Re: Local hidden variables.

On 24 Feb 2023, at 08:36, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

If anyone copied here does not want to get these, please let me know and i will remove you and apologize for including you.

Hi Mark

I agree it is a linear relationship.  As I say, your expression is the way I look at how various contributions from pol and coherence are related.  In my program I calculated the two complementary parts separately, giving values that are independent of how many clicks are actually produced.

In real experiments, sometimes there is more of one than the other, and the experimental clicks are all accounted for with a probability for each.  To me this is clear and accounts for the experimental results, click by click.

It also shows that Richard's last objection, dividing my result by two, is not validated. He has exhausted all his objections, but I invite him to have a go at trying to show my work is flawed.

The next part to understand is the difference between polarization clicks and coherence clicks.  I suggest a filter to separate them, but the important point is to show that depending on the difference between the filter settings of Alice and Bob, one is favoured over the other.

The fundamental physical idea is what I explained before and for which there is ample evidence from other experiments.  That is, spins decoupling and coupling occurs as a function of field (filter settings). The coherence state forms from the coupling of the two  spin 1/2 to give a coherent spin 1, and this is maintained at filter settings that differ by pi/4.  As the difference moves to pi/2 or to zero, that coherence decouples and the coherence is lost leaving only polarized states.

That is the mechanism.  I requires a lot of changes to our understanding of the usual spin of 1/2 that is measured, but it is all well based in QFT.  

I am working on wording in my papers all the time, and I hope that my pedagogical videos will spell things out. 

In the meantime, I hope you agree that your distribution of pol and coh is one step to accepting my approach.  I very much appreciate your input and tenacity which helps me in clarifications and suggest better ways to put these ideas across.

Thank you

Bryan

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:45 AM Mark Hadley <drmark...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan,

That was a good summary apart from one sentence. 

It's a linear relationship. It can't be anything else. The correlation moves from pol to col as the fraction shifts from one to the other. 

It's not just about combining correlations. It's true for the average values of any complementary populations that are mixed. 

Cheers

Mark

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, 13:44 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark

I now have your figure and I think it agrees with me.  If we have only pol, then i get the pol correlation. If we have only col and no pol, then i get only coh correlation. The last equation says some pol and some coh and you add them. The prefactors simply gives the intensity of each.

The ratios say over Ntot coincidences, sometimes you have one and sometimes you have the other in those ratios. But you never have the two together. If you filtered and collected them in separate bins then the number of coincidences are divided in those ratios between those bins. Then the two correlation are obtained separately and accumulate as the sum.

If you have 3/4 pol and 1/4 coh that does not mean you multiply pol by 3/4  and coh by 1/4, it just means you have more coincidence from pol and fewer from coh.

I think that is consistent with what I am saying.

Bryan

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, 10:30 Mark Hadley <drmark...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Richard and Bryan,

Yes a trivial error on equation 3. I've corrected that.

And I have changed the result to deal with cases where the p and e populations are unequal. 

It's straightforward algebra. And gives a sensible result. Bryan was right to start with a definition of correlation. That is what I have done. 

Bryan, 

Can you follow and agree with this derivation? 

Thanks 

Mark

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, 04:56 Richard Gill, <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan,  Mark

Sorry, I first sent this to Udi and Bryan, by mistake. Another try.

Bryan: When we calculate correlations we divide by the number of pairs of particles, not the number of particles.

Mark: your handwritten note contains an obvious misprint on line 3 I think, but I agree with your conclusion

To Bryan again, all of Mark’s “N”s are numbers of particle pairs. In his line 1, N_tot is the total number of particle pairs.

A particle pair can be of type pol, or of type coh

The two particles of a pair either lead to the same outcome or they lead to opposite outcomes.

Mark: do you agree that your line 3 is wrong? Perhaps you should correct it for Bryan.

Richard

PS I’m not sending this email to Jarek’s group because Jarek and other members of his group are getting annoyed by all the messages about Bell’s theorem. Jarek’s group is not about Bell’s theorem, it is about the nature of time.

On 27 Feb 2023, at 20:35, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Feb 2023, at 20:39, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan, dear Richard, dear all (and dear Alexey, sorry, I think your model is too simple).

I am trying to understand your model, Bryan, and I am trying to understand the bet between you and Richard. As I see it, the discussion should not be about the mathematics, which you have clarified to me, at least to a sufficient degree, but about the simple statement:

Hyper-helicity is an element of reality.

To me, this statement is not very different from the statement:

The spin vector n(hat) is an element of reality.

So let us for simplicity start with the last statement. I see quantum mechanics as a model, but a good model of reality. In this model, the spin vector has no place, only the component in some fixed, chosen direction. A model where the spin vector does have a place, is a model where we can draw this spin vector, and in a geometric figure draw its component. I think that this model is simply too simple, it cannot explain several real phenomena.

Then go back to hyper-helicity. It has no place in the ordinary quantum model, in the version due to Dirac, where SU(2) is the basic symmetry group. It can be defined in Bryan's model, where SU(2) is replaced by quaternian symmetry. So, similar to the spin vector case, it is a question which model should be chosen. In my opinion, and I think this opinion is shared by Richard, ordinary quantum mechanics is a good enough model, it can explain most of the phenomena that we know of.

Bryan, what you have to convince us about, is that your model is a better model, it can explain more real phenomena. I think that 'reality' is a too big and complicated notion, and so is 'element of reality'. It is all connected to our models, and which model to choose.

In my own papers I try to argue that a simpler version of of the quantum model is sufficient to explain most phenomena: Let the state notion be limited to ket vectors that are eigenvectors of some Hermitean operator. In my published paper 'On Reconstructing parts of quantum theory from two related maximal conceptual variables' ( paper for which a technical correction note will appear soon), I have argued that in this model version, 'paradoxes' like the Schrödinger cat paradox are avoided. It also leads to a simple interpretation of state vectors: They are in one-to-one correspondence with a question: 'What is theta?/what will theta be if we measure it?' together with a sharp answer 'theta=u'. Here theta is a maximal accessible variable taking a discrete set of values. It is connected to the physical world in some given context, but it may also be connected to the mind of an observer or to the joint minds of a group of communicating observers.

If the variable is not maximal, the same interpretation can be given to the eigenspaces of the relevant operator.

So to my main point: It is not a question of reality or not reality, it is a question about which model we use to describe reality. Some models are too simple; some models may be too sophisticated.

This is my view.

Inge