidden variables model.

As Hess and Philipp themselves admit, the distribution of the hidden variable in Alice's measurement station at any time has to depend on Bob's setting at the same time.

Technically, the problem with the model is hidden in formulas (28) and (29). For each given m, the integral of sigma_a tau_b kappa over v depends on a and b. There is no way to use this representation to simulate the hidden variables (u, w, m) needed to generate Alice's outcome without knowing Bob's setting as well as Alice's. How do I know this? Because the model reproduces the singlet correlations and hence violates the CHSH inequality.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 07-24-2016

@FrediFizzx, Christian's paper does, indeed, endow space with "spinor properties" - after all spinors are closely related to quaternions. Unfortunately in a preceding discussion it was established that the paper has mistakes, as no doubt you remember. So I was hoping you'd come up with a different reference!

Spinors (or quaternions, or Pauli matrices, or geometric algebras with the appropriate norm and indices, or other manifestation of this sort) are of course extremely valid and IMHO the best way to deal with 3-dimensional angles and rotations. So it's fine to formulate Bell's inequality using them. But it makes no difference to the physics - unless you can give another reference which shows it does?

Alternatively, at the end of the preceding discussion we recommended that you, or someone, re-work Christian's paper to remove the mistakes noted. If you do that I'll be happy to read the result.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 07-24-2016

Thomas Ray wrote: To be frank, I was put off by Joy Christian's title, "Disproof of Bell's theorem" ...

Me too. But a rose will still smell as sweet, and an incorrect paper will still be as incorrect, no matter what name you give it Smile

Thomas Ray wrote: You say Bell's theorem introduced new physics ...

It set off the investigations (Aspect and other experiments) which demonstrated the peculiar type of non-locality inherent in QM. That's "new physics", compared to the old idea that no influence (however minimal) can be FTL. Admittedly it's still not entirely clear, due to still-extant "loopholes".

Thomas Ray wrote: By renouncing spacetime, Bell's theorem (and quantum theory based on it) has renounced relativity, and its proofs run in circles. If you don't believe it -- get Richard Gill to define a measure space for Bell-Aspect; get him to describe what happens if Planck's constant goes to zero.

I don't know in what sense Bell "renounces spacetime". If Planck's constant "goes to zero" we would get classical physics; but of course Planck's constant doesn't go anywhere: it is what it is. If Gill wants to address your comments it would probably help me understand what you're getting at.

Thomas Ray wrote: The problem is, relativity is solid -- LIGO is only the latest in a long line of spacetime validation.

SR is solid, it agrees with all experiments. GR much less so, although various aspects of it have, indeed, passed the test. But, pending discovery of "Dark Matter", it disagrees with many observations of star and galactic speeds, which grossly violate Newton's inverse square law. Finally both SR and GR are unsound philosophically. The fact that we can't - yet - detect an absolute reference frame in no way justifies the assertion that such doesn't exist. But I still don't see the relevance to Bell.

Thomas Ray wrote: Have you noticed the quantum theoretical fringe trying to do away with spacetime?

No, I haven't; but this brings up the most interesting aspect of this whole debate. I can't tell who's "fringe" and who isn't! The big surprise was that LM doesn't "believe Bell" either - he rejects non-locality. As I mentioned a few posts ago he called George Muller an "idiot" (i.e., his opinion differs). Who cares? Well, to me, LM represents "establishment physics". I've never seen him miss the party line in physics (or, indeed, anything else). So that indicates that you, Christian, FrediFizzx et al are not the fringe - evidently I, Gill, Schmelzer, Bell, Aspect, Zeilinger (etc) are! This has nothing to do with math, physics, science or logic. But as a sociological phenomenon it's very remarkable. Someone ought to write a book on this whole subculture of "fringe physics", there's a fascinating story to be told.

Concerning Hess and Philipp: I'd already noticed the discussion on page 5 (that Gill mentions above). It basically admits the problem.

From H&P: "Then, since the joint probability conditional on {R = m} depends on both settings, the marginal distribution of capital-lambda (a, t) for setting a conditional on {R = m} may be different. How can this be without instantaneous action at a distance? The answer is that if c would have been chosen, then over a whole sequence of measuring times all the settings would be different. ..."

This is not very convincing, to put it mildly.

But - in Hess's favor -, AFAIK experimenters still haven't rigorously excluded a time-dependent "loophole". Do we really know that entanglement will "work" in other settings than these typical photon-based experiments? In quantum cryptography, computing, and similar discussions, Alice, Bob, and their friends fly all over the universe with entangled particles in boxes, doing amazing tricks with them. But that's all fantasy. The sad truth is that in real labs, over distances of centimeters (not light-years), with the expenditure of millions of dollars, they still can't reliably demonstrate quantum computing. Maybe "Bell non-locality" is just an artifact of the particular experiments done so far? So Hess's main point - that time-correlation, in currently achievable experimental designs, has something to do with it - can't be dismissed so easily. AFAIK, IMHO, and pending further investigation.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - FrediFizzx - 07-25-2016

(07-24-2016, 09:27 PM)secur Wrote: @FrediFizzx, Christian's paper does, indeed, endow space with "spinor properties" - after all spinors are closely related to quaternions. Unfortunately in a preceding discussion it was established that the paper has mistakes, as no doubt you remember. So I was hoping you'd come up with a different reference!

The paper is peer-reviewed published and it is the best reference for what you are asking for. The reviewer(s) and editor(s) think it to be correct so it is very doubtful that it has mistakes in it. If you think it is wrong then you will need to publish a comment paper to it. But more likely the case is that you probably just don't understand it and the journal would reject your comment paper.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/annals-of-physics


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 07-25-2016

thanks FrediFizzx,

Almost all the mistakes I'm aware of have been commented on already, by Gill - although the latest version of Christian's paper may have fixed them. Instead of that, if I were to write a paper, I'd want to do something "inspired by" Christian's approach, using spinors. Or quaternions. It seems like the best way to represent the mathematical entities involved in Bell related work. But, probably it's already been done many times.

Anyway thanks for that reference, and if you run into any others which are relevant please let me know, especially if they use spinors.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - gill1109 - 07-25-2016

(07-24-2016, 11:20 PM)secur Wrote: But - in Hess's favor -, AFAIK experimenters still haven't rigorously excluded a time-dependent "loophole". Do we really know that entanglement will "work" in other settings than these typical photon-based experiments? In quantum cryptography, computing, and similar discussions, Alice, Bob, and their friends fly all over the universe with entangled particles in boxes, doing amazing tricks with them. But that's all fantasy. The sad truth is that in real labs, over distances of centimeters (not light-years), with the expenditure of millions of dollars, they still can't reliably demonstrate quantum computing. Maybe "Bell non-locality" is just an artifact of the particular experiments done so far? So Hess's main point - that time-correlation, in currently achievable experimental designs, has something to do with it - can't be dismissed so easily. AFAIK, IMHO, and pending further investigation.
The new loophole-free Bell experiments (Delft, Vienna, NIST, all in 2015) do explicitly and rigorously exclude the time-dependence loopholes (as well as the other well-known loopholes: efficiency loophole, coincidence loophole). The distances involved are 1000 meters or more. Their statistical analyses use a martingale technique which I introduced in 2001 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059, which takes account of arbitrary time variation and memory issues, as long as new settings are chosen at random again and again for each new pair of measurements.

Yes they are photon based (though in Delft, the entangled qubits were in fact associated with electron spins in Nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamond).

Hess' main point was dealt with theoretically 15 years ago, and experimentally last year.

Three loophole free Bell experiments:

Delft:
Hensen et al. (2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05705

Vienna:
Giustina et al. (2015)
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190

NIST:
Shalm et al. (2015)
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189

Of course, these experiments have their critics and their defects. It is good to see that the Delft experiment was repeated (successfully). The Vienna and NIST experiments can be thought of as independent replicates of one another. So we have two rather different experiments each successfully repeated twice. No doubt more will follow.