SciPhysicsForums.com

Reading the "manifesto" of the Einstein centre I came across the words "I have shown — in several different ways — that the strong quantum correlations we observe in Nature [such as the EPR correlation] — which are usually thought of as separating the shifty boundary between the classical and the quantum worlds — are in fact natural consequences of the topological properties of the physical space itself. They have nothing to do with quantum mechanics per se. Just as gravitational effects were shown by Einstein to be consequences of the geometrical properties of spacetime, I have shown that quantum correlations are consequences of the spinorial properties of spacetime." I wonder what people think of the latest work of Tim Palmer, which is being strongly supported by Sabine Hossenfelder, and which seems to have the same spirit, though the technical details are totally different (and for the time being, quite beyond me).

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/02/guest-post-undecidability.html
Guest post on Sabine Hossenfelder's blog

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/02/guest-post-undecidability_10.html
Second guest post on Sabine Hossenfelder's blog

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3376
FQXi essay submission

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01734
Under revision for Proceedings of the Royal Society

By the way, I do believe myself that quantum correlations are probably consequences of the spinorial properties of spacetime.

To understand its "Undecidability, Uncomputability", it is good to look at the basic such problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Deciding "if given program will halt in time t" can be checked in time t.
However, asking "if given program will halt" could need testing t -> infinity sequence this way.
Even worse, it is uncomputable/undecidable problem - assumption of existence of such program can be used to build a self-contradicting sentence which cannot be true/false, like "this sentence is false" sentence.

For a fractal, question "is given point in distance epsilon from the fractal" can usually be computed in a finite time, going to infinity for epsilon -> 0.
Question "is given point in fractal" would require to use epsilon -> 0 infinite sequence of tests this way.
However, to be uncomputable we would additionally need to build such self-contradictory sentence, what I really doubt can be done for physical fractals (?)

Even reading the linked paper, I still don't see connection with Bell theorem here (?)
We have inequalities derived from assumptions of realism and locality, which are violated by physics, so at least one of these assumptions is nonphysical - which one?
Does e.g. general relativity satisfy these assumptions?

I also don't see the connection with Bell's theorem though the paper says there is a connection

Indeed, it nicely shows how drastic the Bell theorem situation is.
But what if physics solves own equations in symmetric way: e.g. using Feynman path integrals instead of Schrodinger - would it still satisfy problematic assumptions of Bell theorem?
Boundary conditions (e.g. hidden variables) are not just in the past there, but symmetrically: in past and future.

Jarek wrote:Indeed, it nicely shows how drastic the Bell theorem situation is.
But what if physics solves own equations in symmetric way: e.g. using Feynman path integrals instead of Schrodinger - would it still satisfy problematic assumptions of Bell theorem? Boundary conditions (e.g. hidden variables) are not just in the past there, but symmetrically: in past and future.

What you say, Jarek, is entirely consistent with what Bell's theorem says. Bell says that QM is inconsistent with locality+realism+no-conspiracy. You are saying that QM is consistent with locality+realism. Note: the phrase "no-conspiracy" is a technical term. Don't take any notice of the emotional impact which the word "conspiracy" may have on you.

Slava Belavkin (RIP) always used to say that his "eventum mechanics" was also about the clashing of waves from the future against waves from the past, which happens "now". I find it very appealing imagery. It does give one an image which corresponds in a metaphorical way with correct mathematics; mathematics which does apparently describe reality rather well. The imagery can inspire you and help you to use the mathematics in a more creative and effective way.

Another paper by Palmer (who works in climate physics; ... fractals, chaos, complexity...):
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/5/356
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.01069.pdf
“Experimental Non-Violation of the Bell Inequality”
A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is described which challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately ...

He seems to be saying that the experimenters should have used p-adic arithmetic instead of ordinary arithmetic, but then they would have been disappointed, Bell wouldn't have been violated, ... goodbye publications in Nature, etc...

Richard, I am much more interested in how objectively physics works, than what names do we choose for it.
For example does it solve its equations in symmetric way like Schrodinger equation - what leads to these Bell theorem issues?
Or maybe fundamentally CPT symmetric physics solves its equations in a symmetric way, like Feynman path/diagram ensembles? - what seems to resolve all these issues (?)

gill1109 wrote:I wonder what people think of the latest work of Tim Palmer, which is being strongly supported by Sabine Hossenfelder, and which seems to have the same spirit, though the technical details are totally different (and for the time being, quite beyond me).

I read the two guests posts Richard, and started to read his FXQi essay before giving up. IMHO he doesn't know how gravity works, he doesn't know how electromagnetism works, and he doesn't understand the issues in Quantum Electrodynamics. So he's clutching at straws when he proposes chaos theory as some silver bullet that will lead to quantum gravity and unification. Spacetime has no spinorial properties. Spacetime models space at all times, and is therefore static. Palmer's proposal isn't physics, it's foundation-free fumbling in the dark. It's Emperor's New Clothes, and that's why it's beyond you. If you think I'm being unreasonably critical there, compare and contrast Palmer's proposal with something I've written: The theory of everything. I think you will find that it is not beyond you.

Jarek wrote:Richard, I am much more interested in how objectively physics works, than what names do we choose for it.
For example does it solve its equations in symmetric way like Schrodinger equation - what leads to these Bell theorem issues?
Or maybe fundamentally CPT symmetric physics solves its equations in a symmetric way, like Feynman path/diagram ensembles? - what seems to resolve all these issues (?)

I agree Jarek, the names should not be important, that's exactly what I said regarding the term "no-conspiracy". "Bell theorem issues" are not imaginary! There are certain mathematical facts and there are certain experimental facts. Bell's theorem is not "about quantum mechanics", it's about mathematical models which can or can not adequately describe reality. If you have a mathematical theory which reproduces QM predictions and hence predicts the statistics of the 2015 "loophole-free" experiments, then Bell's theorem tells us something about its properties. If you don't care about those properties then you have no problem with "Bell theorem issues".

JohnDuffield wrote:

gill1109 wrote:I wonder what people think of the latest work of Tim Palmer, which is being strongly supported by Sabine Hossenfelder, and which seems to have the same spirit, though the technical details are totally different (and for the time being, quite beyond me).

I read the two guests posts Richard, and started to read his FXQi essay before giving up. IMHO he doesn't know how gravity works, he doesn't know how electromagnetism works, and he doesn't understand the issues in Quantum Electrodynamics. So he's clutching at straws when he proposes chaos theory as some silver bullet that will lead to quantum gravity and unification. Spacetime has no spinorial properties. Spacetime models space at all times, and is therefore static. Palmer's proposal isn't physics, it's foundation-free fumbling in the dark. It's Emperor's New Clothes, and that's why it's beyond you. If you think I'm being unreasonably critical there, compare and contrast Palmer's proposal with something I've written: The theory of everything. I think you will find that it is not beyond you.

I'm inclined to agree that this direction of Tim Palmer is clutching at straws. What I read so far suggests to me that the author has a very strange idea of what Bell's theorem is. But hopefully, I am misreading him.

I looked at your work, John, but I'm afraid you talk about a lot of physics about which I know so little, that what you write is presently beyond me. But I do keep on trying to educate myself... I think that QM is telling us that space-time is continually being created in the present, on the boundary between past and future. Waves collapse and particles have to decide where to be, thus creating the distribution of mass in space, in the past. The past is history, the future is a mystery; today is a gift. (You could say: the present is a present). Belavkin used to say: the past is particles, the future is a wave. Well, this is just poetry, or nonsense; not physics and not mathematics.

I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.

minkwe wrote:I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.

There is nothing in the proof of Bell's theorem that requires that counterfactual outcomes must be statistically independent of actual outcomes.

Heinera wrote:

minkwe wrote:I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.

There is nothing in the proof of Bell's theorem that requires that counterfactual outcomes must be statistically independent of actual outcomes.

Actual outcomes are a function of a complete set of counterfactual outcomes, and of the actual settings. By a complete set, I mean the set (or rather, list) of all of the outcomes which would have been observed whatever the settings might have been. This list, of course, must include the outcomes which actually were seen, supposing that certain settings were actually "actualized". This is all a matter of conventional definitions in the field of Causality.

gill1109 wrote:

Heinera wrote:

minkwe wrote:I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.

There is nothing in the proof of Bell's theorem that requires that counterfactual outcomes must be statistically independent of actual outcomes.

Actual outcomes are a function of a complete set of counterfactual outcomes, and of the actual settings. By a complete set, I mean the set (or rather, list) of all of the outcomes which would have been observed whatever the settings might have been. This list, of course, must include the outcomes which actually were seen, supposing that certain settings were actually "actualized". This is all a matter of conventional definitions in the field of Causality.

Bell's so-called "theorem" is nonsense all the same. It is a conceptually flawed argument, and moreover does not rule out a fully local and realistic account of the experimentally observed strong correlations, without having to invoke nonlocality, or nonreality, or backwarrd causation, or superdeterminism, or irreducible randomness. Bell's "theorem" is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5.

Here are two papers in support of my two claims:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876

https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578

***

Joy Christian wrote:Bell's "theorem" is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5.

If you don't like Bell inequality, maybe let's focus on this simpler Mermin's:
Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1
which is nearly "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal".
Its derivation doesn't need any ambiguous "locality", "realism", just "there exists Pr(ABC) probability distribution" assumption:
Pr(A=B) = P(000) + P(001) + P(110) + P(111)
Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) +sum_ABC P(ABC) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) + 1 >= 1

Do you also see it "2 + 2 = 5" type inequality?
How do you interpret its violation by QM formalism ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5214 )?

Exactly! A. Fine long ago showed the mathematical equivalence of the satisfaction of all Bell inequalities with the existence of a joint probability distribution reproducing all observable marginal distributions. How to interpret its violation? We should admit that at least one of locality, realism, and no-conspiracy must be abandoned. You, Jarek, choose to abandon no-conspiracy. I have no problem with that. David Bohm abandoned locality. I have no problem with that. It is not clear at all what Bohr thought, but probably he was happy with the situation. Einstein struggled his whole life long (but died too soon to meet Bell). The many-world theorists abandon realism. I'm just a mathematician. It is up to physicists to find out what is the most fruitful way forward, and to philosophers to reconsider what the meaning of words like "real" should be.

Jarek wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:Bell's "theorem" is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5.

If you don't like Bell inequality, maybe let's focus on this simpler Mermin's:
Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1
which is nearly "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal".
Its derivation doesn't need any ambiguous "locality", "realism", just "there exists Pr(ABC) probability distribution" assumption:
Pr(A=B) = P(000) + P(001) + P(110) + P(111)
Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) +sum_ABC P(ABC) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) + 1 >= 1

Do you also see it "2 + 2 = 5" type inequality?
How do you interpret its violation by QM formalism ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5214 )?

Jarek, I have told you many times before that such nonsensical inequalities like Bell's or Mermin's or whoever's have nothing whatsoever to do with what is observed in the experiments.

***

gill1109 wrote:
Einstein struggled his whole life long (but died too soon to meet Bell).

Bell was very lucky that Einstein did not live long enough.

Einstein would have immidiately noticed the nonsensical assumption in Bell's argument, just as he (Einstein) immidiately noticed the nonsensical assumption in von Neumann's argument.

Pauli, who was no fan of Einstein's local-realistic disposition, would have also laughed at Bell's nonsensical argument.

***

Richard,
I am just not fixed on asymmetric way of solving physics like Euler-Largange, Schrodinger - they satisfy assumptions used to derive Bell inequalities, which are violated - contradiction ... what also concerns e.g. classical field theories like electromagnetism of general relativity.
There are also symmetric ways to solve them like least action principle, Feynman path/diagram ensemble - which have symmetric boundary conditions: "hidden variables" in past and future, what is very different than Bell's locality.
We just have to accept that CPT symmetric physics solves its equations in symmetric way - and all the issues disappear.

Joy,
Please specify what exactly you disagree with here, so I could address your concerns?
Derivation of this trivial inequality? Possibility to violate it by QM formalism?

Jarek wrote:Richard,
I am just not fixed on asymmetric way of solving physics like Euler-Largange, Schrodinger - they satisfy assumptions used to derive Bell inequalities, which are violated - contradiction ... what also concerns e.g. classical field theories like electromagnetism of general relativity.
There are also symmetric ways to solve them like least action principle, Feynman path/diagram ensemble - which have symmetric boundary conditions: "hidden variables" in past and future, what is very different than Bell's locality.
We just have to accept that CPT symmetric physics solves its equations in symmetric way - and all the issues disappear.

Jarek:
I don't see any contradiction at all between what you call "the asymmetric way" and Bell's analysis.
Since I don't see any issues, I can't also agree that your favoured "symmetric way" makes the issues disappear.
There are no mathematical issues. So the only problem is one of "ownership" of *emotive* words like "local", "deterministic", and so on. In other words, the fight which you seem to be fighting is a fight concerning politics, sociology, communication. Not a fight about mathematical content.