A Copenhagen: Restriction on knowledge or restriction on ontology?

[stevendaryl]

A value on the card I assume. Let's just focus on the nonlocality. In your table how does it manifest?

The probability for each result for one particle depends on the setting for the measurement of the other particle.

 

[stevendaryl]

A value on the card I assume.

I'm asking you what $B_2$ means. You're saying it's an observable. I don't know what you mean by $B_2$. The way I set things up, there are two different things: the choice of what measurement to perform on the second particle, and then there's the result of that measurement. What do you mean by $B_2$?

 

[PeterDonis]

We have 16 possibilities, which we can characterize by 4 numbers: $A_j$, $a_j$, $B_j$, $b_j$ where $A_j$ is the $j^{th}$ measurement on the first particle, $a_j$ is the $j^{th}$ result of that measurement (either "up" or "down"), $B_j$ is the $j^{th}$ measurement on the second particle, and $b_j$ is the $j^{th}$ result of that measurement.

I think this is misstated. You are only making one measurement on each particle, so there is no need for an index $j$ saying which measurement. For $A$ and $B$, you have two possible orientations you can choose for the one measurement.

 

[PeterDonis]

take the observable $B_2$.

There is no observable $B_2$. There should not be an index on $A$ or $B$, since only one measurement is being made on each particle. See my post #153 just now.

 

[PeterDonis]

There is only a subset on which $B_{\frac{3\pi}{4}}$ is defined as a random variable.

I think the random variables for the measurement settings are just $A$ and $B$, both of which are defined on the entire sample space of 16 alternatives that @stevendaryl gave. What you are denoting $B_{\frac{3\pi}{4}}$ would be one of the two possible values of the random variable $B$, i.e., one of the two possible results of the random choice (coin flip) being made to determine the setting of the measurement $B$.

What I think you are trying to say here is that the random variables describing the results of the measurements for a given setting are not defined on the entire sample space. For example, the random variable that I would describe as $(b | B_{\frac{3\pi}{4}})$, i.e., "the result of the measurement on particle $b$ when the measurement device $B$ is set at angle $\frac{3\pi}{4}$", is only defined on a portion of the sample space, namely, the 8 out of 16 cases where that is indeed the setting of measurement device $B$.

 

[DarMM]

Yes you are correct @PeterDonis that's what I'm trying to say. Another way of saying it is that $S_{\frac{3\pi}{4}}$, just to indicate it is spin, is supposed to be a physical quantity and like momentum in statistical mechanics should be a random variable over the whole sample space.

Here it no longer is, but rather is the outcome of another random variable: "Device Setting". So perhaps we can agree that you can have a single sample space, but at the "price" of forgoing $S_{\theta}$, with $\theta$ any angle, being a physical quantity. The only physical quantity is "device setting", thus rendering the account non-representational.

 

[DarMM]

The probability for each result for one particle depends on the setting for the measurement of the other particle.

How is that enough to establish nonlocality rather than just correlation, i.e. isn't that just $P(R_1|R_2) \neq P(R_1)$

($R$ being the results)

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Hey, could you tell me what book/paper that quote is from?

It is from the book “Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science” by Werner Heisenberg (the book is an outgrowth of his Gifford Lectures at St Andrews University).

 

[Lord Jestocost]

But he forgets the collapse, which is not part of the minimal statistical interpretation ...

As Jan Faye puts it (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/):

"Second, many physicists and philosophers see the reduction of the wave function as an important part of the Copenhagen interpretation. But Bohr never talked about the collapse of the wave packet. Nor did it make sense for him to do so because this would mean that one must understand the wave function as referring to something physically real. Bohr spoke of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, including the state vector or the wave function, as a symbolic representation. Bohr associated the use of a pictorial representation with what can be visualized in space and time. Quantum systems are not vizualizable because their states cannot be tracked down in space and time as can classical systems. The reason is, according to Bohr, that a quantum system has no definite kinematical or dynamical state prior to any measurement. Also the fact that the mathematical formulation of quantum states consists of imaginary numbers tells us that the state vector is not susceptible to a pictorial interpretation (CC, p. 144). Thus, the state vector is symbolic. Here “symbolic” means that the state vector's representational function should not be taken literally but be considered a tool for the calculation of probabilities of observables."

 

[stevendaryl]

How is that enough to establish nonlocality rather than just correlation, i.e. isn't that just $P(R_1|R_2) \neq P(R_1)$

($R$ being the results)

I don't actually care whether it's local or nonlocal. The most obvious way to implement such a transition rule is:

1. Check to see which measurement is being performed on one particle. That's $A$.
2. Check to see which measurement is being performed on the other particle. That's $B$.
3. Use those two pieces of information to compute the probabilities for the pair $(a,b)$

 

[A. Neumaier]

As Jan Faye puts it (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/):

Faye identifies the Copenhagen interpretation with Bohr's views alone, whereas it is usually considered to be the whole spectrum of views in Bohr's and Heisenberg's writings. Note that Faye acknowledges that Heisenberg endorsed collapse:

it was Heisenberg's exposition of complementarity, and not Bohr's, with its emphasis on a privileged role for the observer and observer-induced wave packet collapse that became identical with that interpretation.

Moreover, I doubt that Faye is a completely reliable source. For example, in the same article he also claims that

Heisenberg, in contrast to Bohr, believed that the wave equation gave a causal, albeit probabilistic description of the free electron in configuration space.

This is in direct opposition with the quote from Heisenberg given in post #21, where he denies causality.

Finally, to show that Faye's position is not the consensus on the issue of collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation, note that

• Henderson, J. R. (2010), Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: Mechanisms of collapse as a typologically determinative, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 1-8.

writes in the abstract:

There are, however, several strains of Copenhagenism extant, each largely accepting Born’s assessment of the wave function as the most complete possible specification of a system and the notion of collapse as a completely random event.

 

[stevendaryl]

Here it no longer is, but rather is the outcome of another random variable: "Device Setting". So perhaps we can agree that you can have a single sample space, but at the "price" of forgoing $S_{\theta}$, with $\theta$ any angle, being a physical quantity. The only physical quantity is "device setting", thus rendering the account non-representational.

This has probably gone on long enough, but the point of this "toy" model is to realize the idea that the only thing that's "real" is macroscopic observables. Microscopic observables are calculational tools, merely. It's a toy model, not to be taken seriously. BUT I claim that it is empirically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics. I really think that the minimal interpretation basically amounts to this.

 

[stevendaryl]

I think this is misstated. You are only making one measurement on each particle, so there is no need for an index $j$ saying which measurement. For $A$ and $B$, you have two possible orientations you can choose for the one measurement.

What I meant is that there are 16 possible "situations": Which measurements were performed and what results attained. The index $j$ is over possibilities.

 

[DarMM]

This has probably gone on long enough, but the point of this "toy" model is to realize the idea that the only thing that's "real" is macroscopic observables. Microscopic observables are calculational tools, merely. It's a toy model, not to be taken seriously. BUT I claim that it is empirically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics. I really think that the minimal interpretation basically amounts to this.

I think that's fine and we've already agreed that essentially only one spin (let's say) observable gets to become a macroscopic observable in each round.

All that really matters here is the core of contextuality which can be seen in your table. If all spin measurements, $(S_x,S_y,S_z)$ say, could be amplified up to being macroscopic observables, then you could define them as random variables over the whole space. This would permit you the notion of random microscopic observables.

This is the core of the difference between QM and theories where nature is random but classically stochastic. The contextuality/counterfactual indefiniteness means you can only consider macroscopic observables to be real, where as in a classical stochastic theory you would be able to consider microscopic observables as real even if random.

Essentially it's not so much that I think what you are saying is wrong, but I don't see how it supports your original contention that contextuality has no real physical import in QM and doesn't present anything new beyond classical stochastic theories. As the entire literature and even your own example seem to say that it is exactly the core difference.

 

[vanhees71]

Faye identifies the Copenhagen interpretation with Bohr's views alone, whereas it is usually considered to be the whole spectrum of views in Bohr's and Heisenberg's writings. Note that Faye acknowledges that Heisenberg endorsed collapse:Moreover, I doubt that Faye is a completely reliable source. For example, in the same article he also claims that

This is in direct opposition with the quote from Heisenberg given in post #21, where he denies causality.

Finally, to show that Faye's position is not the consensus on the issue of collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation, note that

• Henderson, J. R. (2010), Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: Mechanisms of collapse as a typologically determinative, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 1-8.

writes in the abstract:

One must be a bit careful, because in the early writings particularly by Heisenberg there hasn't been made the very important difference between causality and determinism.

The modern view is, e.g., according to Schwinger, Quantum Mechanics, Springer Verlag (see the very concise Porlogue of this book about a very detailed exposition of a physical heuristics for QM) as follows:

(a) Causality (time-local form): If the state of a system is precisely known at time $t_0$ and the dynamics of the system is precisely known, then the state of the system is precisely und uniquely known at any later time $t>t_0$.

(b) Determinism: In any state any observable of a system takes a definite value.

Obviously in this sense QT is causal but not deterministic (at least in any probabilistic interpretation of the state, which is in my opinion so far the only consistent interpretation; an exception is Bohmian mechanics which is a deterministic interpretation, but so far not satisfactorily generalized to relativistic Q(F)T).

 

[A. Neumaier]

One must be a bit careful, because in the early writings particularly by Heisenberg there hasn't been made the very important difference between causality and determinism.

The modern view is, e.g., according to Schwinger, Quantum Mechanics, Springer Verlag (see the very concise Prologue of this book about a very detailed exposition of a physical heuristics for QM) as follows:

(a) Causality (time-local form): If the state of a system is precisely known at time $t_0$ and the dynamics of the system is precisely known, then the state of the system is precisely und uniquely known at any later time $t>t_0$.

(b) Determinism: In any state any observable of a system takes a definite value.

Obviously in this sense QT is causal but not deterministic

Well, the notion of state also changed with time.

In 1927, Born, Bohr and Heisenberg always equated ''state'' with ''stationary state'', and not with a general wave function. See the quotes given in post #21. These states preserve energy and momentum exactly (as all three authors emphasize) but don't respect causality in the form (a), which was also the notion used by Born, Bohr and Heisenberg.

In contrast, the modern notion of state respects causality in the form (a), but preserves in the statistical interpretation energy and momentum only on the average.

In my thermal interpretation, the q-expectation of total energy and total momentum are exactly conserved beables, and the collection of all q-expectations is causal and deterministic in your sense (a) and (b), since the observables are not the operators but their q-expectations.

 

[lodbrok]

But I refuse to think of it as formalism, with or without $\lambda$. I insist on thinking about it as possible events in the laboratory, which is quite Copenhagenish in spirit. In the case of spin measurement by SG apparatus, the possible outcomes are macroscopic dark spots on the screen at 4 possible positions (corresponding to 2 possible spins in direction $d1$ plus 2 possible spins in direction $d2$). Those 4 possible positions of macroscopic dark spots on the screen can certainly be placed in a single sample space.

No. DarMM is correct. You can't combine outcomes from two different experiments into the one sample space if the experiments are incompatible. The sample space corresponds to all possible outcomes from a single experiment. $d1$ is a different experiment from $d2$ and since you can't do both at the same time, you can't combine the their outcomes into one sample space.

 

[lodbrok]

As for why nature lacks counterfactuals, that goes unexplained.

Nature lacks counterfactuals because that is what it means to be counterfactual. It is an epistemological concept that can never exist in actually measured experimental data.

 

[zonde]

No. DarMM is correct. You can't combine outcomes from two different experiments into the one sample space if the experiments are incompatible. The sample space corresponds to all possible outcomes from a single experiment. $d1$ is a different experiment from $d2$ and since you can't do both at the same time, you can't combine the their outcomes into one sample space.

In post #76 I gave reference to an experiment where photon polarizations are measured in different bases as part of a single experiment.

 

[zonde]

Nature lacks counterfactuals because that is what it means to be counterfactual. It is an epistemological concept that can never exist in actually measured experimental data.

This of course is true, but when we discuss general properties of nature (rather than results of particular experiment) we are using models. And counterfactuals is the essence of models. Basically it is meaningless to use counterfactuals when we speak about facts (nature itself) and it is meaningless not to use counterfactuals when we speak about models (properties of nature).

 

[Demystifier]

No. DarMM is correct. You can't combine outcomes from two different experiments into the one sample space if the experiments are incompatible. The sample space corresponds to all possible outcomes from a single experiment. $d1$ is a different experiment from $d2$ and since you can't do both at the same time, you can't combine the their outcomes into one sample space.

What if the experiment is enriched with an additional piece of equipment that randomly decides whether the measurement will be performed in $d1$ or $d2$ direction? In this case all 4 outcomes are possible results of the measurement, so all 4 belong to the same sample space.

And by the way, in the consistent histories interpretation, which perhaps is the most ontological version of "Copenhagen" interpretation, those 4 outcomes correspond to 4 histories that belong to the same consistency class.

 

[Demystifier]

an exception is Bohmian mechanics which is a deterministic interpretation, but so far not satisfactorily generalized to relativistic Q(F)T

It depends on what one means by "satisfactorily". I am quite satisfied with the idea proposed in my signature below.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, the notion of state also changed with time.

In 1927, Born, Bohr and Heisenberg always equated ''state'' with ''stationary state'', and not with a general wave function. See the quotes given in post #21. These states preserve energy and momentum exactly (as all three authors emphasize) but don't respect causality in the form (a), which was also the notion used by Born, Bohr and Heisenberg.

In contrast, the modern notion of state respects causality in the form (a), but preserves in the statistical interpretation energy and momentum only on the average.

In my thermal interpretation, the q-expectation of total energy and total momentum are exactly conserved beables, and the collection of all q-expectations is causal and deterministic in your sense (a) and (b), since the observables are not the operators but their q-expectations.

A state cannot preserve energy and momentum or not. Energy and momentum are conserved if the Hamiltonian is not explicitly time-dependent and momentum if the Hamiltonian doesn't depend on position. In the formalism an observable $A$ (maybe explicitly time dependent) is conserved iff the operator for its time, derivative,
$$\mathring{\hat{A}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i} \hbar} [\hat{A},\hat{H}]+\partial_t \hat{A}=0.$$
A stationary state is, for a not explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonian, of the form
$$\hat{\rho}_{E}=\sum_{\alpha,\alpha'} \rho_{\alpha \alpha'} |\alpha,E \rangle \langle \alpha',E \rangle,$$
i.e., it's a state with definite energy. Here $|\alpha,E \rangle$ are the eigenstates of $\hat{H}$ with the eigenvalue $E$.

Of course, the quantum state obeys (a). If it's initial value at $t=t_0$ is known, it's known for all time due to the von Neumann equation,
$$\mathring{\hat{\rho}}=0.$$
QT is however not deterministic, because not all observables can take definite values for any state (within the probabilistic interpretation of QT a la Born and its modern generalizations).

Again, you repeat the WRONG statement that q-expectations are "beables" (in normal language "observables"). I don't need to expose this very early error of the founding fathers since I've done this at length at least twice within this very thread! The identification of q-expectations as the observables is not the common practice in the application of QT to real-world experiments, and it was your declared goal to formulate an interpretation meeting the modern application of the QT formalism to real-world experiments!

 

[A. Neumaier]

Energy and momentum are conserved if the Hamiltonian is not explicitly time-dependent and momentum if the Hamiltonian doesn't depend on position.

This is the case for every closed system, in particular for the universe as a whole. Of course I don't claim conservation in open systems.

Of course, the quantum state obeys (a).

Only the quantum state as interpreted today, which is what I had already asserted. But in 1927, the notion of state was different!

 

[Demystifier]

This of course is true, but when we discuss general properties of nature (rather than results of particular experiment) we are using models. And counterfactuals is the essence of models. Basically it is meaningless to use counterfactuals when we speak about facts (nature itself) and it is meaningless not to use counterfactuals when we speak about models (properties of nature).

Well said! There is no theoretical physics without counterfactuals.

 

[Demystifier]

"beables" (in normal language "observables")

Beables are not observables. The concept of beables was introduced by John Bell precisely to emphasize that they are different from observables. See e.g. the paper in my signature for more details.

 

[DarMM]

Nature lacks counterfactuals because that is what it means to be counterfactual. It is an epistemological concept that can never exist in actually measured experimental data.

Well certainly it lacks counterfactuals in the sense that if I put jam on my toast, then I didn't put marmalade on my toast, i.e. the event that didn't occur simply didn't occur. Only Many-Worlds lacks this factual definiteness as it is called in Quantum Foundations, since there all events occur.

However in the sense I mean here the point is that the variables you don't measure lack an outcome. This is distinct from classical mechanics where if I measure momentum it is still the case that there was a position value or if I only measure $L_z$ it is still the case that there were values for $(L_x, L_y, L_z)$. This is the counterfactual indefiniteness referred to here.

 

[DarMM]

What if the experiment is enriched with an additional piece of equipment that randomly decides whether the measurement will be performed in $d1$ or $d2$ direction? In this case all 4 outcomes are possible results of the measurement, so all 4 belong to the same sample space.

Yes, but the point is that there isn't an outcome of the form $(S_x, S_y, S_z)$ that's what is meant when it is said there isn't a single sample space. For example in your case the outcomes are:
$$
(heads, S_x = \frac{1}{2})\\
(heads, S_x = -\frac{1}{2})\\
(tails, S_z = \frac{1}{2})\\
(tails, S_z = -\frac{1}{2})
$$
So there is a single sample space, but not a single sample space for which the spin values are random variables.

 

[DarMM]

Any Bell inequality test that aims to close communication loophole has to combine all four experiments into one single experiment. Experiments like that have been performed number of times. Here is one https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080

So you are not making much sense to me.

Perhaps the example in the post above helps. So you can think of such an experiment as having a single sample space, but the point is that unlike classical mechanics $(S_x, S_y, S_z)$ don't all occur on each line. For instance if Spin were classical (even if it was stochastic) then for @Demystifier 's experiment we'd have something like (ignoring $S_y$):
$$
(heads, S_x = \frac{1}{2}, S_z = \frac{1}{2})\\
(heads, S_x = \frac{1}{2}, S_z = -\frac{1}{2})\\
(heads, S_x = -\frac{1}{2},S_z = \frac{1}{2})\\
(heads, S_x = -\frac{1}{2},S_z = -\frac{1}{2})\\
(tails, S_x = \frac{1}{2}, S_x = \frac{1}{2})\\
(tails, S_x = \frac{1}{2}, S_x = -\frac{1}{2})\\
(tails, S_x = -\frac{1}{2}, S_x = \frac{1}{2})\\
(tails, S_x = -\frac{1}{2}, S_x = -\frac{1}{2})
$$
And in this case you can extract the $\{heads, tails\}$ value and basically have a sample space of "facts" about the spin.

However in the quantum case in #178 you can't do this. There isn't a single sample space for the quantum observables and your experimental setting is sort of intrinsically embedded in the outcomes preventing you from isolating "facts" about the microscopic system.

You do have a single sample space, but it's not one for the properties of the subatomic system alone of the form you are able to construct in classical mechanics. It's a macroscopic setting and subatomic variable product space. So contextuality is still manifest and in fact this is a consequence of contextuality.

Does that make more sense?

 

[stevendaryl]

What if the experiment is enriched with an additional piece of equipment that randomly decides whether the measurement will be performed in $d1$ or $d2$ direction? In this case all 4 outcomes are possible results of the measurement, so all 4 belong to the same sample space.

And by the way, in the consistent histories interpretation, which perhaps is the most ontological version of "Copenhagen" interpretation, those 4 outcomes correspond to 4 histories that belong to the same consistency class.

That's basically what I said. I just don't understand what is meant when people talk about things not being from the same sample space.

Okay, what I do understand is that the Born rule cannot be taken as a probability distribution on "beables" to use Bell's phrase. If an electron is prepared to be spin-up in the z-direction, then you can't say "There is a 50% chance that it IS spin-up in the x-direction, and 50% chance that it IS spin-up in the y-direction". You can only say: "If I measure the spin in the x-direction, there is a 50% chance of getting 'up', and if I measure the spin in the y-direction, there is a 50% chance of getting 'up'". So I get that spins in the x-direction and spins in the y-direction don't belong to the same "probability space".

But it seems to me that if we include the choice and the result, we can certainly put them all into the same probability space: There is a 25% chance that I will measure the spin in the x-direction and get spin-up. There is a 25% chance that I will measure the spin in the x-direction and get spin-down. There is a 25% chance that I will measure the spin in the y-direction and get spin-up. There is a 25% chance that I will measure the spin in the y-direction and get spin-down.

 

[stevendaryl]

Beables are not observables. The concept of beables was introduced by John Bell precisely to emphasize that they are different from observables. See e.g. the paper in my signature for more details.

Yes, for Bell, a "beable" is some property that has a value whether it is observed, or not. Some physicists deny that there is such a thing, that nothing has a value unless it's measured. But that seems to me either to give a special role to consciousness or to lead to infinite regress: The particle doesn't have a position until it is detected, by (say), making the Geiger counter click. The Geiger counter doesn't click unless there is a microphone to record it. The microphone doesn't record it unless there is someone to play back the recording and hear it...

 

[stevendaryl]

Yes, for Bell, a "beable" is some property that has a value whether it is observed, or not. Some physicists deny that there is such a thing, that nothing has a value unless it's measured. But that seems to me either to give a special role to consciousness or to lead to infinite regress: The particle doesn't have a position until it is detected, by (say), making the Geiger counter click. The Geiger counter doesn't click unless there is a microphone to record it. The microphone doesn't record it unless there is someone to play back the recording and hear it...

Copenhagen seems to put macroscopic properties in the role of "beables". They have definite values at all times.

 

[DarMM]

I just don't understand what is meant when people talk about things not being from the same sample space.

But it seems to me that if we include the choice and the result, we can certainly put them all into the same probability space

Basically what is meant is that the quantum observables alone can't be put in a single sample space together. To have a single sample space you have to also include the actual device settings. This is directly related to or simply another variant of contextuality/lack of counterfactual definiteness and is the difference between QM and a classical stochastic theory.

Or as you said it's:
"If I measure the spin in the x-direction, there is a 50% chance of getting 'up', and if I measure the spin in the y-direction, there is a 50% chance of getting 'up'"

i.e. "chance if I measure...that I get" rather than "chance that it is". That's the difference between QM and a classical stochastic theory and is a direct consequence of contextuality/lack of counterfactual definiteness/lack of a single sample space for the observables themselves alone.

 

[zonde]

However in the quantum case in #178 you can't do this. There isn't a single sample space for the quantum observables and your experimental setting is sort of intrinsically embedded in the outcomes preventing you from isolating "facts" about the microscopic system.

You do have a single sample space, but it's not one for the properties of the subatomic system alone of the form you are able to construct in classical mechanics. It's a macroscopic setting and subatomic variable product space. So contextuality is still manifest and in fact this is a consequence of contextuality.

Does that make more sense?

I think there is problem with your choice of terminology. If you replace "single sample space" with "single set of initial conditions" it makes more sense. But it works only up to the point because then it would become quite clear that you are talking about superdeterminism, retrocausality or acausal constrain (there is correlation between initial conditions and measurement settings).

 

[DarMM]

I think there is problem with your choice of terminology.

Perhaps, but I don't get to choose it. It's the standard terminology.

If you replace "single sample space" with "single set of initial conditions" it makes more sense

"Single sample space for the quantum observables alone" is perhaps cleanest.

Just to note if you read quantum probability and quantum foundations texts they'll just say "no single sample space", but they mean "no single sample space for the quantum observables alone", i.e. they don't mention the possibility of enlarging the space to include the device settings since it wouldn't negate the main point.

 

[stevendaryl]

Or as you said it's:
"If I measure the spin in the x-direction, there is a 50% chance of getting 'up', and if I measure the spin in the y-direction, there is a 50% chance of getting 'up'"

i.e. "chance if I measure...that I get" rather than "chance that it is". That's the difference between QM and a classical stochastic theory and is a direct consequence of contextuality/lack of counterfactual definiteness/lack of a single sample space for the observables themselves alone.

I still don't get it. You can certainly concoct a classical model with the same probabilities as, say, the EPR experiment. Bell's theorem just tells us that you can't do it using local interactions.

For example:

1. Alice and Bob each submit their detector settings, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively.
2. With probabilities $\frac{1}{2} sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2}), \frac{1}{2} sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2}), \frac{1}{2} cos^2(\frac{\theta}{2}), \frac{1}{2} sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2})$, we select one of the pairs: $(up, up), (down, down), (down, up), (up, down)$ (where $\theta = \beta - \alpha$)
3. Then Alice's result is the first element of the pair, and Bob's result is the second element of the pair.

That is implementable using classical stochastic processes. There is nothing quantum about it. And it has the same statistics as the quantum EPR experiment for anti-correlated spin-1/2 particles.

 

[zonde]

Perhaps, but I don't get to choose it. It's the standard terminology.

As far as I can trust wikipedia it is not standard terminology.
Sample space: In probability theory, the sample space of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment.

 

[DarMM]

You can certainly concoct a classical model with the same probabilities as, say, the EPR experiment. Bell's theorem just tells us that you can't do it using local interactions.

Well yes of course a nonlocal classical theory can do it, but this is the whole point of this thread.

To replicate the CHSH statistics you either have a classical stochastic theory which is nonlocal or what QM is, a generalized probability theory where there isn't a single sample space/the only single sample space intrinsically includes measurement settings, i.e. Participatory Realism where details about the observer are embedded in the sample space.

Those are the two different approaches to Bell's theorem, the first is the Bohmian form, the latter is the Copenhagen form.

My point was to point out the difference between QM and Classical Stochastic theories. It is contextuality/counterfactual indefiniteness in opposition to your claim that Contextuality had no foundational content. My point was never that classical processes can never, even if modified to being nonlocal, replicate the CHSH statistics.

 

[DarMM]

As far as I can trust wikipedia it is not standard terminology.
Sample space: In probability theory, the sample space of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment.

I'm saying that when Quantum Probability and Quantum Foundations texts and papers say "there is no single sample space" their meaning is the one I'm giving and that that choice of phrase is not a personal invention of mine but comes from those communities.

 

[zonde]

Yes, for Bell, a "beable" is some property that has a value whether it is observed, or not. Some physicists deny that there is such a thing, that nothing has a value unless it's measured. But that seems to me either to give a special role to consciousness or to lead to infinite regress: The particle doesn't have a position until it is detected, by (say), making the Geiger counter click. The Geiger counter doesn't click unless there is a microphone to record it. The microphone doesn't record it unless there is someone to play back the recording and hear it...

I would like to take a bit further this argument.
Let's suppose that we all agree that macroscopic systems have "beables". Now if microscopic systems don't have them where macroscopic systems get them?

You have made one point several times:

I think that most physicists are fairly confident that measuring devices themselves are described by the same quantum mechanics as the systems being studied.

If it's true I would say it is false confidence. Either you have to believe that microscopic systems have "beables" or you have to be able to explicitly demonstrate how apparent macroscopic "beables" can emerge from microscopic "beable-lessness" (and you should do that without any use of "bebles" obviously).

 

[Demystifier]

Copenhagen seems to put macroscopic properties in the role of "beables". They have definite values at all times.

Yes. The problem, of course, is that there is no sharp border between macro and micro. Hence, if macroscopic properties are beables, then some microscopic properties must be beables too. Such a point of view naturally leads to Bohmian mechanics as explained in the paper in my signature.

 

[stevendaryl]

Well yes of course a nonlocal classical theory can do it, but this is the whole point of this thread.

Okay, but every time the business about "different sample spaces" was brought up, it was said as if the probabilities themselves were incompatible with a stochastic process.

I would not say that this thread is about locality. It's about the meaning of the Copenhagen interpretation.

My point was to point out the difference between QM and Classical Stochastic theories.

But it doesn't seem to do that, since a classical stochastic theory can be contextual in the same way (which was what my example of implementing the EPR probabilities classically shows).

Maybe you can say that QM is different in that it implements contextuality of the sort in EPR using local means, but I don't see how you can say that. QM only gives the probabilities, not how they are implemented. The nonlocal stochastic model that I described is consistent with QM's predictions.

 

[rubi]

The situation is really simple: There is no state space $\Lambda$ such that $A_\alpha: \Lambda\rightarrow\{-1,1\}$ and $B_\beta: \Lambda\rightarrow\{-1,1\}$ are functions on this state space for every $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that the correlations $\left<A_\alpha B_\beta\right>$ match the predictions of quantum mechanics. That's just a mathematical fact and there is just no way to circumvent it. It also has nothing to do with macroscopic or microscopic observables.

The only way to model the system on a single state space is to give up the idea that all $A_\alpha$ and $B_\beta$ are functions on the state space for all $\alpha$ and $\beta$. One has to admit, that this is a truly novel situation, which never occurs in classical theories.

 

[stevendaryl]

The situation is really simple: There is no state space $\Lambda$ such that $A_\alpha: \Lambda\rightarrow\{-1,1\}$ and $B_\beta: \Lambda\rightarrow\{-1,1\}$ are functions on this state space for every $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that the correlations $\left<A_\alpha B_\beta\right>$ match the predictions of quantum mechanics. That's just a mathematical fact and there is just no way to circumvent it. It also has nothing to do with macroscopic or microscopic observables.

The only way to model the system on a single state space is to give up the idea that all $A_\alpha$ and $B_\beta$ are functions on the state space for all $\alpha$ and $\beta$. One has to admit, that this is a truly novel situation, which never occurs in classical theories.

But as I have said a number of times, there is no problem getting the probabilities to work out the same as EPR using classical probabilities if we allow nonlocal interactions. So the correct conclusion, as Bell said, is that it's a situation which never occurs in LOCAL classical theories.

 

[Demystifier]

But as I have said a number of times, there is no problem getting the probabilities to work out the same as EPR using classical probabilities if we allow nonlocal interactions. So the correct conclusion, as Bell said, is that it's a situation which never occurs in LOCAL classical theories.

I think you and @rubi are using the word "classical" with different meanings.

 

[DarMM]

Okay, but every time the business about "different sample spaces" was brought up, it was said as if the probabilities themselves were incompatible with a stochastic process.

No, I was saying that the differences between QM and classical stochastic processes was in the contextuality/counterfactual indefiniteness.

This was mainly in response to you claiming, counter to the opinion of most experts, that contextuality had no foundational import. I certainly never claimed (or intended to claim, perhaps in the ream of posts I got muddled somewhere) that classical stochastic processes cannot replicate CHSH probabilities as from Bohmian Mechanics they clearly can.

I would not say that this thread is about locality. It's about the meaning of the Copenhagen interpretation.

@Demystifier was basically asking about two things. Exactly what Copenhagen and similar views mean by "know" and exactly how they get around nonlocality or is their method for getting around nonlocality consistent. I answered the first part in my initial post and the rest has been about the second point.

 

[rubi]

But that's not true. As I have said a number of times, there is no problem getting the probabilities to work out the same as EPR using classical probabilities if we allow nonlocal interactions.

Well, then please provide a counterexample. It should look something like this:
$\Lambda = \{x,y,z\}$
$A_0(x) = 1, A_0(y) = -1, A_0(z) = -1$
$A_1(x) = -1, A_1(y) = 1, A_1(z) = -1$
(and so on for $B_\beta$).
Then provide a probability distribution on $\Lambda$, e.g.
$P(x) = 0.5, P(y) = 0.5, P(z) = 0$
And then calculate the correlations $\left<A_\alpha B_\beta\right>$ and compare them to the QM result. You won't be able to do this (if you want them to match).

 

[DarMM]

But it doesn't seem to do that, since a classical stochastic theory can be contextual in the same way (which was what my example of implementing the EPR probabilities classically shows).

A classical stochastic theory can replicate the statistics, but it doesn't need to either:

1. Give up a common sample space
2. Obtain a common sample space at the cost of embedding the observer in some form

It avoids both with a nonlocal $\lambda$, so it is not contextual in the same way.

 

[stevendaryl]

Well, then please provide a counterexample. It should look something like this:
$\Lambda = \{x,y,z\}$
$A_0(x) = 1, A_0(y) = -1, A_0(z) = -1$
$A_1(x) = -1, A_1(y) = 1, A_1(z) = -1$
(and so on for $B_\beta$).
Then provide a probability distribution on $\Lambda$, e.g.
$P(x) = 0.5, P(y) = 0.5, P(z) = 0$
And then calculate the correlations $\left<A_\alpha B_\beta\right>$ and compare them to the QM result. You won't be able to do this (if you want them to match).

I'm not disputing Bell's theorem. But his conclusion was not that there was no classical probabilistic model that could reproduce the predictions of EPR. His conclusion was that there was no LOCAL model using classical probabilities that could reproduce the predictions of EPR. The probabilities in the EPR model can be reproduced by a classical stochastic model, if you allow nonlocal interactions. So the EPR statistics don't say anything about classical versus nonclassical unless you impose locality.

 

[rubi]

I'm not disputing Bell's theorem. I'm saying that the probabilities in the EPR model can be reproduced by a classical stochastic model, if you allow nonlocal interactions. So the EPR statistics don't say anything about classical versus nonclassical unless you impose locality.

But your stochastic model will still not have the functions $A_\alpha$ and $B_\beta$. One has to admit that this is a true novelty compared to classical mechanics.