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? - gill1109 - 07-25-2016

(07-24-2016, 11:20 PM)secur Wrote: 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.
I cannot make any sense of Thomas Ray's comments and my experience tells me there is no point in trying to get sense out of them.


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

Richard Gill, is there any way -- without disturbing the contents -- to open a safe with the combination locked inside?

You don't have to make sense of this question to answer it.


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

Gill: "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."

The admission is a feature, not a bug.  

Suppose Bob and Alice are equivalent to two simultaneously tossed fair coins.  Conventional probability tells us that there is a 1/4 chance of HH or TT.  However, there is such a thing as collective probability (von Mises), in which simultaneous tosses have probability 1/2 for each result.

“Realism” is effectively interpreted in your terms as “locality” absent of both time and measure space, such that all events observed locally are products of random observer choice of measurement criteria in an arbitrary space, independent of the time at which any choice is made.

Not so in the time-dependent Hess-Philipp schema.  Eliminating the time variable also eliminates continuity – in contradiction of Minkowski space and special relativity. Hess and Philipp explicitly showed that – just as Einstein relativity allows that every observer carries her own clock – every 3-dimension event implies a 4-dimension outcome, i.e., a Timelike Correlated Parameter (TLCP) in which space is not independent of time.

So with probability 1, there is a 1/3 chance each for HH, TT, and HT.  (This brings to mind the Monty Hall problem.)

Andrei Khrennikov asked “What is really ‘quantum’ in Quantum Theory?” He took to task conventional quantum probability models—the Kolmogorov measure-theoretic model and the Hilbert space probabilistic model—by citing Richard von Mises, regarding collectives, “ ... first the collective, and then the probability.”

This eliminates the possibility of Alice and Bob choosing a variable and the negation of that variable at the same time.  Gill, et al, purport to refute the Hess-Philipp result with the conclusion: “Time is not an issue in the proof of Bell’s theorem. What is crucial is the freedom of the experimenter to choose either of two settings at the same time. Hess and Philipp’s hidden variables model is nonlocal.”

Deceptive in this conclusion is the assumption -- not of Alice's and Bob's free will choice -- the experimenter chooses for them.  The experimenter does not have the freedom to choose either a setting or the negation of that setting at the same time. The choices taken one at a time are not equally likely.  

When we do not exclude the middle value, Bob is identified with outcome HH and Alice with TT.  Equally likely with probability 1/2.  When we add the possible outcome HT or TH, we have maximum 3/4.  The null result HT or TH, however, is never even a part of the collective -- HH and TT exist simultaneously with probability 1, without any interference by the experimenter.

Khrennikov notes in his paper:   “R. von Mises strongly criticized the conventional notion of independence, namely, event independence. He presented numerous examples in which conventional independence was represented as just a meaningless game with numbers – to obtain factorization of probability into the product of probabilities. In the frequency theory we study independence of collectives (in Khrennikov’s terminology – contexts).”


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

(07-25-2016, 12:31 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Richard Gill, is there any way -- without disturbing the contents -- to open a safe with the combination locked inside?

You don't have to make sense of this question to answer it.

Let me just just chip in here, although I don't see how your question could be relevant to anything in this discussion:  How about trying every possible combination?  That should guarantee that you sooner or later open the safe, and would keep you blissfully occupied in the meantime.


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

Heinera wrote:

"Let me just just chip in here, although I don't see how your question could be relevant to anything in this discussion: How about trying every possible combination? That should guarantee that you sooner or later open the safe, and would keep you blissfully occupied in the meantime."

Great! That's just the answer I was hoping for, because it shows the fraud in "QRC".

Do you know why?


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

(07-25-2016, 02:40 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Deceptive in this conclusion is the assumption -- not of Alice's and Bob's free will choice -- the experimenter chooses for them.  The experimenter does not have the freedom to choose either a setting or the negation of that setting at the same time. The choices taken one at a time are not equally likely.
In rigorously performed Bell experiments (e.g. Delft, Vienna, NIST), the following is repeated many times according to a predetermined time schedule: a random choice is made between setting a and setting a', and a random choice is made between setting b and b'. Two measurements are made. Good care is taken that the outcome of each measurement is recorded definitively before any information could arrive as to the setting chosen in the other wing of the experiment.
A nice discussion of how to impose this principle is given by Stefano Pironio in http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00248, "Random 'choices' and the locality loophole".
Randomisation is a powerful tool in experimental sciences. In Bell experiments, it allows us to rule out memory or time-variation as possible explanations of violation of Bell inequalities. Of course if you don't believe in randomisation then you don't need to accept the experimental conclusions (which are statistical in nature).


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

(07-25-2016, 04:27 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Heinera wrote:

"Let me just just chip in here, although I don't see how your question could be relevant to anything in this discussion:  How about trying every possible combination?  That should guarantee that you sooner or later open the safe, and would keep you blissfully occupied in the meantime."

Great!  That's just the answer I was hoping for, because it shows the fraud in "QRC".  

Do you know why?

No. Do you?


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

@Gill1109,

The work you cite is pretty convincing. It seems I learned about these issues at just the right time, since it's been less than a year that these (approximately) lopphole-free experiments have been performed, and settled these issues (more or less). But I have one question for you.

In your 2015 paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301059v2.pdf, you say:

"I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think that quantum mechanics is non-local."

And in 2002, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0110137v4.pdf :

'The violation of the Bell inequalities show that any deterministic, underlying, theory intending to explain the surface randomness of quantum physical predictions, has to be grossly non-local in character. For some philosophers of science, for instance Maudlin (1994), this is enough to conclude that “locality is violated, tout court”. He goes on to analyse, with great clarity, precisely what kind of locality is violated, and he investigates possible conflicts with relativity theory. Whether or not one says that locality is violated, depends on the meaning of the word “local”. In our opinion, it can only be given a meaning relative to some model of the physical world, whether it be implicit or explicit, primitive or sophisticated.'

In 2015 you also discuss the 4+1 options available, such as "Don't care" and "QM won't allow totally loophole-free experiments". But you never state which option you prefer.

On the face of it I would agree with Maudlin but understand it's a subtle issue, and that I'm no expert. So could you please explain why you reject the "QM is non-local" interpretation of Bell-related results, and what your preferred option is. A brief indication of your position is fine, no need for details, I can always ask for more clarification. Thanks in advance!


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

(07-25-2016, 05:33 PM)secur Wrote: ... could you please explain why you reject the "QM is non-local" interpretation of Bell-related results, and what your preferred option is. A brief indication of your position is fine, no need for details, I can always ask for more clarification. Thanks in advance!
Whether a theory is local or non-local depends, I think, on what you consider to be real. If you want to consider the outcomes of not-performed measurements as real, then QM is non-local. If you want to consider the wave-function as real, then QM is non-local. But if you accept only the reality of actual outcomes of performed measurements, and accept irreducible randomness as a fundamental part of reality, then it seems to me that QM is local.

But I am not a professional philosopher, nor a physicist, just a mathematician. I think we should not worry so much about locality and non-locality. Maybe it is time to forget some distinctions which used to be considered important. Perhaps the phenomena are trying to teach us that some old distinctions have less meaning than we thought. It seems to me that successful Bell experiments are teaching us that reality is non classical. Things apparently happen in these experiments which cannot be explained in a mechanistic way. QM allows some things which classically would have been thought to be impossible; but it also forbids other things. Reality is *different* from what we thought. Different from how evolution has programmed our brains to imagine reality. Right now I think we should reject local-realism but that the idea that one of the two (locality or realism) has to be rejected and the other can be kept is too simplistic. It's more useful to explore the possibilities offered by QM and maybe adapt our ideas of locality and realism accordingly.


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

(07-25-2016, 05:19 PM)Heinera Wrote:
(07-25-2016, 04:27 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Heinera wrote:

"Let me just just chip in here, although I don't see how your question could be relevant to anything in this discussion:  How about trying every possible combination?  That should guarantee that you sooner or later open the safe, and would keep you blissfully occupied in the meantime."

Great!  That's just the answer I was hoping for, because it shows the fraud in "QRC".  

Do you know why?

No. Do you?

Why, yes, I do.  

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 

"QRC" assumes that no data are hidden. So one should look for hidden data to prove the assumption.  Not finding any hidden data, one should conclude that no data are hidden.   If you know of a way to prove this negative proposition other than by double negation, I would like to hear it.
 
“QRC” assumes local information is unavailable; however, being hidden does not make it unavailable, because one is looking and not finding—so what does?  Nonlocality.  What does nonlocality mean?—not available locally.
 
So already we have two unconstructed assumptions—hidden data and nonlocality. 
 
Nothing is hidden in a field theory ("there is no space empty of field"), so data are always locally available.  Sending legions of computer users out to look for hidden variables in an assumed classical domain, is therefore a snipe hunt. 


Time would be better spent looking for a boundary between classical and quantum domains.  Because that search has a constructed framework of spacetime, it is -- unlike the QRC -- falsifiable.

(07-25-2016, 04:51 PM)gill1109 Wrote:
(07-25-2016, 02:40 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Deceptive in this conclusion is the assumption -- not of Alice's and Bob's free will choice -- the experimenter chooses for them.  The experimenter does not have the freedom to choose either a setting or the negation of that setting at the same time. The choices taken one at a time are not equally likely.
In rigorously performed Bell experiments (e.g. Delft, Vienna, NIST), the following is repeated many times according to a predetermined time schedule: a random choice is made between setting a and setting a', and a random choice is made between setting b and b'. Two measurements are made. Good care is taken that the outcome of each measurement is recorded definitively before any information could arrive as to the setting chosen in the other wing of the experiment.
A nice discussion of how to impose this principle is given by Stefano Pironio in http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00248, "Random 'choices' and the locality loophole".
Randomisation is a powerful tool in experimental sciences. In Bell experiments, it allows us to rule out memory or time-variation as possible explanations of violation of Bell inequalities. Of course if you don't believe in randomisation then you don't need to accept the experimental conclusions (which are statistical in nature).

And why should I accept the conclusions of an experiment which does not define its domain and co-domain?

That constitutes a measure space, without which "lambda can be anything."