Bell Conf 2023-02-10

Foundations of Bell Virtual Conference

2023-02-10, 1130 (CST), 1830 (CET) - updated 2023-02-13

Speaker Schedule

Talks (schedule), starting at 16 CET time:

16:00 Marc Fleury, Review of Isolation achieved in the Aspect and Zeilinger experiments.  The case of standing waves (blog)

16:30 Richard Gill, Myths and misunderstandings. Bell’s “Reply to critics” said it all (article)

17:00 Jarek Duda, Boltzmann vs Feynman path ensemble - Born rule and Bell violation in Ising model (article, slides)

17:30 Álvaro García, Correlation and contextuality loopholes are equivalent (article1,article2)

18:00 Robert Close, Geometrical Model of Bell Inequality Violation (slides)

18:30 James Tankersley, Faking Bell (false violations) and [the case for] Control Testing (simulation, discussion)

19:00 Tim Palmer, Is Superdeterminism really such a ridiculous idea?  

Then discussion focused on the above questions. 

Presentation Video

My part starts, "Um, can someone Google how I can allow my MacBook to present on Zoom?"

Amazing speakers including JBoss founder Marc Fleury [1] and amazing audience including MIT's John Bush [2] who participated in the long chat after all the presentations.

(I was invited by co-host Chantal Roth [3] to demonstrate a simulation I wrote with guidance from her and Richard Gill [4] a few years ago.)

https://youtu.be/cD4wUckoj_k

Presentation Notes for James Tankersley Jr, 

Greet

Thank you for incredible presentations and particularly to Chantal Roth for organizing this incredible event.  I am in awe with the talent I am in the presents of, truely.  

What is Interesting:  Small team of computer scientists have a unique perspective (new insights, proposal for control tests).

Goal: Why do simulations ultimately demonstrate a need for control tests?

Me:
I created a flexible visual Bell Inequalities simulator with many options, runs in a browser with many change requests from Richard Gill that have been implemented 3 year ago (thank you Richard!).

BS Computer Science, University of Wisconsin at LaCrosse, 1989 (Current focus AI, may have an MS CS with AI focus in my future)

My daughter is fluent in multi-variable calculus (Lawrence University student), I am fluent only in simulating basic calculus itteratively with computers (and partnering with ChatGPT... Singularity approaching.)

I studied a book on relativity in HS, and was hooked. Invented a Gedankenexperiment measuring absolute rotation of space [1], then learned Issac Newton already invented "rotating buckets in space" [2]

Physics made so much sense to me until I was told that EPR was disproven. My model of nature was severely offended. I need to understand this. I need to prove this to myself. I can model this with computer simulations.

Presentation

Experiment Slides... (Bell's math works, I can replicate experimental results proving quantum nature when I model QM. OK if QM is correct, Bell's math proves it.  I can replicate EPR classic particles, Bell is not violated. If EPR is correct, Bell's math proves it.)

1. I am still offended by QM pilosophy.  Can the actual Experiments be biased?

2. So easy to violate with the classical model.  Yes, the actual Experiments may be biased.

3. Malus loss causes classical model to violate with loss.

4. Malus rotation causes classical model to violate without loss.

5. Are control tests possible.

Control Test Slides:

1. Can it be done? Yes

2. Is it logically valid (ChatGPT says yes).

3. Can we do it. I think yes

[1] Blog with no readers: https://sites.google.com/site/physicschecker/unsettled-physics/absolute-reference-frame

[2] Robert Disalle (I. Bernard Cohen & George E. Smith, editors) (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0521656966.  "Isaac Newton's rotating bucket argument (also known as "Newton's bucket") was designed to demonstrate that true rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies."

James Tankersley

Faking Bell (false violations) and [the case for] Control Testing

I will present a graphical computer simulation [1] of Bell CHSH/Eberhart tests, demonstrating how Quantum models [3] violate Bell's inequalities and ideal Classical models do not. I will then show how Classicmodels can be made to strongly violate Bell’s inequalities through effects such as Malus Loss (loss favoring “intermediate angles” [3] between particle and deflector that are neither equal nor “opposite” [orthogonal or antiparallel]). 

We can then imagine loss-less violations of Bell’s inequalities including Rotation of particle polarity or spin toward Bell violating angles.

Finally I will propose control tests with pre-polarized particles to detect false violations of Bell due to known or unknown effects. Control tests involve emitting each new particle 1 with a randomly selected polarity or spin angle, and emit pair particle 2 with polarity or spin angle opposite of particle 1. Control tests should not violate Bell. [2] 

Physical experiments that claim to violate Bell’s inequalities with entangled (quantum) particles should also perform control tests with pre-polarized (classical) particles that do not violate Bell, confirming that the experiment is not producing false violations.

[1] Testing Bell (CHSH/Eberhart Proofs & False Violations) James Tankersley Jr https://codeserver.net/bell/chsh (accessed Feb 5, 2023)

[2] Testing Bell (False Violations & the Case for Control Tests) James Tankersley Jr https://sites.google.com/site/physicschecker/unsettled-physics/testing-bells-theorem-paper (accessed Feb 5, 2023)

[3] Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality, J.S. Bell, 1980, https://cds.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf

[4] Control Testing Bell’s Inequalities James Tankersley Jr https://sites.google.com/site/physicschecker/unsettled-physics/control-testing-bell-inequalities (accessed Feb 9, 2023)

Enclosure 1

Control Testing Bells Inequalities

Team of Chantal Roth and ChatGPT

I also asked it about control tests:

"Yes, negative control tests can be a useful way to control for biases in experiments testing the predictions of quantum mechanics and the foundations of physics. In a negative control test, a similar setup is used, but with a different source of correlation in order to determine whether the observed correlation is actually due to quantum entanglement.

For example, in the case of an experiment testing the predictions of quantum mechanics using entangled photons, a negative control test could be performed using non-entangled, correlated photons. This would provide a comparison between the results of the experiment with entangled photons and the results of a similar experiment with only classical correlations.

If the results of the negative control test are consistent with classical physics and do not violate the predictions of quantum mechanics, while the results of the experiment with entangled photons do violate these predictions, this provides evidence that the observed correlation is actually due to quantum entanglement.

Negative control tests can help control for biases by providing a comparison between the results of the experiment and a similar experiment with a different source of correlation, and by providing a way to determine whether the observed correlation is actually due to quantum entanglement. By performing negative control tests, experimenters can increase the confidence in the validity of their results and reduce the impact of biases in their experiments."

I then asked:

What would be a good way to create correlated, but not entanged photons, to mimik a QM experiment as much as possible?

"...

One approach is to use a classical optical source, such as a laser, and pass the light through a series of optical elements, such as polarizers and beam splitters, to create correlated photons.

For example, passing a laser beam through a polarizer and a beam splitter can create two correlated beams of light. The two beams will be correlated in their intensity, but not entangled. This provides a classical analogue to the quantum mechanical system of entangled photons, as the correlation between the two beams is similar to the correlation between entangled photons.

Another approach is to use a type of classical light source known as a thermal light source, which is created by shining light on a hot object. This type of light source can produce correlated photons that have some of the same properties as entangled photons, such as non-classical interference patterns.

...."

I haven't heard about the thermal light source idea yet, and am I reading up on this now:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.093602

Cheers, and good luck today ;-)

Chantal