Detection Loophole, Minimum Rate

Dear James,

The controversy about loopholes does not make sense since Bell's
inequalities appeared because of a false understanding by most
physicists of quantum mechanics. It is funny that no one noticed
during many years that the orthodox quantum mechanics cannot predict
the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities due to its
well-known principle that the operators can fail to commute only if
they act on the same particle.

Bohm misled Bell by rejecting this principle in order to postulate the
EPR correlation, he has not written that quantum mechanics cannot
predict the EPR correlation if this quantum principle is valid. Bell
misled all physicists since he did not understand that only Bohm’s
quantum mechanics but not the orthodox quantum mechanics can predict
the EPR correlation. Bell misled in particular the authors of the
well-known GHZ theorem [1,2]. These authors used the principle the
operators acting on different particles commute, according to which
quantum mechanics cannot contradict locality, in order to deduce the
GHZ theorem which should prove that quantum mechanics contradicts
locality.

I draw attention to this obvious contradiction in the manuscript
“Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem”. Unfortunately, Editors of
Physical Review A, Annalen der Physik and Annals of Physics rejected
this manuscript without peer review within a few days, from 1 to 3. In
contrast to these Editors, Editors of ‘Foundations of Physics’ did not
reject this manuscript up to now although I submitted it to this
journal July 7 and is considered by a reviewer since August 8. I
assume that my manuscript has not been rejected so far because
Professor Anton Zeilinger is a member of the Advisory Board of
‘Foundations of Physics’. I understand that it is difficult to make a
decision about my manuscript, since on the one hand it is impossible
to deny the mathematical fact that quantum mechanics cannot predict
EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities because of its
principle that the operators acting on different particles commute,
and on the other hand it is difficult to admit that many physicists
have been mistaken for many years.

[1] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s Theorem,
Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 73-76, (1989).

[2] Greenberger, D.M., Horne M.A., Shimony A. Zeilinger, A.: Bells
theorem without inequalities. Amer. J. Phys. 58, 1131-1143 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пн, 23 янв. 2023 г. в 12:09, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/400EBBAD-4CDC-4ED2-BB67-3B4DF6444B81%40gmail.com.

Dear Mark,

If you do not know about the principle that the operators can fail to
commute only if they act on the same particle, it does not mean that
this principle is not one of the main principles of quantum mechanics.
This principle is used by the authors of the GHZ theorem [1,2] when
they apply the operators of measurements of spin projection in
different directions in any order. The authors of the book [3] write
directly about this in section “6.6 The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger
Theorem” : “We know that the three operators Sx(a), Sy(b), and Sy(c)
commute. (This is because each acts on a different particle. Only if
Sx and Sy act on the same particle do they fail to commute.) Thus, we
can apply them to the GHZ state in any order”.

Unfortunately, numerous authors of publications about Bell's
inequalities and participants in the Bell's inequality debate do not
know quantum mechanics, but the perversion of quantum mechanics by
Bohm, or their own fantasies about quantum mechanics. Bohm misled even
Bell. Bell misled all physicists, including to the authors of the GHZ
theorem [1,2], who prove the contradiction of quantum mechanics with
locality with the help of the principle according to which quantum
mechanics cannot contradict locality.

It should be noted that the principle that the operators acting on
different particles commute saves quantum mechanics from predicting
the obvious absurd. Bohm had to abandon this principle in order to
invent the EPR correlation in 1951. As a consequence, the EPR
correlations invented by Bohm logically leads to absurdity, see my
preprint “Logical proof of the absurdity of the EPR correlation”
available at ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331584709_Logical_proof_of_the_absurdity_of_the_EPR_correlation
.
[3] G. Greenstein and A. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge. Modern
Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, 2006

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 24 янв. 2023 г. в 14:29, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

Dear Alexei

I have to say that I think you are talking nonsense. But you already know that that is my opinion.

Moreover we had this discussion many times before and as far as I know no single person supports your opinion.

Maybe you can give a reference to any publication by other authors who support your point of view and have expressed it in different words. So far you are not being very successful in communicating your standpoint. If there is someone else who does understand you, maybe they will be better able to explain your argument to us than you are.

Yours
Richard

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 17:40, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark,

Dear Mark,
According to the postulate of quantum mechanics about the Dirac jump,
only a measured particle should jump “into an eigenstate of the
dynamical variable that is being measured”. Therefore when Alice
measures spin projection of the particle A of the EPR pair

|EPR> = (|A+,B-> + |A-,B+>)/2^0.5 (1)

along the z-axis and observe spin up with the probability of 0.5, only
the particle A should jump into the eigenstate along the z-axis,
whereas the state of the particle B should not change according the
principle of quantum mechanics that the operators can fail to commute
only if they act on the same particle. Therefore Alice will create new
states

|Alice> = |A+z>(|B-> + |B+>)/2^0.5 (2)

according to which Bob will see spin up of the particle B with the
probability of 0.5. Thus, quantum mechanics predicts no correlation
between results of the observations of spin projections in the same
direction of particles in the EPR state (1).

To predict the EPR correlation, it is necessary to postulate that not
only the measured particle A, but also particle B should jump “into an
eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured”. This is
exactly what Bohm did when he claimed about the particles of the EPR
pair that “every component of its spin angular momentum opposite to
that of the other one” and even that ”each atom would continue to have
every component of its spin angular momentum opposite to that of the
other one”, see the section ”The Hypothetical Experiment Einstein,
Rosen and Podolsky” of his book [1].

Bell said in the Introductory remarks “Speakable and unspeakable in
quantum mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting, May 7, 1984 that the
creators of quantum mechanics were sleepwalkers who didn't understand
what they were claiming. That's the smartest thing Bell said. But for
some reason Bell did not understand that Bohm was the same sleepwalker
who did not understand what he was claiming. Bohm was claiming the
following: If Alice directed her analyzer along the z-axis, then not
only her particle, but also Bob's particle should jump into
eigenstates along the z-axis,

|Bohm_z> = |A+z>|B-z> (3z)

but if she directed the analyzer along the x-axis than the both
particles should jump into eigenstates along the x-axis

|Bohm_x> = |A+x>|B-x> (3x)

The expressions (3) predict the EPR correlation along both the z-axis
and the x-axis. They also predict violation of Bell’s inequalities
when the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate system are
used. But here the question arises: "What eigenstates should the
particles jump into if Alice directed her analyzer along the z-axis
and Bob along the x-axis?" Quantum mechanics does not put particles in
front of such an absurd choice due to its principle that the operators
can fail to commute only if they act on the same particle. But quantum
mechanics cannot be used to calculate EPR correlations, contrary to
your confidence, also because of this principle.

Bohm misled himself, Bell, and most physicists because of the illusion
that the EPR correlation could be derived from the law of conservation
of angular momentum. This illusion is misleading for several reasons:
1) in physics there is the law of conservation of angular momentum,
but there is no law of conservation of discrete values of angular
momentum projections; 2) in quantum mechanics, conservation laws are
valid with precision only down to the uncertainty relation; 3) only
what exists can be conserved, whereas not only spin projections of
particles, but even spin states that determine the probabilities of
observations of discrete values of spin projections cannot exist in
the EPR state. Therefore, the EPR correlation can be a consequence
only of a peculiarity of the observer's mind, which can create only
oppositely directed projections of spins, and not the conservation
law.
[1] D. Bohm, Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice-Hall (1951).
With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 24 янв. 2023 г. в 23:05, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

Alexei, it seems you use different postulates from just about everyone else. That makes communication difficult. Maybe you should write out your postulates in a clear mathematical form.
> On 26 Jan 2023, at 10:23, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark,

Dear Mark,
Schrodinger defined in 1935 the EPR (Einstein – Podolsky - Rosen)
correlation as ‘entanglement of our knowledge’: ”Maximal knowledge of
a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its
parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at
the moment are not influencing each other at all”. Your example with a
pair of shoes is the example ‘entanglement of our knowledge’. I
consider a similar example in the preprint “Logical proof of the
Two observers Alice and Bob know that two balls, red and blue, are in
a closed box. Bob takes one ball without looking, and drives away with
it at an arbitrarily long distance. Alice, before she looks at the
remaining ball, knows that Bob will see the blue ball with a
probability of 0.5 and with the same probability of the red ball. Her
knowledge can be described using the expression for the EPR pair
in which (+) represents the red ball and (-) represents the blue ball.
The knowledge of Alice will change when she will see the red ball, for
example. The new knowledge may be described with the help of the
expression
|Alice> = |A+>|B-> (2)
which means that she will see the red ball with the probability of 1
during the second observation, and Bob will see a blue ball with the
same reliability.

The expression (1) for the EPR pair can be used for the description of
Alice’s knowledge about both balls and spin projections since only two
results can be observed in both cases. But a fundamental difference is
between these cases. We can think that Alice sees a red ball since her
ball was red before her observation. But we cannot think so in the
case of spin projections since spin projections can be measured in
different directions.

To make the essence of the fundamental difference clear even to
schoolchildren, I marked the spin projections in different directions
with different colors in Fig.1 of my preprint “Logical proof of the
absurdity of the EPR correlation”. Even smart schoolchildren should
understand due to Fig.1 that quantum mechanics cannot do without the
Dirac jump because the observable does not exist before observation.
The Dirac jump can provide the perfect correlation between the results
of the first and second measurement of the same dynamical variable,
i.e. spin projections in the same direction. But the Dirac jump cannot
provide the EPR correlation since Dirac postulated in 1930 that only a
You wrote that what I was saying is simply wrong. But what exactly is
wrong? Don't you agree that the Dirac jump can provide the perfect
correlation between the results of the first and second measurements
of a single particle, but cannot provide the EPR correlation? I am not
talking about an experiment, but about the fact that quantum mechanics
cannot predict EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities. If
you think that there is absolutely reliable experimental evidence for
the violation of Bell's inequalities, then you should conclude that
quantum mechanics is the wrong theory.

With best wishes,
Alexey

чт, 26 янв. 2023 г. в 13:19, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities
and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/db9a126c-c97d-74f9-3627-9915d866c231%40liu.se.

Alexei

I think you should read some modern textbooks on quantum mechanics and find out what the postulates are which everyone else is using these days. They are used to compute theoretical correlations in the EPR-B model. Those same correlations are observed in rigorously performed experiments. There is no need to assume a Dirac jump. One needs only the Born rule for the statistics of measurements of commuting observables.
> On 26 Jan 2023, at 18:12, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark,

I do not comment on Alexey's postulates but he seems to deny non-local change in a second particle caused immediately by a measurement on the first particle in an entangled pair.  That fits* my backwards-in-time-antiparticles model or retrocausal model.

With this particular form of retrocausal assumption, each entangled particle is either polarised 'towards or away from' Alice's detector setting or 'towards or away from' Bob's detector setting.   The entangled particle beams do not have random or unpolarised settings during a simple Bell experiment.

Other than the spookiness of retrocausal microscopic effects there is no spookiness in the correlation calculations.  In fact, Malus's Law plus retrocausality is sufficient to produce the high correlations.

Susskind's online course on entanglement provided a QM calculation of a high correlation for a concrete example where theta = 45 degrees.  Unfortunately the calculation was merely a Malus calculation as the random particle setting was aligned with Alice's detector setting.  Then Susskind said that, since a correlation between two vectors is independent of the absolute orientation of either of the vectors, the same correlation applies to any incident random particle polarisation vector.  To me that was hand-waving.  So I tried to calculate, myself, the correlation for random incident particle polarisation vectors but failed.  I have seen an abstract version of the calculation and presume it works.  Nevertheless, in my retrocausal model there are no random particle polarisation vectors in a (simple two-particle) Bell experiment so the QM calculations are not necessary for my model. As I noted, Malus's Law suffices for my model.

* Although, if the backwards in time frame is denied than the communication appears to be instantaneous non-locally in a forwards-in-time-only frame.

Dear Richard,
The necessity of the Dirac jump follows logically from Born's
proposal. Therefore, anyone who thinks that it is possible to do with
the Born rule without the Dirac jump simply does not understand
quantum mechanics. Einstein drew attention to the need for the Dirac
jump as early as 1927, before Dirac postulated the jump in 1930.
Einstein considered a simple example during the discussion at the
Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927. A particle flying through a small
hole propagates further as a spherical probability wave, according to
Born’s proposal. Before the first observation, the probability is not
zero along the entire front of the spherical wave. But once we see a
particle at one point in space, the probability at other points should
instantly become zero. Otherwise, quantum mechanics will predict the
possibility of seeing one particle in several places at once, i.e. the
absurd. The jump in the quantum state must be instantaneous and
non-local, since the first and second observations can be made after
an arbitrarily small period of time. Therefore Einstein rightly noted
in 1927, that Born’s proposal ”leads to a contradiction with the
postulate of relativity”.
I draw your attention that Bell interpreted in his talk ”Speakable and
unspeakable in quantum mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting 1984
experimental evidence of violation of Bell’s inequalities obtained by
Alain Aspect in 1982 as conflict between quantum mechanics and
relativity theory: ”For me then this is the real problem with quantum
theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp
formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an
apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two
fundamental pillars of contemporary theory... and of our meeting”.
Dirac, in contrast to Einstein, did not understand that his jump
”leads to a contradiction with the postulate of relativity”. Therefore
he postulated a contradiction of quantum mechanics with the relativity
theory and proposed relativistic quantum mechanics in the same book
[1] published in 1930.
In addition, Dirac and other creators of quantum mechanics provoked
the famous EPR work [2], Bell’s inequalities and disputes about Bell’s
inequalities, which continue to this day, by false substitution of
’observation’ by ’measurement’. There is no need to assume the Dirac
jump for many modern authors since they believe rather than understand
quantum mechanics. Believers in quantum mechanics really don't like
the Dirac jump or the reduction postulate. Bell quoted in his famous
report "Against Measurement" [3] one such believer, Kurt Gottfried,
who said in 1989 that “the reduction postulate is an ugly scar on what
would be a beautiful theory if it could be removed”.
Kurt Gottfried and Bell understood that the ugly scar cannot be
removed. The authors of some modern textbooks on quantum mechanics,
which you read, do not understand this, which is another evidence of a
regression in understanding. I think you should read the Bell work
“Against Measuremen” [3] rather than some modern textbooks on quantum
mechanics. Bell perfectly explains how some textbooks are misleading.
Bell also said something that believers don't want to understand:
“Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I
think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden
business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of
fundamental theory” [3]. Einstein tried in 1926 to convince young
Heisenberg that his proposal to describe observables is wrong since
”observation is a very complicated process”. Einstein explained quite
clearly that Heisenberg’s proposal does not simplify, but complicates
the task of theory.
But it seems only John Bell understood this obvious fact. Einstein and
Bell are obviously right. But the task of the theory can be simplified
if we describe observables and do not describe an observation process.
In this case, all the difficulties that do not allow us to describe
paradoxical quantum phenomena as manifestations of reality can be
hidden in an observation process that cannot be described. That is why
quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a physical theory.
Unfortunately only Schrodinger and a few critics understood this
obvious fact. Numerous believers in quantum mechanics do not want to
understand this obvious fact up to now.
You have repeatedly written that Bell's inequalities prove the
inapplicability of the theory of hidden variables. But why can
variables be hidden? Bell explained in his first paper [4] that
variables can be hidden due to a trick with ‘measurement’. If we
postulate, as Bohr did, that the measurement process cannot be
described, as well as an observation process, then the requirement of
locality is the only way to distinguish the first from the second,
since the measurement process must be local, like any real process,
and the observation process, as unreal, can be non-local. A theory of
hidden variables differs from quantum mechanics in that it uses the
trick with ’measurement’ rather than the trick with ’observation’.
Bell understood that ’hidden variables’ should be ’hidden’ ”because if
states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be
prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate” [4]. But
for some reason he did not understand that the trick with
’measurement’ is no better than the trick with ’observation’.
Therefore Bell claimed in 1988 that ”The proof of von Neumann is not
merely false but foolish!”, see Mermin’s review article [5]. Bell
argued in 1966 [4] that the von Neumann proof is false since the trick
with ’measurement’ cannot be distinguished from the trick with
’observation’ without the requirement of locality. It is correct. But
the von Neumann proof can be considered false, unless von Neumann
understood that the substitution of ’observation’ by ’measurement’ is
false. Von Neumann obviously understood this, as Bell himself said in
1989: ”He dismisses out of hand the notion of von Neumann, Pauli,
Wigner that ’measurement’ might be complete only in the mind of the
observer” [3]. The ’measurement’, which might be complete only in the
mind of the observer, is ’observation’.
You should understand, although you hardly want to, that this story
with Bell's inequalities is a consequence of the delusion of most
physicists who believed rather than understood quantum mechanics. You
recommend that I read modern textbooks on quantum mechanics. I read
some of them and I am horrified by the regression in understanding
quantum mechanics. Books about quantum computing are especially naive.
Recently I submitted a manuscript “Quantum register cannot be real” in
‘Foundations of Physics’ in which I draw attention, in particular, to
the terrifying naivety of the authors of the well-known book M.A.
Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,
Cambridge University Press (2000). These authors are sure that the
Stern-Gerlach experiment gives evidence of the real existence of
qubits in Nature. They should have at least read the beginning of
Bell's article about Bertlmann’s socks [6] to understand that no
theory can describe this experiment and that the creators of quantum
mechanics refused to describe reality precisely because it was
impossible to describe such experiments realistically.
[1] A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University
Press (1958)
[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777-780 (1935).
[3] J. S. Bell, Against Measurement. in the proceedings of 62Years of
Uncertainty, Plenum Publishing, New York (1989); Physics World, 3,
33-40 (1990).
[4] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum
mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966).
[5] N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803-815 (1993).
[6] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal de
Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981).

With best wishes,
Alexey

пт, 27 янв. 2023 г. в 17:00, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/542C5DC6-1A54-4802-A715-296F0EE8C8E8%40gmail.com.

Hi Alexey,

I totally agree that this is an important topic! It seems to me, people prefer to be in denial about this or just "mask" the issue by using different names for it :-). I am glad you are not giving up:-).

Maybe you should present it in our seminar and we can discuss it in detail?

(I know you brought it up many times, and I also remember I commented on it a few times, but we really need to dig deeper on this I think, not sweep this all under the rug yet again :-).

What is YOUR solution to the issue?

And of course, how do you explain the EPR experiments?

(The "old" CHSH ones are obviously just due to the experimental setup, there is nothing at all special about them. The newer ones with the Eberhard inequality are a bit harder to explain).
(I haven't read the latest paper yet though, I will do that asap).

Someone recently said that people who don't "believe" this should prove it wrong, which is not how science normally works :-).

I mean, anyone who seriously thinks about this probably admits at some point that this "instant" collapse is kind of crazy, and that there are contradictions (or crazy explanations). It seems to me, the burden to prove it is on those who seriously believe that :-).

Best wishes,
Chantal
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iLcDjX18vEr0McieJuVEqsq%2BGtiyKfWJqxPaCCBn18pnw%40mail.gmail.com.

Hi Richard

Just as I did not want to get to grips with Alexey's postulates, nor ever wanted to get into fine details of Bell's Theorem, I also do not want to comment on Born rules.  My position is that I advocate backwards-in-time antiparticles as a means of bypassing Bell's Theorem.  That probably means that I think our current understanding of reality is incomplete, and locality is preserved although some of that locality is for particles travelling backwards in time.

I note that Jarek Duda has a very relevant part of an abstract of his Feb 2022 paper for the forthcoming online conference. Extract:
"It results for example in Anderson localization, or
the Born rule with squares - allowing for violation of Bell
inequalities. As e.g. for S-matrix, quantum amplitude turns
out to describe probability at the end of half-spacetime from
a given moment toward past or future, to randomly get some
value of measurement we need to ”draw it” from both time
directions, getting the squares of Born rules. Tension in both
time directions is also suggested in quantum experiments like
Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, it will be argued that
it is also crucial in quantum algorithms like Shor’s."

I also note the reference to effects of both forwards and backwards in time in the Born rule.

I also have a paperback copy of Feynman's thesis which sets out QED.  It contains reference to Feynman's conversations with Wheeler about advanced and retarded (in time) effects which as I understand it was necessary for Feynman to use in his QED, at least at that point in history.  There was also Stueckelberg's contribution to time directions.

I agree with Jarek that forwards and backwards in time tensions or effects are crucial in quantum algorithms.  In my model, an entangled pair is composed of one particle and one antiparticle each with a fixed hidden variable which is a polarisation vector. Hidden variables are allowed because of retrocausality bypassing the Bell theorem. Mixed joint states of entangled particles are not necessary.  There is no collapse at a measurement, and Schrodinger's cat, which has always irked me,  can be stuffed and shelved. :)

I am still not sure if quantum computing can work.  The particle states (actual states) in my model are fixed not mixed joint states, but the observer can only work with mixed joint states because of ignorance of the hidden variables.  So can the observer's mind drive the super-fast quantum computer solutions, or perhaps the observer's mind as represented by the quantum algorithms?  

Austin

Dear Chantal,

Thanks for understanding. In order to be able to explain the EPR
experiments, it is necessary to explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
The whole story of the EPR experiments and Bell's inequalities became
possible because of the illusion that quantum mechanics can explain
the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Most physicists have mistaken a trick
for a physical theory. Only a few critics, Schrodinger and a few
others, understood that quantum mechanics is a trick rather than a
physical theory. Sir Arthur Eddington said that this trick is very
good. I think this trick is naive and even funny rather than well.

The trick is Heisenberg's proposal to describe observables without
describing the observation process. You wrote that the "instant"
collapse is kind of crazy. I draw your attention that Einstein
demonstrated as far back as 1927 that this kind of crazy is followed
logically from Born’s proposal to describe the observer's knowledge
about the probability of the results of the upcoming observation. The
EPR paradox and Bell's inequalities appeared only because most
physicists did not understand what Einstein had clearly explained.
Bell understood much better than most physicists. He understood that a
physical theory should describe what exists (beables), not what is
observed (observables). Therefore the majority ignored his works for a
long time.

Bell explained very clearly in his article about Bertlmann’s socks [1]
why it is impossible to describe the Stern-Gerlach experiment. But
Bell fostered the illusion that quantum mechanics can describe the
Stern-Gerlach experiment by his claim that ”The proof of von Neumann
is not merely false but foolish!” Von Neumann proved in 1932 that the
Stern-Gerlach experiment cannot be described without a trick. Bell and
Mermin [2] claimed that the proof of von Neumann is false and even
foolish since the Stern-Gerlach experiment can be described with the
help of the trick with ‘measurement’ and without the trick with
‘observation’. Why Bell and Mermin thought that the trick with
measurement is better than the trick with observation is a question of
the psychology of believers.

Physicists must understand that quantum mechanics is a trick, since
this successful trick has led to the degradation of physical thinking.
The degradation is evidenced by the fact that no one noticed for many
years that quantum mechanics cannot predict the EPR correlation and
violation of Bell’s inequalities due to its principle that the
Physicists must understand what Einstein understood: realism is ”the
presupposition of every kind of physical thinking” rather than a claim
which can be disproved with any experimental results. The rejection of
realism has led to the degradation of physical thinking primarily
because almost all scientists are naive realists. I draw attention in
the manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem” that the
authors of the GHZ theorem assume that eigenstates of entangled
particles with spin 1/2 exist in the real three-dimensional space
although this is mathematically impossible.

[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal de
Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981).
[2] N. D. Mermin, Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell.
With best wishes,

Alexey

сб, 28 янв. 2023 г. в 18:44, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ccb74f59-23b4-43db-a3d7-5de8a57d6e2fn%40googlegroups.com.

Dear Mark,

According to quantum mechanics the operators acting on different
particles commute. But even if the operators commute for spacelike
separated events then quantum mechanics cannot predict the EPR
correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities since according to
quantum formalism ”the commutability of the operators is a necessary
and sufficient condition for the physical quantities to be
simultaneously measurable” [1]. The myth about the EPR correlation
arose from the false belief of most physicists that Bohr defeated
Einstein in the dispute about the EPR paradox. Einstein argued that
Heisenberg's uncertainty relation and Bohr's complementarity principle
can be refuted due to the fact that the physical quantities of two
spacelike separated particles can be simultaneously measurable. Thus,
Einstein was right, contrary to the majority opinion, due to the
commutability of the operators acting on different particles or in the
case of spacelike separated events.

[1] Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M.: Quantum Mechanics:
Non-Relativistic Theory. Volume 3, Third Edition, Elsevier Science,
Oxford (1977).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пн, 30 янв. 2023 г. в 20:37, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

Dear Chantal,

Not only do I have no theory, but I am not sure that a physical theory
(and not a trick) of some quantum phenomena is possible in principle.
The reason for the mass delusion and the degradation of physical
thinking is the faith not even in quantum mechanics, but in the
ability of our reason to explain any experimental results. This faith
is not based on anything. Einstein, who could think better than most,
said that the most amazing thing about Nature is its cognizability.
But Nature may not be so amazing as most modern scientists believe.

Our reason did not create Nature. Therefore, we cannot have confidence
in its cognizability. But any theory is created by our reason.
Therefore, our reason must understand any theory unambiguously. For
example, we should understand that quantum mechanics cannot predict
the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities because of
its principle that the operators acting on different particles
commute. We cannot doubt this mathematical fact, since mathematics
refers to a priori, and therefore reliable, knowledge. We should
understand that in order to predict the EPR correlation and violation
of Bell’s inequalities we must postulate that the mind of Alice
creates the spin states of not only her particle but also Bob’s
particle. This postulate results logically to be obviously absurd
since the mind of Bob can create other spin states of the same
particles.

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 31 янв. 2023 г. в 10:51, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
> E-Mail: Geraldo...@keybits.tech

Alexei, I agree with the first half of your email.In fact I have been saying the same thing for years but nobody takes any notice.

I completely disagree with the second part. The principle that operators acting on different particles commute is a sound principle, very well supported by the fact that experiment agrees with the predictions based on that principle. Thanks to the principle, the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics live in a peaceful if not harmonious coexistence with the empirical predictions of relativity theory.

Richard

Dear Mark,

The statement ”the commutability of the operators is a necessary and
measurable” taken from the good book Quantum Mechanics by L D Landau
and E M Lifshitz [1] is based on mathematics and therefore cannot be
wrong. I did not say, EPR is a counterexample. I said that “The myth
paradox”.

EPR proved that the symbols of faith in quantum mechanics,
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Bohr's complementarity
principle, are false because by measuring the momentum of one particle
A, we can find out the momentum of the second particle B using the law
of momentum conservation. Further, if the measurement of the first
particle A cannot change the state of the second particle B, then we
can accurately find out the momentum and coordinate of the second
particle in the same state, contrary to the uncertainty relation. Let
me remind you that the coordinate and momentum of one particle cannot
be measured in the same state because their operators do not commute
when they act on one particle.

The only way to save the symbols of faith in quantum mechanics was the
claim that measuring particle A changes the state of particle B. This
is exactly what Bohr claimed in his answer to EPR. He claimed that
‘spooky action at a distant’ changes the state of particle B because
of measurement of particle A. Most physicists agreed with Bohr rather
than with EPR despite the absurdity of Bohr’s claim. They did not
notice that Bohr's claim contradicts the principle of quantum
mechanics that the operators acting on different particles commute.
It's funny that Bohr’s claim about ‘spooky action at a distant’ began
to be called EPR correlation. I draw your attention that EPR does not
allow measurements of x and y spin simultaneously, as you say, and on
the contrary, Bohr's claim prevents this refutation of the uncertainty
principle. You seem to completely misunderstand the statement about
EPR correlation.
вт, 31 янв. 2023 г. в 12:59, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>:

Dear Geraldo,

The rejection of realism by the creators of quantum mechanics has led
mathematically impossible. Your opinion that “If two particles are
entangled, they have a common quantum state” is the opinion of a naive
realist. Creators of quantum mechanics were also naive realists.
According to quantum mechanics, spin states of non-entangled particles
on the one hand describe the observer's knowledge about the
probability of the results of the upcoming observation but on the
other hand spin states exist in the real three-dimensional space.

Spin states of non-entangled particles exist really in the sense that
each spin state is uniquely determined by a direction in the real
three-dimensional space in which this state is an eigenstate. Let me
remind you that a measurement in eigenstate gives spin up with a
probability of 1. Probabilities in any other direction are uniquely
determined by the operators of finite rotations of the coordinate
system, see [1]. The operators can be applied to any number of
non-entangled particles but only to non-entangled particles. I draw
your attention that in the expression for the EPR pair
no direction in the real three-dimensional space is specified, while
the expression for a non-entangled states

|NoEnt> =|Az0+>|Bz0> =(cos f/2|Az1+> - sin f/2|Az1->)(sin f/2|Bz1+> +
cos f/2|Bz1->) (2)

will not make sense if you do not specify the direction z0 in which
the states are eigenstates. I draw your attention that the probability
to observe spin up depends on the measurement direction z0 or z1 when
particles are not entangled (2) whereas the probability equals 1/2 for
any direction when a particle in the EPR state. The probability in the
EPR state (1) cannot differ from 1/2 since we cannot know which
particle will be measured first.

You wrote “If two particles are entangled, they have a common quantum
state”. But what makes this statement make sense if the projections of
each of the particles A and B are measured in the EPR experiment? You
wrote that “The quantum operators act on the quantum state (no need
for simultaneity), written in this abstract space”. What is the sense
of the operators acting on the quantum state in the abstract space if
the measurements of spin projection are carried out along one of the
directions in the real three-dimensional space?

I draw your attention to the fundamental difference between the
operator's action on entangled and non-entangled particles. According
to the postulate about the Dirac jump the operator of measurement of
the non-entangled particle A in (2) along the z1 axis change the
direction of eigenstate of this particle from z0 to z1 and particle
jumps in the state

|NoEnt> = |Az1+> (sin f/2|Bz1+> + cos f/2|Bz1->) (3)

with the probability |cos f/2|^{2}, f is the angle between z0 and z1.
The particle A in the EPR state (1) has no eigenstate since its
measurement in any direction will give spin up with the probability
0.5. Thus, the operator of measurement along the z1 axis of the
entangled particle A in (1) creates rather than changes eigenstate.
According to the Dirac jump and the quantum principle that the
operators acting on different particles commute can create only
measured particle A

|Dirac> = |Az1+>(|B-> + |B+>)/2^0.5 (4)

Therefore quantum mechanics predicts no correlation between results of
measurements of particles A and B in the EPR state (1).
вт, 31 янв. 2023 г. в 17:05, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

Dear Richard,
If you think that “The principle that operators acting on different
particles commute is a sound principle” and it was not rejected in
quantum mechanics then you must agree that quantum mechanics cannot
predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities.
This can be easily understood by considering the correlation between
the results of the first and second measurements of one particle.
Quantum mechanics cannot predict the correlation between results of
first and second measurements of the same dynamical variable without
the Dirac jump. The first measurement of spin projection along z1 of
particle A in eigenstate along z0

|Az0+> =cos f/2|Az1+> - sin f/2|Az1-> (1)

will give spin up with the probability |cos f/2|^{2}. The probability
of spin up of the second measurement will be the same |cos f/2|^{2}
without the Dirac jump. The perfect correlation between results of the
first and second measurement with the probability of 1 can be possible
only due to the Dirac jump from the eigenstate along z0 (1) to the
eigenstate along z1

|Az1+> =cos f/2|Az0+> + sin f/2|Az0-> (2)

The operator of measurements along z1 and z0 cannot commute in this case.
In section 4. “The assumption used at the deduction of the GHZ theorem
makes impossible the prediction of violation of Bell’s inequalities”
of my manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem” (I sent it
January 23) I demonstrate that the derivation by Bell in his article
about ‘Bertlmann’s socks’ of violation of Bell’s inequalities for the
case measurements of two particles of the EPR pair repeats the like
derivation for the first and second measurements of single particles.

With best wishes,
Alexey

вт, 31 янв. 2023 г. в 19:27, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

Dear Alexei

You are wrong. Seems you don’t know the maths very well. Perhaps you should read the famous paper of Bohm and Aharanov again, in which the so-called EPR-B model was described, which Bell subsequently used.

The calculations are nowadays reproduced in every standard text on quantum mechanics.
> On 31 Jan 2023, at 18:40, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,

Bell’s work does not use any calculation of a correlation between repeated measurements on one particle. I have no idea where you got this weird idea from.

Sent from my iPad

> On 31 Jan 2023, at 18:40, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,

Dear Richard,
You wrote: “The principle that operators acting on different particles
predictions of relativity theory”.
And Bell said in his talk ”Speakable and unspeakable in quantum
mechanics” at Naples-Amalfi meeting 1984 about experimental evidence
of violation of Bell’s inequalities obtained by Alain Aspect with
co-authors in 1982: ”For me then this is the real problem with quantum
fundamental pillars of contemporary theory... and of our meeting”, see
p. 172 in [1].
You wrote correctly that the principle that operators acting on
different particles commute prevents the contradiction of quantum
mechanics with the theory of relativity. Bell understood that
violation of his inequalities means the essential conflict between
quantum mechanics and fundamental relativity. This conflict would not
have been possible, as you correctly wrote, if the principle that
operators acting on different particles commute had not been rejected.
I read the famous paper of Bohm and Aharanov and I understand that
Bell deduced the prediction of the correlation, for example (4) in
‘Bertlmann’s socks’ [2], on the basis of Bohm’s quantum mechanics.
Bell's mistake was that he did not understand that Bohm's quantum
mechanics is not orthodox quantum mechanics. Bohm had to reject the
principle that operators acting on different particles commute in
order to postulate the EPR correlation in his book 1951 and in the
famous paper of Bohm and Aharanov 1957. According to this paper the
EPR state
jumps (or reduces as Bohm and Aharanov wrote) to the Bohm – Aharanov state
|BA> = |A+,B-> or |BA> = |A-,B+> (2)
“in accordance with the result of measurement”. The expressions (2)
predict the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities. We
can deduce the expression (4) in ‘Bertlmann’s socks’ [2]
P(up,up) = P(down,down) = 0.5|sin (a-b)/2|^{2} (3)
using (2) and the operators of finite rotations of coordinate system
which allow calculate the probability |sin (a-b)/2|^{2} of the result
of measurement of the second particle along the angle b. I draw you
attention that the results of measurement of the first particle along
a (the probability equals 0.5) differ fundamentally from the results
of measurement of the second particle along b (the probability equals
|sin (a-b)/2|^{2}). I hope that you, as a mathematician, understand
that such a difference is impossible if operators acting on different
particles commute. I hope that you also understand that the jump of
the both particles of the EPR pair (1) “into an eigenstate of the
dynamical variable” measured only on one particle, postulated in the
famous paper of Bohm and Aharanov, absolutely fantastic. Such fantasy,
brought to the full absurdity, is absent in orthodox quantum
mechanics.
[1] J.S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics.
Collected papers on quantum philosophy. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (2004).
[2] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal de
Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 31 янв. 2023 г. в 21:46, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/422E7F7D-D8EC-4F81-96FC-F2FDC0CE9B0E%40gmail.com.

Alexei, you are wrong.

Bohm and Aharanov used the same, conventional, quantum mechanics as almost everyone today.

You are grasping at straws! Please read a modern textbook and check the maths yourself.

Sent from my iPhone

Dear Richard,
One does not need to be an outstanding mathematician to understand
violation of Bell inequalities because of its principle that the
operators acting on different particles commute. One only needs to
know the very basics of quantum mechanics and understand that the
false concept of the EPR correlation appeared only because most
physicists did not want to understand that A. Einstein, B. Podolsky,
and N. Rosen (EPR) have refuted the symbols of the faith in quantum
mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Bohr
complementarity principle.
Numerous authors who are now writing about the EPR correlation do not
know that these principles claim that two physical quantities
described by non-commuting operators cannot be accurately measured in
the same state. They did not read the EPR paper [1] in the abstract of
which it is written: “In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical
quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one
precludes the knowledge of the other”. We cannot accurately measure
the momentum and coordinate of one particle in the same state since
their operators do not commute and as a consequence have different
eigenstates. But we can accurately measure the momentum of one
particle A and the coordinate of another particle B if their operators
commute since ”the commutability of the operators is a necessary and
measurable” [2]. We can accurately know the momentum and coordinate of
the particle B, contrary to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and
the Bohr complementarity principle, since we can accurately know the
total momentum of the both particles.
The EPR [1] used the requirement of locality instead of the principle
commute. The whole story with the EPR correlation and Bell’s
inequalities became possible because of this fact and the blind faith
of most physicists in quantum mechanics. The only way to refute the
arguments of the EPR was the claim about ‘spooky action at a distant’.
Bohr used in his response [3] to the EPR [1] just this absurd claim
that measurement of particle A can change the quantum state of
particle B regardless of the distance between them. The faith in
quantum mechanics was so blind that no one except a few scientists
understood that Bohr was claiming the full absurdity. Bell belonged to
a few scientists. He ”felt that Einstein’s intellectual superiority
over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous as vast gulf between the man
who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist” [4] and
explained why Bohr was the obscurantist in Appendix 1 - The position
of Bohr of his “Bertlmann’s socks” [5].
But even Bell did not understand that Bohr had to reject the principle
that the operators acting on different particles commute in order to
claim the possibility of ‘spooky action at a distant’. Bell also
failed to understand that Bohm had to reject this principle in order
to postulate the EPR correlation. I explain in detail in section 4
impossible the prediction of violation of Bell’s inequalities” of the
manuscript “Physical thinking and the GHZ theorem” that quantum
mechanics can predict violation of Bell’s inequalities only if the
operators acting on different particles can fail to commute. This
manuscript is considered by a reviewer of ‘Foundations of Physics’
since August last year.

[1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum - Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,
777 (1935)

[2] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics:
[3] N. Bohr, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).

[4] J. Bernstein, Quantum Profiles. Princeton, 1991

[5] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. de
Physique 42, 41 (1981).

With best wishes,

Alexey

пт, 17 февр. 2023 г. в 20:21, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Alexei
>
> You say it is a mathematical fact that quantum mechanics cannot predict EPR correlation and violation of Bell inequalities because of its principle that the operators acting on different particles commute. As a mathematician I can tell you that you are wrong. This has moreover been explained to you many times by many members of our group.
>
> What you call an obvious contradiction Is a misunderstanding by yourself of the rather careless notation often used by physicists these days.
>
> Still, you are of course welcome to your opinion. Who knows, maybe you will be able to publish it, but I fear you are not likely to convince anyone.
>
> Yours
> Richard
> > during many years that the orthodox quantum mechanics cannot predict
> > well-known principle that the operators can fail to commute only if

I sympathise with Alexei banging his head against a QM wall of defence.  His (repeated) argument, though, is too abstract for me. My background is maths/stats but I am very wary of being 'lost in maths' and maybe of being lost in philosophy, or in hidden assumptions.

My solution to Bell is retrocausality caused by backwards-in-time motion of antiparticles and antiphotons. A QM defence (which I also met from Tom Roberts on sci.physics.research) is that QM deals with it successfully already so why bother with an alternative.  But I prefer the locality of retrocausality to the apparent non-locality of QM.  Nevertheless, I need to further investigate how QM defeats the Bell correlation.

Bell's Theorem - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem gives a QM solution but unfortunately, despite being written to look like a solution of Bell,  it is merely a solution of Malus.  Likewise, Susskind's online lecture course on entanglement only gives a solution of Malus followed by a hand waving note that a correlation between two vectors is independent of the absolute angles of the two vectors.  Anyway, I am looking further for other QM solutions which can be solved with a practical non-Malus example.

One could think that Malus is sufficient as, despite being a classical Law, it contains the quantum effect within it. However, I have a classical model of the electron (as a gyroscopic effect with precession and nutation) which gives Malus's Law using a classical model.  I have also shown in simulations that Malus is not sufficient to give Bell whereas Malus plus retrocausality is sufficient, though of course there could be other solutions.