Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:59 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:34 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *>>> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't
>>> admit it.
>>>
>>
>> *>I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong..*
>>
>
> The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic
> or not local or both,
>

I have said that and you denied it. QM is non-realistic anyway. The quantum
violation of the Bell inequalities show that it is also non-local. So it is
neither realistic nor local. No problems there. The violations of realism
have nothing to do with Bell, since his derivation does not assume realism,
despite your claims to the contrary.

but there is another inequality called  Leggett's inequality involving
> linear and elliptical polarized light that can narrow down that
> uncertainty. Leggett found his inequality in 2003 and it was
> experimentally proven to be violated in 2010. Nature is probably the best
> scientific journal in the world but I'm sure you'll say it's wrong just as
> you claim that Wikipedia was wrong because it says that you are incorrect
> and that the world is BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic.
>
> "*Bell's inequality is established based on local realism.*
>

False.

*The violation of Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics implies either
> locality or realism or both are untenable. Leggett's inequality is derived
> based on nonlocal realism.*
>

Whatever that might be. But it seems to be based on a form of realism,
certainly.

* The violation of Leggett's inequality implies that quantum mechanics is
> neither local realistic nor nonlocal realistic.*"
>
>
> Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect
> 
>
>  By now I think you know you were wrong, but of course you will never
> admit it.
>

If you want to prove me wrong, give a local account of the violation of the
Bell inequalities in non-realistic many worlds. MWI is both non-realistic
and non-local.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSzzBcO4S8G4h6trRPdSuPx%3D%3DHVcakFiNe3gkaPiCrGZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:34 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>>> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*
>>
>>
>> >> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't
>> admit it.
>>
>
> *>I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong..*
>

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or
not local or both, but there is another inequality called  Leggett's
inequality involving linear and elliptical polarized light that can narrow
down that uncertainty. Leggett found his inequality in 2003 and it was
experimentally proven to be violated in 2010. Nature is probably the best
scientific journal in the world but I'm sure you'll say it's wrong just as
you claim that Wikipedia was wrong because it says that you are incorrect
and that the world is BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic.

"*Bell's inequality is established based on local realism. The violation of
Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics implies either locality or realism
or both are untenable. Leggett's inequality is derived based on nonlocal
realism. The violation of Leggett's inequality implies that quantum
mechanics is neither local realistic nor nonlocal realistic.*"


Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect


 By now I think you know you were wrong, but of course you will never admit
it.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

nvb

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1hhWfRoKLTLSxjsYznGM3wJ_uMu90mH646F3p9Zj6urg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:14 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:40 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*
>
>
> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it.
>
>

I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong..

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRQVRJJ77TTKXEADbVL-qS5ZuCuGELGEKcd6meDPi5Wvg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:40 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*


Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

urw




>> >> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem
 and locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if
 any theory that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental
 observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on 
 Bell's
 theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is:
 *"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related
 results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is
 incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"*
 And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:
 *"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
 underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
 measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
 Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
 called the assumption of locality)"*

>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv08F%2B%2BLENzECL7G5AKp0OQK3BMw-0Eyeh4%3DEOoj25VLcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:31 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
>>> locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any
>>> theory that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental
>>> observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on 
>>> Bell's
>>> theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is:
>>> *"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related
>>> results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is
>>> incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"*
>>> And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:
>>> *"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
>>> underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
>>> measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
>>> Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
>>> called the assumption of locality)"*
>>>
>>
>> > *Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.* [...]   *as
>> I have said several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it.*
>>
>
> So let's see, Wikipedia is wrong, John Stewart Bell is wrong, and
> high school algebra is wrong, but Bruce Kellett is absolutely positively
> 100% correct. Have I got that about right?
>

Get a grip, John. That is not what I said. The Bell inequality can be
derived without assuming realism, so realism is irrelevant to the issue.


*> In fact, the assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM
>> itself does not have this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and
>> non-realist.*
>
>
> What are you talking about? The non-existence of a property does not
> render it meaningless, dragons don't exist but I know what the word means,
> it's not gibberish. And like Quantum Mechanics Many Worlds is also
> non-realistic, good thing too because otherwise it wouldn't match
> experimental results.
>

You really have lost the plot, haven't you!

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT9Vd%3D_fi-xLbTN3GOka98GH9TqQcBUOsuc75d2GxZFJw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:



>> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
>> locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any
>> theory that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental
>> observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on 
>> Bell's
>> theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is:
>> *"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related
>> results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is
>> incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"*
>> And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:
>> *"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
>> underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
>> measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
>> Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
>> called the assumption of locality)"*
>>
>
> > *Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.* [...]   *as
> I have said several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it.*
>

So let's see, Wikipedia is wrong, John Stewart Bell is wrong, and high
school algebra is wrong, but Bruce Kellett is absolutely positively 100%
correct. Have I got that about right?

*> In fact, the assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM
> itself does not have this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and
> non-realist.*


What are you talking about? The non-existence of a property does not render
it meaningless, dragons don't exist but I know what the word means, it's
not gibberish. And like Quantum Mechanics Many Worlds is also
non-realistic, good thing too because otherwise it wouldn't match
experimental results.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

nwm


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ALk7pdr2Z0KmVC3VYMA_UBOZwE9-bO7L4%2Bo9d6FY3gg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:34 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra  wrote:
>>
>
>
> >> Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories
>>
>>
>> > *It is difficult to know how to respond to this absurd idea. I have
>> read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality in quantum mechanics
>> and I have never met this contention before.*
>>
>
> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
> locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any
> theory that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental
> observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's
> theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is:
>
> *"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related
> results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is
> incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"*
>
> And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:
>
> *"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
> underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
> measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
> Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
> called the assumption of locality)"*
>

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. The derivation of
the Bell inequality that you refer to in Wikipedia is not the derivation
given by Bell in his original papers. Bell's own derivation appears later
in the article, and you can see that Bell does not make the realism
assumption. Since the inequality can be derived without this assumption,
violating relaasm makes no difference to the overall result. The
correlations in any local theory must satisfy the inequality. Bell shows
that the quantum mechanical correlations violate the inequality, so quantum
mechanics cannot be a local theory, and any hidden variable completion of
QM must also be non-local. Other people have claimed that Bell made a whole
range of other assumptions that their pet theories violate, thus rendering
Be;ll's theorem toothless. But one is hard-pressed to see where any of
these supposed additional assumptions come in. In fact, the range of things
sometimes said to be assumed are often contradictory.

The important point is that Bell used a particular implementation of the
idea of locality for his theorem, and few other assumptions (the main one
being the absence of superdeterminism), leaving the consequence of
violations of the inequality pretty clear -- any such theory must be
non-local. Quantum mechanics violates the inequality, therefore quantum
mechanics is intrinsically non-local. Experiment confirms the quantum
mechanical predictions. But since the inequality itself does not depend on
any assumption of realism, the observed violations cannot be explained by
claiming that the theory is local but non-realistic -- as I have said
several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it. The Wikipedia article
is quite misleading in this respect because it does not make clear that the
result can also be derived without assuming realism (measurement results
exist in the state *before* the measurement is performed.) In fact, the
assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM itself does not have
this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and non-realist.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTUV-9kzw6tWaGh0t2DdQ45Uzr2guq435kR7wrSyyxJjA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread John Clark 
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra  wrote:
>


>> Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories
>
>
> > *It is difficult to know how to respond to this absurd idea. I have
> read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality in quantum mechanics
> and I have never met this contention before.*
>

Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any theory
that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental observations?
Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem
you should know that because the very first sentence is:

*"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results
in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible
with local hidden-variable theories"*

And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:

*"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
called the assumption of locality)"*

And I might add that in the duel between theories that assume local realism
and quantum mechanics, experimental observation has determined that the
undisputed winner was quantum mechanics.

> standard QM has no explanation for the correlations


Yes. That has been the standard complaint about Quantum Mechanics since the
day it was invented, it can tell you what will happen with very high
precision but it can't tell you why, that's why quantum interpretation has
become a major industry and why very few ever felt there was a need for a
Newtonian interpretation. The leading interpretation, if you could even
call it an interpretation, is the one from Copenhagen which is so vague
it's not even wrong, the second most popular is "Shut Up And Calculate"
which works fine if you're only interested in engineering considerations,
the third most popular is Many Worlds which starts from the experimentally
derived *FACT* that things cannot be both local and realistic and then just
follows to where Schrodinger's Equation leads.  And it turns out it leads
to many worlds.


>
>>
>> * >> You seem to pretend that it's a theorem of QM, in which case one
>> would start from the postulates of QM and derive bounds on correlations for
>> any system described by a local Hamiltonian. That's obviously not true.*
>>
>
> > Strange, then, that John Bell managed to do that.
>

As I mentioned before, in John Bell's paper where he derived his inequality
he first assumed that things were both realistic and local and then just
used high school algebra and logic, he didn't use any Quantum Mechanics at
all to derive it, although he did show that his inequality was incompatible
with Quantum Mechanics. At the time he didn't know if his inequality was
true or not because it would be about two decades before it was
experimentally shown to be untrue. Since nobody believed that Bell's
algebra or logic was wrong the only conclusion was that the starting
assumption must be incorrect and things could not be locally realistic. If
it had been experimentally found that the inequality was true then that
would have proven that Quantum Mechanics made a wrong prediction and so
must be incomplete, but that's not the way things turned out.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

okx


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0oVTMGybnMP0Fnj7pYnEx98QMzgZbyQtLHZ%3D2ScwBDww%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

2023-09-05 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List 
According to John Bell, if A is one of the two wings of a typical Bell 
apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, and 
if B is the other of the two wings, j is the observable to be measured in B and 
y its possible value, and if Lambda is the hidden-variable joint state 
description of the composite (entangled) quantum system, we can write the 
following
 
Bell factorisability condition
 
p_A,B,Lambda (x,y|i,j) = p_A,Lambda (x|i) p_B,Lambda (y|j)
 
which just means that the joint probability of outcomes x and y, for 
measurements of observables i and j, in the A and B wings, is equal to the 
product of the the separate probabilities.
 
We know that so many experiments have shown the expression above is far from 
reality. In other words it is well known that this factorisability condition is 
violated by quantum mechanics (QM).
 
Following Jarrett (and also Shimony, Howard, Cushing, Suppes, van Fraassen, and 
others) the Bell factorisability condition is equivalent to two independent 
conditions,
 
Locality Condition
 
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j) = p_A,Lambda (x|i)
 
p_B,Lambda (y|i,j) = p_B,Lambda (y|j)
 
Separability Condition
 
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j,y) = p_A,Lambda (x|i,j)
 
p_B,Lambda (y|i,j,x) = P_B,Lambda (y|i,j)
 
where Locality is defined as: Given two systems A and B, space-like separated, 
the state of A cannot be influenced by events (measurements) on B, and 
viceversa.
 
where Separability is defined as: Two systems, separated by some 
spatio-temporal interval, possess their own separate states, regardless of 
their previous history, and the joint state is completely determined by their 
own separate states.
 
Eberhard, Page, Shimony, Ghirardi (et al.) have shown that QM only implies the 
violation of the Separability condition (the world is non-separable, there is 
wholeness, there is some tao in physics) .
 
In other words it is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, 
Howard, Cushing, Eberhard, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that QM 
violates the Separability condition but does not violate the Locality condition.
 
In physical terms the above means that QM does not allow faster than light 
(FTL) signaling (Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento, 46B, 1978, 392; Ghirardi et al., 
Found. Phys., 23, 1993, 341).
 
It is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, Howard, Eberhard, 
Cushing, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that a “deterministic” theory 
(i.e. one in which the range of any probability distribution of outcomes is the 
set: 0 or 1) reproducing all the predictions of QM, does not violate the 
Separability Condition, but must violate the Locality Condition.
 
In fact the Separability Condition means that ...
 
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j,y) = p_A,Lambda (x|i,j)
 
p_B,Lambda (y|i,j,x) = P_B,Lambda (y|i,j)
 
so, if the specification of Lambda, i, j, in principle determines completely 
the outcomes x, y, then any additional conditioning on x or y is superfluous, 
having x and y just one value allowed, so they cannot affect the probability, 
which (in a deterministic theory) can take just the values 0 or 1.
 
Thus a *deterministic* QM can not violate the Separability Condition and must 
violate the Locality Condition, which means ... faster than light (FTL) 
signaling.
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/90209207.4416216.1693905304189%40mail1.libero.it.