Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 7, 2013 in Quantum Mechanics Research, Some reminiscences | 12 comments

Quantum Mechanics vs. Quantum business in Physics

No ArXiv endorsement

I did not get endorsed to post my paper on the quantum ArXiv, so I will just forget about it.  I gave XXX, whom I had asked to endorse me, a short summary of my results. His latest communication  is:

Hi Bryan

I am afraid I cannot follow, but then I haven’t read your paper and won’t be able to do so in the near future.

The two simulations / quantization axes make no sense to me on first glance.

Best

XXX

Apathy and skepticism are common responses to anyone that believes in local realism. Most think it impossible. I am concerned that the referees will similarly reject my paper without trying to understand it.  We will see.

Censorship in quantum information

There is a movement to talk about quantum mechanics as quantum information.  I agree with this because it emphasizes that quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement from which we get information. I view this as a limitation because Nature does not care what we know or measure. So I conclude, and my work shows, that in the absence of measurement new states exist. John Bell called these beables

Those in quantum information rest a lot of their work on the completeness of quantum mechanics so that entanglement and non-locality are used as resources to exploit. The problem with that is non-locality cannot be explained; is an absurd concept and is brushed aside as “quantum Weirdness.” When there are nagging doubts about something in my work I worry about them until they make sense. Experience shows me that if I brush something aside, it comes back later to bite me. So I feel that those in the field of quantum information must have the same uneasiness about non-locality. and a stubborn, even defensive, acceptance of Bell’s theorem. So there must be a sense of paranoia about this inexplicable property. Local realists are a thorn, and I will only shut up if I am shown to be wrong, or some other viable local realistic explanation comes along.

Please do not conclude that I am saying all physicists are paranoid, only that it is pervasive in quantum information. I cannot really talk about the rest of physics, but since a large amount rests upon the completeness of quantum mechanics, I believe that most physicists would be happy if some resolution of EPR were found.

Three types of Entangled blogs: Don’t understand; Re-telling the story; New Experiments

I visit various blogs and leave comments. In fact there are three types of EPR or entanglement blogs:

1. Those that ask a question because they are confused about non-locality.  Here is an example from

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?134909-Quantum-Entanglement-ideas&p=3075963

ok all, we know that entanglement of particles happens. a phenomenon in which two entities are inexorably linked no matter how far away from each other they may be. so far there is no explanation as to why or how this phenomenon occurs. my question is, has anyone got any theories as to how entanglement works as it does, and how it seems to skip the distance problem in space. i dont care how whacky your theory sounds, as nothing is as strange as entanglement anyway.

I see many of these like from, for example,

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52810-spin/

“I find this subject interesting, yet at the heart of quantum theory. If anyone has any eureka feelings about ” spin” at the quantum level please could you share them ! “

These questions are usually answered by people  trying to explain the impossible. I answer too and of course from my point of view. Frequently my comments get deleted.  Here is an example of censorship form the Physics Forums:

“Reason: General Warning
——-
Please do not post links to your personal webpage or refer to unpublished papers.”

Hey they gave me a demerit point too, :) .  How are new ideas communicated if we have to follow the (in this case erroneous) notions that have made it to press?  I am not promoting my webpage but trying to explain something in a different way. Of course I refer to my work. 

2. Then there is the group who have discovered the rich EPR history and blog about this.  Here are a few promoting the party line of non-locality;

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/03/16/george-and-johns-excellent-adventures-in-quantum-entanglement-part-two-video/

http://likethedew.com/2013/02/23/sciences-sacred-cows-locality/

There are many such blogs.  They are pedagogical and like to say the EPR lost and Bell won.

3. Then there are blogs with new fantastic experiments, like teleporting to the International Space Station

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/news/quantum-entanglement-experiment-to-take-place-aboard-the-international-space-station#.Uaz_JdK1Hgc

or others that like to close loopholes in the EPR experiments.  Loopholes are supposed to show the EPR experiments fail to vindicate non-locality,

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/23/third-bell-loophole-closed-for-photons

This type of blog presents data that is supposed to be more nails in the coffins of EPR and local realism. I commented on this site only to have it removed:  a colleague, who dares to challenge non-locality wrote to me saying:

“Looks like physicsworld deleted your comment. At the moment my reply is still there.
Quoting you. So I don’t think it will remain.

There’s an awful lot of propaganda and censorship in physics. Far more than the public appreciates.

Regards

XYZ

These along with many others, such as quantum erasures and other coincidence experiments, like to point out their work supports Bell and shows the Copenhagen interpretation correct (that is the wave-particle duality).

So why are my comments deleted?  I am not nasty, rude or belligerent.  All I do is call a spade a spade and ask how non-locality works. I then offer my explanation. I guess that some editors do not like my point of view, so ding, delete comment. 

 Censorship and ridicule have no place in Science

Censorship, intimidation and derogatory remarks are common if you are a local realist. At its very worst consider the personal and indefensible attack on Joy Christian of Oxford University.  I studied Joy’s work and it is quite close to mine.  Many do not like it, for example,

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1028

I have several blogs about that, but because Joy is against Bell, Sascha Vongehr decided to launch the following iniquitous web site:

Quantum Randi Challenge: Help Perimeter Physicist Joy Christian To Collect The Nobel Prize

to belittle and castigate Joy’s work and him personally.  Vongehr and some of his supporter sarcastically challenge Christian to prove local reality and any comments that supported Joy are not only deleted but sometimes modified to make the commentator look bad.  When I jumped in supporting Joy I got pilloried by Luboš Motl, who describes himself as a

“Czech physicist who left the Academia, Harvard and similar stuff.

Here are his comments about my posts supporting Joy:

 “The whole idea of yours that one should be searching for “something new” when it comes to the foundations of quantum mechanics is a misguided source of your crackpottery. People like you just refuse to learn basics of physics – they refuse to read any paper, book, or PDF file that makes any sense, just like what you did now once again – and they try to sell this clear defect as an advantage – oh, you’re so intellectual and original. Well, you’re not. You are just ignorant about basic physics and under proper circumstances, you should have never received a PhD, not even in chemistry.

And

So all your basic statements about all these things are just wrong. You should be ashamed of your failure to understand anything about the essence of the most important scientific breakthrough of the 20th century, instead of being as strikingly arrogant as you are. Pompous fools like you is something I simply cannot stand.

 

Joy Christian

This group launched a concerted effort against Joy Christian who had been at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo Canada.  The Perimeter institute removed his website and deleted his comments.  Lubos said:

http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/06/perimeter-institute-says-good-bye-to.html

In the final paragraph of a March 2012 blog entry, I encouraged the Perimeter Institute and Oxford University to cut their ties with an anti-Bell-theorem activist and the author of repetitive and smug, yet almost uncited (if you remove self-citations) and nonsensical papers irrationally assaulting this important theorem in particular and quantum mechanics in general, namely with Joy Christian.

They have listened – either to me or someone else who gave an equivalent recommendation.

There is a lot more to all this, and you might Google Joy Christian to see how different ideas are viewed in Physics and the unprofessional and malicious way his ideas have been received.

Well let us forget about these Crackpot sites and those that run and comment on it.  It is physics at its worst.

Rejected papers:

Not only does anyone who supports local realism get ostracized and attacked, but also their papers are rejected.  I once submitted a short paper with an idea against non-locality and the next day I got the refusal from Phys Rev. Letters.  I asked the editor for the referee comments and he replied:

“Our editorial policy is to reject, without external review, any paper that questions the veracity of non-locality.”

In conclusion, two points:

I hope it is now clear why I am apprehensive that my paper submitted to Physical Review A will not be fairly reviewed.  The Journal editors are very helpful, efficient and I imagine understand the politics involved, so I am not worried about them.  I am worried about the those blinkered physicists of the world who might review my paper from a biased point of view.  Imagine if Luboš Motl was a referee!!

Institutions, governments and organizations censor when they are paranoid.  The field of quantum information is paranoid because many recognize the absurdity of non-locality yet believe that quantum mechanics is complete–there is no way out of that. Many grants are given for research based upon entanglement and non-locality which proffer fantastic consequences like quantum teleportation and other commercialization based upon non-locality.  A colleague once said to me:

The trouble with you, Bryan, is you are doing quantum mechanics and your critics are doing quantum business.

 

12 Comments

  1. You paint a picture of a David and Goliath struggle between quantum physics and quantum business, but maybe you are not a neutral observer.

    Let me discuss one instance.

    I met Joy Christian several times and he seemed very nice, very dedicated, very interesting. He explained to me a lot about Geometric Algebra. So much that I was able to point out a little sign error hidden in the heart of his papers. I immediately became a bad guy, especially when I shared my discovery with other people who were fascinated by his claims but had difficulty understanding his ideas. Many people were greatful to me for my clarification.

    Joy had often reported that David Hestenes, a great hero of his and the creator of Geometric Algebra, had given Joy’s work his seal of approval. David had been recruited by Abner Shimony, Joy’s PhD supervisor, who was not convinced. So I approached David and asked him about this. He agreed with me!

    When this news came out, Hestenes rapidly became transferred from the class of Joy’s great scientific hero’s to the mass of algebraically challenged imbeciles who were incapable of bowing to his (Joy’s) greatness.

    Joy also talked to Karl Hess (at Illinois) whose work with Walter Phillip (RIP) got shot down by myself and Jan-Ake Larsson who found the inevitable error deep in their construction. I had corresponded with Hess and Phillip as soon as I read about their discovery in a Dutch daily newspaper. They claimed that Bell had forgotten about “time” but I had just published a paper fixing the so-called memory loophole. Unfortunately, they rapidly became aggressive and abusive and our correspondence ceased. Apparently, Phillip talked to Doob, famous probabilist, Illinois, who obviously had never heard of me. This way I became a “third rate statistician”.

    I didn’t notice you telling Joy off for his bad language and foolish behaviour. I hope you did so in private.

    I also didn’t notice any effort on your part to read my criticism of Joy’s work.

    Maybe you could have shown me I was wrong, in which case I would withdraw my paper criticizing his, and publicly apologize to him. I think that would make a big difference to him.

    Maybe, however, you could have found out I was right, in which case Joy’s difficulties with getting published would have a rather different explanation from the one you give in this blog.

    Are you afraid to know which outcome this experiment would have?

    This is an unscientific attitude. You are in love with your David and Goliath hypothesis, pick up every little bit of gossip which agrees with it, but make no effort whatsoever to independently verify claims or counterclaims.

  2. In my opinion whether someone is right or wrong, they do not deserve the treatment he received and the Quantum Crackpot site is a travesty. No matter what, agree or not, one should show respect.

    I know it takes two to tango, but the tone of the personal attacks and attempts to humiliate someone have, in my mind, no place is science and society.

  3. “No matter what, agree or not, one should show respect. I know it takes two to tango, but the tone of the personal attacks and attempts to humiliate someone have, in my mind, no place in science and society.”

    Agreed!

    I think that the basic idea of a quantum Randi challenge is a good idea. Quite a few people had been thinking of it quite independently of one another, and indeed already posed such challenges, in a friendly and open way, to individual researchers. Why don’t you post such a challenge here? The challenge should be fair and stringent. Fair means: you are not asked to do more than what everyone believes QM can do. Stringent means: strict rules on separation, possible values of outcomes of measurements, timing, and so on.

    For a CHSH type experiment (my favourite), N times:
    * a quantum source sends hidden variables to two quantum measurement stations
    * two independent random classical sources send a binary measurement setting to the two measurement stations
    * the two quantum measurement stations each output a binary measurement outcome

    Calculate four correlations (actually: raw product-moments) between the actually observed outcomes, for the four subsets of observations corresponding to each of the four pairs of possible setting combinations.

    Observe whether or not CHSH inequality is violated to a significant extent (e.g. more than half-way above the classical bound 2 on its way to the best QM value 2 sqrt 2).

    The person who believes they have a local realistic explanation for the singlet correlations has to come up with computer programs for the three “quantum” components (the quantum source and the quantum measurement stations). The rest of the framework is put together by independent referees.

    It occurred to me that one does not need to insist on separate quantum programs, provided the local realist is prepared to use three independent and time-synchronized streams of (classical) pseudo random number generators in the three components of their program; and provide the facility for saving and restoring initial states of the three random generators. This way the team of referees can check that the rules are satisfied, for instance, by repeating a particular run of the experiment with the same settings on one side of the experiment but different ones on the other side. If the same random number generator seeds are used, the outcomes on the side of the experiment whose settings were not changed, should stay the same. Similarly, if one does N=100 runs, and then repeat with same seeds but N=200 runs, the first 100 pairs of outcomes must be the same.

    So there is no need to have independent computer scientists verify the legality of the local realists programs by studying the source code – instead of this, we just run a routine batch of tests using the store/restore random generator seeds facility.

    Time to tango?

  4. PS I just found “my” suggestion for a save/restore facility for the random number generator in the local realist programs in the discussion between XXX and Chantal Roth, which you reproduce at http://quantummechanics.mchmultimedia.com/2013/quantum-mechanics/quantum-archives-censorship/

    Sorry, I had not yet read all of the correspondence in detail!. As you can confirm, I am not XXX, and I have to admit that XXX had priority for this idea. I do think it is brilliant. It means that we have no need for independent referees or computer specialists anymore, no need to insist on separate programs. We just have to run a standard batch of routine tests.

    We simply require: (1) a save/restore facility for the seed of your pseudo random generator; (2) the facility for the user to freely submit lists of input settings (detector angles…) for the two measurement stations; (3) your program outputs corresponding lists of binary measurement outcomes. The user can compute the correlations using standard statistical software (eg, R) and check against CHSH or whatever, themself.

  5. There is no error of any kind in my disproof of Bell’s theorem. The calculations in my papers and my book have been explicitly verified (in great detail) by well known and competent physicists such as Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, and many others. In particular, equations (1.22) to (1.25) on the page 10 of my book, as well as similar set of equations in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1653, have been explicitly verified by several high profile and exceptionally competent physicists and mathematicians around the world. In fact, any competent reader with only very basic skills in mathematics should be able to reproduce equations (1.22) to (1.25) of my book rather easily.

    Richard Gill has neither the qualification nor intellectual capacity to understand these equations, or carry out the calculations in my papers correctly. This was observed long time ago by Bill Schnieder, who spotted his error at once. Here is what Bill Schnieder wrote on the Physics Forums long time ago:

    “Richard Gill’s refutation is not a new critique. It is essentially the same as one of the critiques advanced by a certain Florin Moldoveanu in the fall last year to which Joy Christian has already replied. It originates from a misunderstanding of Joy’s framework which admittedly is not very easy to understand, especially for those who have blinders of one kind or another.

    Gill thinks Joy is using a convoluted more difficult method to do a calculation and prefers a different method which ultimately leads him to a different result, not realizing/understanding that the calculation method Joy used is demanded by his framework. This is hardly a serious critique, not unlike his failed critique of Hess and Phillip. He should at least have read Joy’s response to Moldoveanu which he apparently did not, since he does not cite or mention it. It’s been available since October 2011, one-month after Moldoveanu posted his critique.

    I remember [Moldoveanu] came here to boast about his critique and I pointed out his misunderstanding at the time in this thread:

    “… you are missing the point because Joy Christian is not using handedness as a convention but as the hidden variable itself.”

    This is the same error Gill has made. See section II of Joy’s response to Moldoveanu.”

    In fact Richard Gill’s errors are much more serious than this. The bottom line is that he has simply failed to understand my framework because of his own incompetence in mathematics and physics, as I have pointed out in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.

  6. We would indeed look strange if we were to tango! However I think we are almost in step. I am hopeful that you might extend your thinking of spin to two dimensions. Then many of the issues you raise would be clear to you.

    I do not have to comment on the computer program. I think by now we know that my simulation does not break the rules.

    To answer your question about the simulation of CHSH you suggest: I indeed get 2root2 for the correlation. It is all in the equations. Half comes from the z axis and half from the x. But they are incompatible and cannot simultaneously be measured–Heisenberg. In the z representation one can measure the z correlation, but the x components are quantum coherence terms and cannot be measured.

    So I get the CHSH from the z axis as root2 and from the x axis, in a different experiment, the same value of root2. Add the two together and I get the violation of CHSH of 2root2. This agrees with experiment too.

    CHSH is a classical equation. I am doing quantum mechanics and respecting non-commutation.

    So my simulation, according to the consequences of my 2D model, violates CHSH in its own way.

    In a nutshell, where we differ is between measurement (epistemology) and if that reveals Nature’s secrets (ontology). I find that what we see is not really the way Nature is.

  7. This does *not* agree with experiment. People do not do two experiments, get sqrt 2 in each, add the results, and then report that they observed a violation of CHSH. Your model does not explain what we actually observe in real experiments.

  8. Richard: it certainly does explain the experimental data. Do you agree that if you have a linear hermitian operator that depends upon two non-commuting operators, say A(sig(x),sig(z)), that you cannot measure everything in one experiment? That is you cannot beat Heisenberg?

    In that case you need two experiments–vintage Copenhagen. However the results will be inconclusive because the two data sets are indistinguishable.

  9. Dear Bryan, Joy, Richard…

    There was mention of some sort of ‘quantum Randi challenge’ by Richard:
    “Why don’t you post such a challenge here? The challenge should be fair and stringent. Fair means: you are not asked to do more than what everyone believes QM can do.”

    What? Why not ask for what QM is not expected to do? Only that way would we resolve the weirdness problem, and show what is really going on: right? So look no further. As far as I can tell, I am still the only one with demonstrable experiments that clearly defy QM. I do beam-split coincidence experiments. These are much simpler and more fundamental that the EPR type. Cadmium-109 emits one gamma-ray at a time. Without a beam-splitter, two detectors will read coincedence at at chance rate which is easily measured. With a beam-splitter I break chance, big time. One needs to choose a low frequency gamma, where the photoelectric effect efficiency of the detector exceeds the Compton effect efficiency for the unquantum effect to be noticed; that is one of the reasons why I am the first to report this. I did the test many ways, so it is not some special case, and I also split the atom, the alpha-ray, in a similar way. I interpret the results by the loading theory: there is a pre-loaded state at the detector that gets filled to give the illusion that a whole particle hit there. My unquantum.net website explains in detail why the loading theory was pre-maturely abandoned, and I show details of all my experiments.
    So if you are interested in an experiment that restores causality, the experiments I describe need to be reproduced; or alternatively, please help me set up a demonstration before physicists.
    I wish I understood the more formal QM of spin; I am studying it. If you really want to do an EPR type experiment, the way to do it is with gamma-rays and to resolve the problems that early workers had with that method. I have a design for that. That would give energy info that may resolve the missing component that is needed to do everything in one experiment, for Bryan’s theory.
    Thank you
    Eric S Reiter

  10. @ Eric S Reiter Thanks for your comments and also for your suggestion for experiments.

    Going on from what I have said, I view an entangled pair separating into a product which are correlated at the source. I call these bi-particles, for want of a better description. I believe there are a number of experiments that might be done that will help resolve whether they really are bi-particles or remain entangled.

    Perhaps I can have some more details of your suggestons?

  11. Brian:
    OK, the design is not fully worked out but here is the idea. Refer to paper: J phys. G vol 2 #9 pg 613, (1976) by Wilson, Lowe, Butt, and paper Nuovo Cimento Vol 25 B #2 feb (1975) pg 633 by Kasaday, Ullman, & Wu, and also paper Nuovo Comento vol 35 #1 (1976) pg 137 by Bohm, Hiley. The problem was that the gamma-ray polarization angles were not well defined because they used the Compton effect. The scattered gamma angle was well defined toward an NaI scintillator, but the deflected electron angle was not defined.
    Revise the experiment: the electron angle can be picked up with a PMT used as an electron multiplier. A pair of gammas from Na-22 will go to opposite direction legs. At each leg will be the PMT and NaI scintillator detector-pair. The glass of the PMT can serve as the scatterer to the NaI, and also as the source of electrons to the PMT’s electron multiplier (this part may need refinement or may not work). The direction of the electron within the PMT will need sorting. It is too difficult to get a slit inside a PMT, so the way to do it is with magnets and the Lawrence force to adjust the desired trajectory to the electron multiplier.

    I really think such an effort is premature because my earlier experiments destroy the probability-wave, restore the matter-wave and locality, etc. The correlated pairs of polarized light-wave bursts (gamma or light-rays) will determine the oppositely correlated spin-detection effect seen in EPR experiments, like you say. My work shows that the probability-wave and the Born interpretation are the problems. I never saw any problem with EPR experiments when pictured with the loading theory, but the above is my best idea for improving an EPR type experiment. With the above design, I do not think the results will change from agreeing with QM, but such a strategy may elucidate why QM works. Again, showing how/where QM works is not as good an experiment as one showing where QM fails. Thanks for asking.
    Eric S Reiter June 28, 2013.

  12. I meant to write “Lorentz,” not “Lawrence,” of course. Thank you.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>