I A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[physika]

"The idea is that it however has todo with interacting information processing"

"there indeed is a generic phenomena, that exists... ...in self-organizing process... ...and self-organization, naturally happens... ...when the parts process and act upon information about other parts."

As
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/s36

 

[DrChinese]

1. So this is second post with quotes. I am nit sure that the first post was tagged to you. So just in case, just letting you know there is another post above which quotes from paper specifically about spin correlations.

2. These authors I will quote... https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0767

3. We now let only two doctors, one in Lille and one in Lyon perform the examinations...

4. "The mistake here is that Bell and followers insist from the start that the same element of reality occurs for the three different experiments with three different setting pairs. This assumption implies the existence of the combinatorial-topological cyclicity that in turn implies the validity of a non-trivial inequality but has no physical basis. Why should the elements of reality not all be different?"

1. Yes, I saw.


2. I have been following the deRaedt team's work for 15+ years. One of the early members of my list of Bell deniers. I think their work is sufficiently well known amongst the community at large; I reject their conclusions as has the community.


3. As I have said repeatedly, examples such as these have no relevance or analogy to QM. I have given you a simple challenge, one that involves not Bell but EPR. You see: EPR demonstrated that perfect correlations with entangled particles (systems that have interacted in the past) imply QM is incomplete or wrong. Well, back then there had never been an experiment with entanglement. And guess what, Remote Entanglement Swapping had never even been considered in anyone's wildest dreams. So the following challenge is simply a moderns re-creation of EPR. Hopefully this challenge will show any doubters the importance of the experimental results of the past 35 years.

There is a card player named Alice in Lille, and another named Bob in Lyon. Their card decks are completely uncorrelated. They can shuffle or even arrange their decks as they like, as long as there has been no communication or pre-arranged agreement between them. Then a magician named Chris in distant Paris snaps her fingers, and instantly: the Lille and Lyon card decks are perfectly correlated to the following standard. Dale, an observer in Versailles, selects a number from 1 to 52 as N. He phones Lille and Lyon and asks for the color of their Nth card in their respective decks. Amazingly, each of the decks produces the same color card for the Nth card. This trick is repeated as often as desired, with the same results. At no time is there any communication between the principals, other than Dale getting the results from Alice and Bob. How is this trick performed without breaking the rules?

This is the analogy that MUST be explained by anyone pretending there is local realism. This is NOT reproducing Bell, and has no assumptions regarding any of the red herrings presented by hand waving Bell Deniers respected scientific authors/teams with alternative opinions. This is simply reproducing the 1935 EPR elements of reality in 2024 form. "If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding lo this physical quantity " With Remote Entanglement Swapping from Independent Sources, the elements of reality have never been in a common backward light cone.

Care to explain this modern version using specifics? This is as simple as it gets before eventalking about Bell. You start with completely uncorrelated photons, and end up with completely correlated photons. I've already referenced multiple experimental papers by Zeilinger teams and others, let me know if you need those.


4. As mentioned, Bell not involved.

 

[iste]

Remote Entanglement Swapping

This is not a big concern to me. Barandes' formulation can account for entanglement swapping. The relationship between generalized stochastic systems and quantum mechanics is bi-directional so you don't even have to construct a stochastic version of entanglement swapping experiments, you can just directly translate the quantum description into a stochastic one and it will retain the same behaviors but with trajectories of realized outcomes.

And Barandes' formulation is centered around violations for total probability for Markov properties. Violations of total probability signify breakdowns of joint probability distributions so the formulation seems to be amenable to the same kind of analysis of its own non-local phenomena in terms of Fine's theorem, absent joint probability distributions etc.

How is this trick performed without breaking the rules?

This is the analogy that MUST be explained by anyone pretending there is local realism.

Well presumably an example like this is assuming non-contextuality. From the perspective I have been arguing, and Fine's theorem, certain kinds of context-dependent statistics at each of the respective cities may be enough to preclude a joint probability distribution. Bell violations may just follow from that.

I think we just aren't going to agree because we have fundamentally different assumptions. You want a kind of explicit, detailed local-causal chain of events connecting the distant events; but from my perspective, this just doesn't exist. For me, it isn't necessary if you just look at the Bell violations as equivalent to joint probability violations - a formal relationship that just looks very, very strange and unintuitive but is not fundamentally about local chains of events, or indeed any kind of causal directionality. The equivalence seems well-established: e.g. another modern reaffirmation of Fine's theorem below.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0264

"We show that contextuality, and non-locality as a special case, correspond exactly to obstructions to the existence of global sections [which defines a distribution on all measurement outcomes]."

Definite particle properties are then compatible with this if you allow an ensemble interpretation of the statistics and stochastic behavior in their trajectories.

So I don't understand the need for the kind of explanation you want when the presence of incompatible observables seems enough. Until one person changes their assumption then we just cannot agree, I guess.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Well presumably an example like this is assuming non-contextuality.

I think we just aren't going to agree because we have fundamentally different assumptions. You want a kind of explicit, detailed local-causal chain of events connecting the distant events; but from my perspective, this just doesn't exist.

2. Definite particle properties are then compatible with this if you allow an ensemble interpretation of the statistics and stochastic behavior in their trajectories.

So I don't understand the need for the kind of explanation you want when the presence of incompatible observables seems enough. Until one person changes their assumption then we just cannot agree, I guess.

1. Again, there are no assumptions at all, and certainly nothing whatsoever about contextuality (or not). It is simply a prediction of QM that any interpretation must to explain. This is 1935 thinking, pre-Bell, just nonlocal EPR "elements of reality" that are demonstrated experimentally by modern experiments with independent and distant sources.

There is no "detailed local-causal chain of events connecting the distant events; but from my perspective, this just doesn't exist" because... there IS quantum nonlocality. Not sure why you keep saying there are "local interactions" without saying there are nonlocal influences. Either there is nonlocality in Barandes' ideas (and yours) - or there is not. Which?

2. There are no ensemble statistics or "incompatible observables" here. Perfect correlations from distant systems that have never interacted eliminate all that.

While I don't agree we have different assumptions, I do agree that you refuse to address this simple challenge - that is already demonstrated experimentally as I have indicated.

Penn and Teller can wave their hands and magic happens, but this is actual science. How do those previously uncorrelated and distant decks of cards become correlated without a nonlocal influence? Anyone?

 

[martinbn]

How do those previously uncorrelated and distant decks of cards become correlated without a nonlocal influence? Anyone?

I don't think your challenge is fair. What you describe cannot be done with QM either.

 

[Fra]

Before I say anyone I am sensing again the old confusion what nonlocality means. We know that what Bell means, it's essentially the violation of the inequality; this KIND of "nonlocality" is of course not a problem per see and does not imply FTL-violations.

1. Again, there are no assumptions at all, and certainly nothing whatsoever about contextuality (or not). It is simply a prediction of QM that any interpretation must to explain. This is 1935 thinking, pre-Bell, just nonlocal EPR "elements of reality" that are demonstrated experimentally by modern experiments with independent and distant sources.

There is no "detailed local-causal chain of events connecting the distant events; but from my perspective, this just doesn't exist" because... there IS quantum nonlocality. Not sure why you keep saying there are "local interactions" without saying there are nonlocal influences. Either there is nonlocality in Barandes' ideas (and yours) - or there is not. Which?

2. There are no ensemble statistics or "incompatible observables" here. Perfect correlations from distant systems that have never interacted eliminate all that.

While I don't agree we have different assumptions, I do agree that you refuse to address this simple challenge - that is already demonstrated experimentally as I have indicated.

Penn and Teller can wave their hands and magic happens, but this is actual science. How do those previously uncorrelated and distant decks of cards become correlated without a nonlocal influence? Anyone?

My personal take on the "remote entanglement swapping" that you often hightlight is that it is just a combination of two independently correlated systems/pairs, that are post-filtered (the SWAP) thereby you achieve the entanglement between two partifcles that "never communicated". But this was debated in other threads, and I lost interest in the details, but I think you never got convinced to see it like this. Without the information from the SWAP even, you can never conclude the entanglement.

For me there core mystery in entanglement swapping is that same as in original entanglement, it's just a more complex example, that may rather obscure than clarify.

/Fredrik

 

[RUTA]

I don't think your challenge is fair. What you describe cannot be done with QM either.

Yes, more information than merely "snapping his fingers" is needed in order to produce an accurate analogy :-)

In quantum mechanics, the state providing the distribution of outcomes among the detectors contains information about the entire spatiotemporal context of the experiment given a particular source and its detectors (usually just implied, but necessary for understanding what the state is describing). I'm not talking about hidden variables, what I'm saying applies to the quantum state even if it is assumed to be complete. You have to know what the symbols in the mathematical representation of the state mean in terms of detectors for a source and their locations and/or orientations in space, so as to make physical sense of the distribution of outcomes for the experiment.

For example, the singlet state says when the detector settings are the same Alice and Bob will get opposite outcomes. So, you need to know what a detector and its settings are, what an outcome means for that detector, and you need a source that produces those outcomes for those detectors.

Anyway, we need all that information in the analogy so we can answer the challenge.

 

[Fra]

Anyway, we need all that information in the analogy so we can answer the challenge.

I think Dr Chinese meant that it's up to those that suggest that we can understand the logic of "quantum entanglement" outside of physics, such as in human interations - to complete the example. (Reasonable i admit!)

I think it may be possible but it takes some creativity to construct an example involving decks.

But I think an example must involve some kind of betting in an expectation game is required. I havent felt motivated to just that but i presume those researching game theory in relation to quantum strategies in economy might have some exsmpmes?

I googled and found this recent paper...

Bell correlations outside physics​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31441-x

/Fredrik

 

[DrChinese]

1. I don't think your challenge is fair. What you describe cannot be done with QM either.

2. Yes, more information than merely "snapping his fingers" is needed in order to produce an accurate analogy :-)

In quantum mechanics, the state providing the distribution of outcomes among the detectors contains information about the entire spatiotemporal context of the experiment given a particular source and its detectors (usually just implied, but necessary for understanding what the state is describing). I'm not talking about hidden variables, what I'm saying applies to the quantum state even if it is assumed to be complete.

3. My personal take on the "remote entanglement swapping" that you often hightlight is that it is just a combination of two independently correlated systems/pairs, that are post-filtered (the SWAP) thereby you achieve the entanglement between two partifcles that "never communicated".

1. It can be done and has been done. Here is the reference:

High-fidelity entanglement swapping with fully independent sources

Initially entangled Photons 1 and 2 (state ψ-) originate from the Slave, initially entangled Photons 3 and 4 (also state ψ-) originate from the Master. There is no initial correlation between Photons 1 and 4, which are created distant from each other (in terms of light speed). After a remote Bell State Measurement (BSM) on Photons 2 and 3, Photons 1 and 4 become perfectly correlated in one of 4 possible (and random) Bell states, only 2 of which can be identified (ψ+ or ψ-). The experiment only uses 4 fold relative coincidences within the specified time window, all others are ignored.

2. Sure, I simplified for example purposes. Although fleshing it out changes little for the challenge itself. And I agree with you statement about "entire spatiotemporal context of the experiment".

3. How do you post-filter something "here" and cause it to correlate something "there"? The final correlated pair has never been in the vicinity of each other, and are also separated from the swapping mechanism (BSM).

---

Original challenge: There is a card player named Alice in Lille, and another named Bob in Lyon. Their card decks are completely uncorrelated. They can shuffle or even arrange their decks as they like, as long as there has been no communication or pre-arranged agreement between them. Then a magician named Chris in distant Paris snaps her fingers, and instantly: the Lille and Lyon card decks are perfectly correlated to the following standard. Dale, an observer in Versailles, selects a number from 1 to 52 as N. He phones Lille and Lyon and asks for the color of their Nth card in their respective decks. Amazingly, each of the decks produces the same color card for the Nth card. This trick is repeated as often as desired, with the same results. At no time is there any communication between the principals, other than Dale getting the results from Alice and Bob. How is this trick performed without breaking the rules?

So to satisfy on some of the details of the analogy, let's clarify as follows:

1. In my original analogy: there were only 2 decks; but @RUTA wants more than a finger snap from the magician in Paris. So we'll need 4 decks to be more true to the referenced experiment. We'll label the card decks 1/2/3/4 to match the Photons in the experiment. Each set of 4 Decks represents a single 4 fold coincidence (i.e. one useful trial) in the experiment. Obviously, this is an analogy and every element of the actual experiment cannot be modeled.

2. To keep the explanation simple, we'll treat the initial entanglement (between 1 & 2, and between 3 & 4) as being state ψ+, meaning that there is initially correlation rather than anti-correlation. So Alice in Lille shuffles a Deck (Deck 1) and then created an identical one (Deck 2). Bob in Lyon does the same to end up with 2 identical decks, Deck 3 and 4. No communication or pre-agreement is allowed between Alice and Bob as to their Deck preparation. These are independently prepared, as in the actual experiment.

3. Alice sends her Deck 2 to magician Chris in Paris, and Bob sends his Deck 3 to Paris as well.

4. Here the analogy breaks down a little, as there is no classical manner to model the experimental Bell State Measurement producing ψ+ or ψ- outcomes. But we will allow as follows: The final correlated state of Decks 1 & 4 can be correlated ψ+ or anti-correlated ψ-, just as in the experiment. The magician's snap of the fingers will then be: the magician Chris will select a card randomly (no pre-arrangements allowed!) from each of the decks (Deck 2 from Lille, Deck 3 from Lyon). If the cards are the same color, then the Decks remaining in Lille and Lyon are correlated. If they are different colors, they are anti-correlated.

5. Dale, the observer in Versailles, need to get a call from Chris to learn whether Chris sees cards indicating Alice and Bob's decks (1 and 4) are correlated, or anti-correlated. So in the end: Dale picks N (from 1 to 52), Alice and Bob check their respective Nth cards and phone those results to Dale, and Dale already knows whether they will be correlated or anti-correlated. So once Dale receives the call with the result (red or black) from Alice, Dale can predict with certainty the result Bob will report.

---

What's the point of all of this? We have now realized the original 1935 version of EPR elements of reality: "If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity." This result was anticipated pre-Bell based on general expectations on entanglement as known back then.

But we did so in our analogy (and in the realized referenced experiment) with an important twist they could never have envisioned: The random correlations/anti-correlations were created nonlocally, without any type of coordination or initial correlation of any type between Alice and Bob ("independent sources") - in distant cities in the analogy, but outside backward light cones in the experiment.

So, here we have no assumptions related to Bell at all. There is no assumption of contextuality or non-contextuality, nothing about counterfactuals, etc. Elements of reality are created remotely in systems that have never interacted (unlike in the original).

My question demand for any Interpretation denying any form of nonlocality is: Specifically, in terms of this card deck example: how are Bob's random outcomes able to be predicted with certainty when all of Alice's and Chris' actions are far away, too far away to be explained by influences at speeds of c or less?

Of course there is no problem if there exist FTL components within the interpretation; or if the interpretation makes provision for including the future context as part of the overall mechanism (as some "acausal" interpretations do). We don't understand how standard/minimal/Copenhagen/orthodox/textbook QM accounts for this, but the generally accepted explanation is that there is *something* called "quantum nonlocality" that fits the bill. Quantum nonlocality being, in the analogy, the magician Chris' finger snaps.

 

[iste]

Again, there are no assumptions at all, and certainly nothing whatsoever about contextuality (or not).

Alright, Yes I see. I guess I was implying that contextuality is all you need.

Not sure why you keep saying there are "local interactions" without saying there are nonlocal influences

I just think that non-local correlations do not need to be causal and therefore they do not need to be influences in a causal sense.

There are no ensemble statistics or "incompatible observables" here. Perfect correlations from distant systems that have never interacted eliminate all that.

Yes, I know there are no ensemble statistics in the example; it was just a little add-on that with these factors you can have definite particle properties. I don't think ensemble statistics don't prevent perfect correlations at all if Bell violations can be derived from the absence of joint probability distributions.

And incompatibility is responsible for Bell violations so I don't really understand how asking someone to solve some thought experiment without them says too much.

While I don't agree we have different assumptions, I do agree that you refuse to address this simple challenge - that is already demonstrated experimentally as I have indicated.

Because the challenge has been addressed by Fine's theorem probabilistically.

 

[martinbn]

@DrChinese what is the 52 analogus to? It seems that you want to match 52 cards here and 52 there for a given trial, but with photones there are no 52 values that you get for a given measurement.

 

[DrChinese]

@DrChinese what is the 52 analogus to? It seems that you want to match 52 cards here and 52 there for a given trial, but with photons there are no 52 values that you get for a given measurement.

It's an analogy, nothing magic about 52 per se other than the simple visual of a randomly arranged deck of cards. Half are red, half black, all mixed up. So the analogy with the color is like a photon's H> or V> polarization (or however you want to represent it - +/- or 1/-1 etc) at some angle setting to be measured by both Alice and Bob. And the 52? How many different angles are there in a full circle? Or in a quarter circle? Technically you could say: infinite. But for our purposes, 52 different angles yielding a binary result should suffice.

There is no way to arrange such a deck of cards so that it would reproduce the usual cos^2(theta) statistics, any more than you could pre-assign values for 52 different polarization measurement outcomes on a photon. But we don't need that to hold, as we are looking only for the EPR perfect correlations ("elements of reality").

I just think that non-local correlations do not need to be causal and therefore they do not need to be influences in a causal sense.

Who said anything about causal influences? The outcomes are random as far as anyone knows. Certainly not a requirement of the challenge for some A to cause B, anyway you can make it work if it gets the necessary result. But "something" must be influencing "something", whether it is mutual, directionless, or displays a preferred direction in time.

This is experimentally demonstrated, proving the elements of reality appear. People hate the terms "action at a distance" and "FTL", so "quantum nonlocality" it is.

 

[martinbn]

But you cannot measure one photon at 52 angles. You can do it for just one angle. And QM, at least standard text book QM, says that the observables for the different angles do not commute. You cannot have values for all of them like a deck of cards. The better analogy would be to fix the axis and have just one card per person. If you need more angles you need more trials.

 

[RUTA]

@DrChinese, that's one convoluted experiment! But, it does beautifully portray the spatiotemporally global, "all-at-once" nature of the outcome distributions and correlations due to the original two Bell states and all the measurement locations and settings in spacetime. If the Bell states are complete, then there are no card decks, just a single card at each measurement outcome. In that case, you can imagine choosing a setting for each measurement then placing a card at each measurement outcome so that all the outcomes are consistent with the Bell states and measurement settings used. Of course in doing so, you're operating 'outside' spacetime, so good luck telling that story via causal mechanisms within spacetime :-)

 

[DrChinese]

@DrChinese, that's one convoluted experiment! But, it does beautifully portray the spatiotemporally global, "all-at-once" nature of the outcome distributions and correlations due to the original two Bell states and all the measurement locations and settings in spacetime. If the Bell states are complete, then there are no card decks, just a single card at each measurement outcome. In that case, you can imagine choosing a setting for each measurement then placing a card at each measurement outcome so that all the outcomes are consistent with the Bell states and measurement settings used. Of course in doing so, you're operating 'outside' spacetime, so good luck telling that story via causal mechanisms within spacetime :-)

But you cannot measure one photon at 52 angles. You can do it for just one angle. And QM, at least standard text book QM, says that the observables for the different angles do not commute. You cannot have values for all of them like a deck of cards. The better analogy would be to fix the axis and have just one card per person. If you need more angles you need more trials.

Agreed completely for both of you, didn't mean to imply that the cards not selected must have specific values (although I see why that comes across). EPR explicitly admits that only one "element of reality" can be demonstrated at a time. They also say in a local hidden variable scenario (a more complete specification of the system) all counterfactual possibilities would be assumed to exist. Whether they do or don't, that's part of the challenge: your trick must still explain how to get perfect correlations.

So there is to be just one angle setting (the Nth card) selected and tested per trial. There is no assumption here other than Alice and Bob can produce a result for that one common setting - no other cards need be looked at. To match experiment, Alice and Bob must get matching colors each trial. But they don't know which card (angle) will be selected in advance (unless there is a mechanism that allows this)! Yes, I know that there are 52 cards in my deck example, but that's merely an artifact of trying to map a quantum example into something we can picture mentally. That being that there is a choice of many measurement bases, whether it be 52 (corresponding to a card deck), 360 (corresponding to number of degrees in a circle), or 8 (the number of pieces in my apple pie).

---

@RUTA It seems convoluted because I cannot express myself more concisely, sorry 'bout that. The whole thing about cities in France (Lille, Lyon, etc) stretches back to the Doctor/Patient analogy using those cities - which is a terrible analogy because it does not relate in any relevant way to quantum mechanical experiments. This example is built around perfect correlations a la EPR.

So this really is exactly as described in 1935 EPR with these 2 differences: a) we are looking at a spin basis* rather than the position/momentum basis; b) most important: the 2 systems have never interacted, nor is there sufficient time for any 3rd signal to be transmitted to them both (once they are entangled) indicating how they are to be measured (or how to otherwise synchronize).

For someone who holds the viewpoint of Relational BlockWorld (RBW): This challenge is successfully met, because the mechanism of RBW ("the trick") would include as relevant elements the full quantum context, including the future elements. Being "acausal", there is no issue connecting the dots between seemingly distant points in spacetime, even from future to past. Because those spacetime points will actually all be connected by "acausal lines of influence" (not sure what you might call them) that all respect c. Exactly as the experiment is constructed using photons, which of course move at c anyway. I would call this "local" but not "locally causal" **. And I would call it fully contextual, because there are no counterfactuals to consider.

So for anyone asking about a good example of an interpretation that is local and non-realistic (i.e. explicit contextuality, and no hidden variables): here it is!


*This change was introduced around the time of Bohm (circa 1950).

** "Causal" meaning here: a) Causes are distinguished from effects; and b) causes must precede effects. "Acausal" or "not causal" denying one or both of a) and b).

 

[martinbn]

@DrChinese I still don't understand the challenge. Alice shuffles a deck and creates an identical one. Bob does the same completely independently. They send one of their decks to Chris. He picks out a number, say 10, looks at the 10th card of each deck. Their colour may match or not. If they do, we check cards number 10 in the decks at Alice's and Bob's. They match of course. But this is trivial and classical. QM can do a lot more than that. Of course I realize that this is not what you meant by your challenge, this isn't a challenge at all. So what did you mean?

 

[Fra]

It is trivial becase we explained the correlation but haven't specified a interaction at say Alice which involves her deck. To just "look at the deck" is trivial, it's hard to get some interferences out of that.

I think the challenge is find an "interaction" involving the deck states that we can understand (maybe via via some rationally randomly betting IGUS/agent) and that shows outcomes that differs depending on wether the entangled decks sent to Chris are kept SECRET(=isolated) or not, from the gaming enviromment, and other "players" in the implicit environment.

My hunch is I think such an example should be possible, but I don't have one. If we find on, that may convince Dr Chinese to take the analogies to "social interactions" and other context where claims to demonstrated bell inequality more serioulsy. One problem with that however, is that do make such an example we need to construct the correspondence of the "hamiltonian" for such agent interactions. And I fear those who do not like this could still object that these constructiions are ambigous, as such hamiltionians would necessarily be only "effective" as one can not make a first principle modelling of two interacting agents as it would be a chaotical dynamical system.

/Fredrik

 

[DrChinese]

@DrChinese I still don't understand the challenge. Alice shuffles a deck and creates an identical one. Bob does the same completely independently. They send one of their decks to Chris. He picks out a number, say 10, looks at the 10th card of each deck. Their colour may match or not. If they do, we check cards number 10 in the decks at Alice's and Bob's. They match of course. But this is trivial and classical. QM can do a lot more than that. Of course I realize that this is not what you meant by your challenge, this isn't a challenge at all. So what did you mean?

No, Chris does a different thing with the copy decks 2 & 3, simply picking a card from each deck - this is supposed to be the analog of performing a Bell State Measurement (BSM). That is a separate action and is not directly correlated to the polarization of the Alice & Bell angle settings. It is indirectly related because it indicates whether Alice and Bob's Nth cards is going to be perfectly correlated or anti-correlated. What I had said about this was:

"The magician's snap of the fingers will then be: the magician Chris will select a card randomly (no pre-arrangements allowed!) from each of the decks (Deck 2 from Lille, Deck 3 from Lyon). If the cards are the same color, then the Decks remaining in Lille and Lyon are correlated. If they are different colors, they are anti-correlated. ... Dale, the observer in Versailles, need to get a call from Chris to learn whether Chris sees cards indicating Alice and Bob's decks (1 and 4) are correlated, or anti-correlated. So in the end: Dale picks N (from 1 to 52), Alice and Bob check their respective Nth cards and phone those results to Dale, and Dale already knows whether they will be correlated or anti-correlated. So once Dale receives the call with the result (red or black) from Alice, Dale can predict with certainty the result Bob will report."

What we are trying to show if the practical difficulties of hypothesizing a local mechanism that has nonlocal appearance in the Remote Entanglement Swapping scenario. I don't think any local causal mechanism can accomplish this. Where local means: influences (random or not) not to exceed c; and causal means: the identified cause must precede an identified effect.

1. It is trivial because we explained the correlation but haven't specified a interaction at say Alice which involves her deck.

2. I think the challenge is find an "interaction" involving the deck states that we can understand (maybe via via some rationally randomly betting IGUS/agent) and that shows outcomes that differs depending on wether the entangled decks sent to Chris are kept SECRET(=isolated) or not, from the gaming enviromment, and other "players" in the implicit environment.

My hunch is I think such an example should be possible, but I don't have one. If we find on, that may convince Dr Chinese to take the analogies to "social interactions" and other context where claims to demonstrated bell inequality more serioulsy.

1. See above, there is no trivial explanation. I just didn't explain well. The 1 and 4 decks are initially uncorrelated, therefore the Nth card in each of these decks will not be perfectly correlated in Lille and Lyon. Chris does something in Paris and then they are correlated (anticorrelated) for the Nth card, regardless of the selection of N.

2. In actual experiments, the deck copies sent to "Paris" have a Bell State Measurement performed on them. That creates an entangled state for Decks 1 & 4 (Photons 1 & 4). The BSM (on 2 & 3) does not reveal any information about the color of the card (polarization) for the Nth card (angle setting) for 1 & 4. Chris in Paris doesn't even know what N is. To that extent, I guess you could say there is a "secret".

3. Again, the original deRaedt et al "Doctors in Lille and Lyon" social example (I am long familiar with that) in no way represents an analogy to quantum mechanics. The only purpose of that contrived example is to show that a "Bell-like" classical limit can appear to be violated in a specific classical scenario. This isn't a debate about whether such an example is a disproof of some underlying assumption in Bell (which it isn't). Here, nowhere are we referencing Bell inequalities!

Instead, Bell built on EPR's perfect correlations. Many an anti-Bell idea has been tripped up by forgetting that perfect correlations are a requirement too, as well as explaining violation of Bell inequalities. But one thing none of EPR or Bell lived long enough to learn of the existence of remote swapping (teleportation first proposed circa 1993, Rosen died 1995). Had they lived to see these Report Entanglement Swapping experiments realized, they would have certainly realized that the original EPR concept ("elements of reality") would now require nonlocal influences to work out.

 

[martinbn]

No, Chris does a different thing with the copy decks 2 & 3, simply picking a card from each deck - this is supposed to be the analog of performing a Bell State Measurement (BSM). That is a separate action and is not directly correlated to the polarization of the Alice & Bell angle settings. It is indirectly related because it indicates whether Alice and Bob's Nth cards is going to be perfectly correlated or anti-correlated. What I had said about this was:

"The magician's snap of the fingers will then be: the magician Chris will select a card randomly (no pre-arrangements allowed!) from each of the decks (Deck 2 from Lille, Deck 3 from Lyon). If the cards are the same color, then the Decks remaining in Lille and Lyon are correlated. If they are different colors, they are anti-correlated. ... Dale, the observer in Versailles, need to get a call from Chris to learn whether Chris sees cards indicating Alice and Bob's decks (1 and 4) are correlated, or anti-correlated. So in the end: Dale picks N (from 1 to 52), Alice and Bob check their respective Nth cards and phone those results to Dale, and Dale already knows whether they will be correlated or anti-correlated. So once Dale receives the call with the result (red or black) from Alice, Dale can predict with certainty the result Bob will report."

What we are trying to show if the practical difficulties of hypothesizing a local mechanism that has nonlocal appearance in the Remote Entanglement Swapping scenario. I don't think any local causal mechanism can accomplish this. Where local means: influences (random or not) not to exceed c; and causal means: the identified cause must precede an identified effect.

1. See above, there is no trivial explanation. I just didn't explain well. The 1 and 4 decks are initially uncorrelated, therefore the Nth card in each of these decks will not be perfectly correlated in Lille and Lyon. Chris does something in Paris and then they are correlated (anticorrelated) for the Nth card, regardless of the selection of N.

2. In actual experiments, the deck copies sent to "Paris" have a Bell State Measurement performed on them. That creates an entangled state for Decks 1 & 4 (Photons 1 & 4). The BSM (on 2 & 3) does not reveal any information about the color of the card (polarization) for the Nth card (angle setting) for 1 & 4. Chris in Paris doesn't even know what N is. To that extent, I guess you could say there is a "secret".

3. Again, the original deRaedt et al "Doctors in Lille and Lyon" social example (I am long familiar with that) in no way represents an analogy to quantum mechanics. The only purpose of that contrived example is to show that a "Bell-like" classical limit can appear to be violated in a specific classical scenario. This isn't a debate about whether such an example is a disproof of some underlying assumption in Bell (which it isn't). Here, nowhere are we referencing Bell inequalities!

Instead, Bell built on EPR's perfect correlations. Many an anti-Bell idea has been tripped up by forgetting that perfect correlations are a requirement too, as well as explaining violation of Bell inequalities. But one thing none of EPR or Bell lived long enough to learn of the existence of remote swapping (teleportation first proposed circa 1993, Rosen died 1995). Had they lived to see these Report Entanglement Swapping experiments realized, they would have certainly realized that the original EPR concept ("elements of reality") would now require nonlocal influences to work out.

But i already objected to this and you agreed! The 52 cards represent 52 angles of measurment. On a given trial with photons 1, 2, 3 and 4 you can measure only for one angle for wach photon, not 52. You are asking for the two decks, 1 and 4, to become correlated, all 52 cards. There is nothing like that in the entaglement swaping case.

 

[DrChinese]

But i already objected to this and you agreed! The 52 cards represent 52 angles of measurment. On a given trial with photons 1, 2, 3 and 4 you can measure only for one angle for wach photon, not 52. You are asking for the two decks, 1 and 4, to become correlated, all 52 cards. There is nothing like that in the entaglement swaping case.

I agreed that there is no assumption that the entire decks must be correlated. Just the one 1 & 4 pair being tested (the Nth card), which were not previously correlated. But they must be correlated for each and every trial. How is the trick accomplished?

The issue here is that with EPR: They specified there was correlation because the system had previously interacted. While the details of the interaction itself were not known, presumably there was some conservation rule or other mechanism at work. But with the new "updated" version of EPR: There was no interaction. So what trick causes the swap to correlate distant systems if they have never interacted?

Obviously, this nonlocal twist could never have been foreseen by Einstein, Bohr, or even Bohm or Bell. They all passed away prior to the discovery of nonlocal swapping.

 

[martinbn]

I agreed that there is no assumption that the entire decks must be correlated. Just the one 1 & 4 pair being tested (the Nth card), which were not previously correlated. But they must be correlated for each and every trial. How is the trick accomplished?

But this is classical! He picks the Nth cards from decks 2 and 3. If they match, which they will with 50% chance, the Nth cards of deck 1 and 4 will too. This is trivial. And happens on every trial.

The issue here is that with EPR: They specified there was correlation because the system had previously interacted. While the details of the interaction itself were not known, presumably there was some conservation rule or other mechanism at work. But with the new "updated" version of EPR: There was no interaction. So what trick causes the swap to correlate distant systems if they have never interacted?

Well i explained it. There is nothing magical with the cards. There is something quite different with entangelment, but entanglement swapping doesn't add anithing new to it.

Obviously, this nonlocal twist could never have been foreseen by Einstein, Bohr, or even Bohm or Bell. They all passed away prior to the discovery of nonlocal swapping.

I am not familiar with the history and when it was all realized first, but that doesn't matter for this discussion.

 

[DrChinese]

But this is classical! He picks the Nth cards from decks 2 and 3. If they match, which they will with 50% chance, the Nth cards of deck 1 and 4 will too. This is trivial. And happens on every trial.

I’ll repeat: Chris in Paris is performing the card trick equivalent of a swap. She has no idea what N is, that information is not communicated to Paris. There is thus no opportunity for Chris to look at the Nth cards in the first place. That’s why the trick cannot be accomplished as you imagine.

Instead, Chris picks one card randomly from each of the 2 decks and communicates “match” or “no match” as to color. This is as close to the swap analogy as we can get. In an actual Bell State Measurement, there is a measurement of polarization as one component of the overall BSM. But it is at an angle fully independent of the angle settings of Alice and Bob.

 

[martinbn]

I’ll repeat: Chris in Paris is performing the card trick equivalent of a swap. She has no idea what N is, that information is not communicated to Paris. There is thus no opportunity for Chris to look at the Nth cards in the first place. That’s why the trick cannot be accomplished as you imagine.

Instead, Chris picks one card randomly from each of the 2 decks and communicates “match” or “no match” as to color. This is as close to the swap analogy as we can get. In an actual Bell State Measurement, there is a measurement of polarization as one component of the overall BSM. But it is at an angle fully independent of the angle settings of Alice and Bob.

Ok, but then you need to look at the corresponding cards in 1 and 4. Say Chris picked the 5th card in 2 and the 10th card in 3. Then the 5th card in 1 and the 10th in 4 will be correlated.

If this is not what you mean then run the experiment with specific outcomes, so that I can see what the challenge is.

Now I suspect that your desired analogy is not analogous to the swap at all. Then the challenge is not fair. But I will wait to see the example of an experimental run to see what exactly you ask.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Ok, but then you need to look at the corresponding cards in 1 and 4. Say Chris picked the 5th card in 2 and the 10th card in 3. Then the 5th card in 1 and the 10th in 4 will be correlated.

2. If this is not what you mean then run the experiment with specific outcomes, so that I can see what the challenge is.

1. Chris has no communication from anyone about what N is, i.e. selecting the Nth card. That's because in a Bell State Measurement (BSM) on photons (card decks) 2 & 3, the angle settings are held constant and do not change from trial to trial. The information gained from the BSM indicates a ψ+ (colors of 2 & 3 match in the analogy) or ψ- (2 & 3 don't match in the analogy).

The real BSM actually operates like this, just so you can see that there is no useful information gained as to the specific outcomes that will be seen by Alice (photon 1) and Bob (photon 4):

a) The 2 & 3 photons must overlap in time (i.e. be indistinguishable) at a beam splitter (BS), and they can either come out the same ports or different ports of the BS. Whether you have ψ+ or ψ-: one will always be vertically polarized |V> and the other will always be horizontally polarized |H>. They are therefore always orthogonal, and in principle should never directly interact.

b) Each output port of the single BS has a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) and 2 detectors at their output ports - one for the |V> and one for the |H>. So 1 BS, 2 PBSs and 4 detectors in total for the BSM. The angle orientation of the 2 PBSs are the same, but bears no specific relationship to anything happening with Alice's and Bob's settings. Again, this is held fixed from trial to trial.

c) If both detectors click on one side (the same output port of the BS), the resulting Bell state is ψ+. If they show up on different sides of the BS, the resulting Bell state is ψ-. ψ+ means the Alice and Bob outcomes will correlate perfectly at any same angle setting selected for them. ψ- means the Alice and Bob outcomes will anti-correlate perfectly at any same angle setting. In other words: since the polarization outcomes of 2 & 3 are always |HV> or |VH> (indistinguishable), their polarization makes no difference to learning whether there will be correlation or anti-correlation for Alice and Bob. It is whether the 2 & 3 photons appear on the same side - or different sides - of the BS output ports that determines that.

Now, this entire BSM process cannot be mapped directly to any card decks. So I am merely modeling it as if Chris in Paris essentially picks 2 random cards and therefore gets a random outcome - which we then associate with ψ+ or ψ-. And a random outcome is precisely what the actual BSM produces!

2. Sure.

a) Alice (decks 1 & 2, these are to be alike) and Bob (decks 3 & 4, also to be alike) shuffle (or otherwise arrange) their decks independently.

b) They send decks 2 & 3 to Chris, who does "something" which produces a + or - result, without knowing anything about how Dale will select N (the Nth card from each of decks 1 & 4). Let's say Chris see different colors (Red from deck 2, Black from deck 3) and calls that a "-" (which would be ψ-). Note again, this is simply a random outcome of whatever Chris does, just like the outcome of a real BSM is random.

c) Chris sends her "-" result to Dale. Dale then selects N=37 (which neither Alice nor Bob knew in advance). He gets the color of Alice's 37th card. It is Red. Dale immediately know that Bob's 37th card will be Black, because Chris' "-" results means anti-correlated on Alice/Bob colors.

d) More trials might look like this:
Chris "+", Dale N=12, Alice=Red, Bob=Red (as Dale predicted).
Chris "+", Dale N=49, Alice=Black, Bob=Black (as Dale predicted).
Chris "-", Dale N=49, Alice=Black, Bob=Red (as Dale predicted).
Chris "+", Dale N=20, Alice=Black, Bob=Black (as Dale predicted).
Chris "-", Dale N=12, Alice=Red, Bob=Black (as Dale predicted).
Chris "-", Dale N=32, Alice=Black, Bob=Red (as Dale predicted).

How can Dale make good predictions when Alice in Lille and Bob in Lyon don't know what each other are doing; Chris does not know N (which is selected by remote Dale) and is merely reporting a random "+" or "-"?

---

Each of Dale's successful predictions are the EPR definition of an "element of reality". Alice's measurement could not have affected Bob's outcome if local causality holds - they are distant. In the original EPR, they believed that such an element of reality occurred because the Alice and Bob particles had interacted in the past, and there would be conservation rules at play. Therefore the result of any measurements on Alice and Bob must be predetermined (at least that's what their logic told them).

In my "modern" version of EPR: There is an element of reality in each trial, just as in the original. But... the Alice and Bob particles had NEVER interacted in the past. So there is no conservation rules at play to explain the observed correlation/anti-correlation. That is replaced by Chris' Bell State Measurement, which is the "cause" of the swap. Chris is too far away from all of the others for the outcome of Chris' BSM to affect the outcomes of Alice and Bob's measurement, if local causality* holds.

• Bohmian explanation: There is explicitly nonlocality, so locality** fails.
• Relational Blockworld ( @RUTA hopefully you agree here) : Reality is "acausal", so causality* fails.
• Orthodox QM: Quantum nonlocality mechanism is not specified in the theory, but locality** and/or causality* fails and the theoretical predictions are upheld.

*Causality meaning: there is a) an identifiable cause which is separate from its effect; and b) the cause must precede the effect.
** Locality meaning: no physical influence can propagate or otherwise connect space-like separated particles or events.

 

[martinbn]

@DrChinese It seems that you want what Chris does to be a projection of the 2 and 3 onto a Bell state. Everything else is irrelevant. The nonlocality and entanglement swap are not needed at all. Your challenge is simply to create a Bell state using cards. It is also inconsistant because 1&2 and 3&4 at the begining are not in Bell states.

 

[DrChinese]

@DrChinese 1. It seems that you want what Chris does to be a projection of the 2 and 3 onto a Bell state. Everything else is irrelevant. The nonlocality and entanglement swap are not needed at all. Your challenge is simply to create a Bell state using cards.

2. It is also inconsistent because 1&2 and 3&4 at the beginning are not in Bell states.

1. You cannot model a Bell State Measurement via card decks, as I have said repeatedly. It is purely quantum, and the actual process is not well understood anyway*. That is an essential step in actual experiments, and creates a piece of information needed to decode whether you have ψ+ or ψ- as the resulting Bell State for remote photons (cards) 1 & 4. So yes, it's completely relevant and necessary.

2. Of course they are. As originally stated: they start in a correlated Bell state, ψ+. From post #159 item #2:

To keep the explanation simple, we'll treat the initial entanglement (between 1 & 2, and between 3 & 4) as being state ψ+, meaning that there is initially correlation rather than anti-correlation. So Alice in Lille shuffles a Deck (Deck 1) and then created an identical one (Deck 2). Bob in Lyon does the same to end up with 2 identical decks, Deck 3 and 4. No communication or pre-agreement is allowed between Alice and Bob as to their Deck preparation. These are independently prepared, as in the actual experiment.

---

As I keep saying: If there's someone believing in local causality out there who can explain how remote scientists can perfectly entangle 1 & 4 (creating an EPR element of reality) by doing something called a BSM (remotely as well), here's your chance.


*The rules for executing the BSM are well enough understood, as seen by the various experimental implementations. But what in the heck is going on with "indistinguishability" of orthogonal photons that presumably cannot interact anyway? That is needed to create the ψ+ or ψ- Bell state. If they become distinguishable, there is no Bell state and thus no remote swap.

 

[martinbn]

1. You cannot model a Bell State Measurement via card decks, as I have said repeatedly. It is purely quantum, and the actual process is not well understood anyway*. That is an essential step in actual experiments, and creates a piece of information needed to decode whether you have ψ+ or ψ- as the resulting Bell State for remote photons (cards) 1 & 4. So yes, it's completely relevant and necessary.

2. Of course they are. As originally stated: they start in a correlated Bell state, ψ+. From post #159 item #2:

To keep the explanation simple, we'll treat the initial entanglement (between 1 & 2, and between 3 & 4) as being state ψ+, meaning that there is initially correlation rather than anti-correlation. So Alice in Lille shuffles a Deck (Deck 1) and then created an identical one (Deck 2). Bob in Lyon does the same to end up with 2 identical decks, Deck 3 and 4. No communication or pre-agreement is allowed between Alice and Bob as to their Deck preparation. These are independently prepared, as in the actual experiment.

---

In 1. You say that it is impossible to have a Bell state with cards. In 2. You say that they are entangled. Which one is it?

As I keep saying: If there's someone believing in local causality out there who can explain how remote scientists can perfectly entangle 1 & 4 (creating an EPR element of reality) by doing something called a BSM (remotely as well), here's your chance.

Just to be clear, i know that it is not possible. I am just critisizing your challenge.

*The rules for executing the BSM are well enough understood, as seen by the various experimental implementations. But what in the heck is going on with "indistinguishability" of orthogonal photons that presumably cannot interact anyway? That is needed to create the ψ+ or ψ- Bell state. If they become distinguishable, there is no Bell state and thus no remote swap.

 

[DrChinese]

In 1. You say that it is impossible to have a Bell state with cards. In 2. You say that they are entangled. Which one is it?

2. Just to be clear, i know that it is not possible. I am just critisizing your challenge.

1. It's impossible to model a Bell State Measurement (BSM) with cards. Bell states are different.

You can model an entangled deck with cards, at least for perfect EPR correlations. To model the ψ+ Bell state, you sort 2 decks into the same order. To model ψ- Bell state, you sort the 2nd deck with Black cards where there are Red cards in the first deck, and vice versa. (These won't model a Bell test an angles where there is an Inequality, but that isn't necessary for this challenge.)

2. Good, we agree.

As to the challenge: After all the hand-waving that goes on in various debates about Bell, apparently the basic EPR version cannot be explained either (with the newer entanglement swapping experiments). The challenge is correct, but I readily admit I may not have expressed myself particularly concisely. Again, I was attempting to show that the De Raedt et al example (the Doctors in France) itself was not a useful or reasonable model of quantum behavior. I say that mine is much closer, and certainly easier to visualize because there are perfect correlations.

 

[Fra]

3. How do you post-filter something "here" and cause it to correlate something "there"? The final correlated pair has never been in the vicinity of each other, and are also separated from the swapping mechanism (BSM).

The final correlated 1&4 pairs are not even defined until Chris has tagged the matches and communicated to Alice and Bob so they can "filter" the random pairs.

The fact that 1&4 has never been in contact, does not matter because it's not how the remotely entangled systems are constructed.

They are constructed from two independently entangled pairs, and whose mutual "correlation" is CREATED from "filtering" based on the tag info from Chris. This is pure information processing, this is why there is no non-nocal action needed. This filtering can be done at any point in time, which is why order does not matter. But what does matter is that that info from swap tagging at Chris, must be available, otherwise one can never identify the entangled remote pairs.

Of course to maintaing the the quantum mechanical entanglement of a macroscopic objects like two deck of cards, is practically impossible, but the propose analogy i had in mind (but hae no example) lies at another level. Instead of considering the "physical interaction" of the deck of cards with the physical environment, the "interaction" is more towards the "gaming environment" or the "market". So the "interaction" is not about the litteral "cards", it's about the information the cards represent and how it influences someone playing and betting with them. It is a different abstraction, and "isolation" here does not mean the same as the isolation done with photons or electron pairs. But nothign in this thread or example explicitly defines such an example. I think this is what i meant by suggesting that the card deck example is trivial; you can't demonstrate the quantum interference unless you define the "gaming interaciton" that I envision. Just looking at the cards alone seems insufficient.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

1. It's impossible to model a Bell State Measurement (BSM) with cards. Bell states are different.

Yes. At least if you think of the physical state of the cards. One probably needs the gaming context, to make the illustration. With photons and electronics the context is inteactions with the polarizer for example, but the corresponding interaction between the state of the deck, and a betting agent is not defined, this is why the analogy is hard to see I think. But conceptually the agents behaviour, is reflecting the ignorance of the deck.
That would not corresond to the physicists ignorance of a hidden variable(falsified by bell), but more the polarizers ignorance of the hidden variable and the polarizer is informed from interacting constantly with the macroscopic enviroment(this is the difference). And in QM as it stands we have not "definition" or formalism for such concepts, which is again why the analogy is hard to see, it is certainly not explicit.

/Fredrik