tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post7388331647134907696..comments2018-11-15T00:49:16.144-08:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Bell test experiments explainedRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-56324817059924463082018-06-28T18:08:10.065-07:002018-06-28T18:08:10.065-07:00Consistent histories is also quite interesting.
ht...Consistent histories is also quite interesting.<br />http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell's_theorem#Consistent_historiesMD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-62781423080734666132018-06-28T17:56:43.364-07:002018-06-28T17:56:43.364-07:00There are all kinds of interesting arguments float...There are all kinds of interesting arguments floating around about the generality of Bell's theorem. I don't think anti-realist are clear about what they mean.<br /><br />"Quantum theory teaches us that outcomes of measurements are only created as the effect of a physical interaction of the measured system with the measuring instrument in a well defined experimental context. Therefore a hidden variable model which aims to explain details of quantum measurements has to introduce context-dependent hidden variables, in particular supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments during the measurement. It is well known that if such contextual hidden variables are correctly introduced, Bell-type inequalities can not be proven."<br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05021<br /><br />"We construct a simple probabilistic model allowing these correlations to be explained in a locally causal way. In our model, measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in an irreducibly random way. We explain why, contrary to the general belief, the introduction of setting-dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow the conclusion that Nature is non-local and that quantum theory is complete, the Bohr–Einstein quantum debate may not be closed."<br />http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/375/2106/20160392<br /><br />"The representation of a hypothetical formulation of quantum physics is a task which requires careful attention to the quantum formalism and its rules. The major flaw in the “no-hidden-variables proofs” is that they neglect the detailed structure of the quantum measurement procedures. Von Neumann’s argument failed in a somewhat trivial way, as it disregards the fundamental directive that incompatible observables cannot be measured simultaneously. Both Gleason’s, as well as Kochen and Specker’s theorem, may seem at first to succeed where von Neumann failed, i.e., to prove the impossibility of hidden variables. Nevertheless, as Bell has shown [17, 18], these theorems also fail as arguments against hidden variables, since they do not account for contextuality."<br />(Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Realism, Hemmick, 2012)<br /><br />"realism and locality are compatible with correlations that lie outside the class of Bell-type correlations. They are inner-product-type correlations, having thus the same mathematical structure as the well known Pearson correlations of classical statistics."<br />https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14956-yMD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-81925460836143324362018-06-27T18:09:57.413-07:002018-06-27T18:09:57.413-07:00Roger, your comments are kind of misleading merely...Roger, your comments are kind of misleading merely on the face of them. For instance, simply saying that the particles are not predetermined would make one think this would outlaw some correlation at a distance. This is very smog wording. <br /><br />Furthermore, the rejection of determinism is an incoherent position because it's by definition not a physical explanation. If you don't believe in determinism, you are really saying you don't believe in physics describing nature. Evoking randomness is strictly circular reasoning from a law point of view. Mysticism is fine but it isn't physics and we should be more interested in a provable limit to physics to say anything meaningful at all.<br /><br />You say: "My view is that we do measurements with real numbers because that is the only way we know how to make observations. But there is no reason to believe that a photon can be fully described by real numbers. Photons are strange objects. So are real numbers. But they are not the same." <br /><br />Then what do you think of Joy Christian? He is still publishing papers and simulations and getting into heated arguments.<br /><br />Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives<br />http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/180526<br /><br />Disproofs of disproofs of disproofs of disproofs...<br />https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1247MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-43959568658147996512018-06-27T12:49:31.800-07:002018-06-27T12:49:31.800-07:00You write, "Note: Quantum field theory teache...You write, "Note: Quantum field theory teaches that photons are not really fundamental, and discussions about photons like the above are convenient simplifications of fields."<br /><br />Can the photoelectric effect be described with quantum mechanics?Golden Number Ratiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06047804495884984100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-5587180648240845022018-06-27T12:28:25.087-07:002018-06-27T12:28:25.087-07:00Would you say that this wiki page is wrong:
https:...Would you say that this wiki page is wrong:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality<br /><br />Would you be interested in correcting it?Golden Number Ratiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06047804495884984100noreply@blogger.com