🧵 Quantum Photon Bell Violations Solved
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:25:01 UTC No. 16497766
Look, its so obvious. Photons are just the microscopic version of the circularly rotating wave in the OP image or article below:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cir
Have two of these waves sent out from the same source, rotating as they go, same speed and everything. Then obviously the rotating hand of one wave will always have a definite relationship to the other depending on what directions they both started off pointing in at source. The waves are just going to continue rotating that way forever at arbitrarily far off distances until something interrupts them. The correlation will be maintained - horizontal-horizontal or vertical-vertical ... hv or vh... whatever.
Its nothing more complicated than like clocks in different time zones. 9am in china, 6am in iran. 10pm in china, 7pm in iran. etc, etc.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 03:55:22 UTC No. 16497860
>>16497766
1. a photon isn't a circularly rotating wave, let alone any solution of a classical wave equation
2. a photon is a massless spin 1 particle, by basic representation theory of massless spin 1 particles its helicity state can be anywhere in the bloch region of the poincare sphere, and no circular or any other fixed polarization bases ever get singled out
3. there is no bijection between a singlet state and a pair of anticorrelated rotating waves, clocks in different time zones, or any other hidden variables for that matter, and the singlet state in bell's experiments has already been completely solved by quantum mechanics
you're just another mathematically illiterate pop sci tard with the attention span of a fruit fly who mistakenly believes wishful thinking is a substitute for a physics textbook
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 04:19:06 UTC No. 16497874
>>16497860
>1. a photon isn't a circularly rotating wave, let alone any solution of a classical wave equation
troll somewhere else please
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 04:40:50 UTC No. 16497891
>>16497874
sorry sweaty, but electromagnetic waves aren't eigenstates of the qed number operator, your butthurt can't change facts, and you are the troll for posting unhinged shit on /sci/
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 05:03:21 UTC No. 16497910
>>16497860
uhh this is all interpetation dependent
if you advocate a stochastic interpretation then a photon is a single classical particle.
now a superposition of horizontal and vertical polarization is basically just the particle version of a circularly polarized wave which is tantamount to particle engage in circulating behavior. in fact a circularly polarized photon is a circularly rotating wave if you look at ohanian's "what is spin?" paper; he then talk about how circularly polarized wave is just lots of circularly polarized photons - macroscopic limit. either way, i take stochastic interpretation. recent generic models of spin suggest that it is mediated by orbiting particles around points in space, only exception is quantum mechanics / electromagnetic waves because of quantum interpretation confusion. stochastic interpretation would imply the orbiting particles that literally all other mediums with spin have, and this would be origin of both photon and electromagnetic wave spin
under stochastic interpretation the particle velocity is that of an ensemble of many particles to which superposition principle applies but phase shift apply to each particle individually since they get generated from source one-by-one. this explanation works and it is very natural. assuming superposition principle is valid you can derive photon correlations entirely from the phase shift and uses of malus law - i.e. interaction of ensembles and polarizer - and this derivation originally came from published paper albeit with different underlying interpretation.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 05:10:26 UTC No. 16497919
>>16497860
recent spin model:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
particles orbit at all points of field. and this the natural interpretation in general for field media... water, acoustics, electron plasma. only exception is electromagnetic waves and obviously the quantum state... because quantum mechanics has interpretation problem. but as you see in mita paper, the local polarization properties exist in the quantum state just as any other media with spin - this medium is probability density in the paper. stochastic interpretation the quantum state a predictive tool and the rotating probability current would be predicting orbiting particles
oh and check these
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 05:11:37 UTC No. 16497920
oh and last two papers in above posts are about relation of circularly rotating waves and bell correlations
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 05:50:48 UTC No. 16497964
>>16497891
no idea what any of that nerd shit means
you’re still wrong though
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 06:24:29 UTC No. 16497991
>>16497910
it's simple math. there's no fucking interpretation unless you're a numerologist. a large particle limit of qed approximates classical electromagnetic waves, yes, so what? it doesn't fucking work the other way around
>>16497919
i'm not gonna waste my time with a gish gallop of papers when you're unable to express yourself coherently here, but skimming your last one it disagrees with you
>Only the anti-correlation of entangled photons is predefined but not the polarization of individual photons [23]. This is why the polarization direction should not be thought of as an element of reality.
>The phase relation of partial beams at the source thus leads to the strong polarization correlation although the information on the polarization status is not a hidden property of the photons. Einstein et al. [1] had claimed that a property equally found in two no longer interacting quantum states must be an element of reality. The pronounced polarization correlation of entangled photons seems to be a counterexample.
and your Mita paper says
>the proper gyromagnetic ratio of the particle cannot be obtained in the context of our analysis based on nonrelativistic quantum mechanics
and gives one that is off by a factor of 2, so i presume you haven't even read any of them yourself and are just talking out of your ass
>>16497964
cool story /b/ro
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:45:11 UTC No. 16498367
>>16497991
>it's simple math. there's no fucking interpretation unless you're a numerologist. a large particle limit of qed approximates classical electromagnetic waves, yes, so what? it doesn't fucking work the other way around
youre taking it too literally. the circularly rotating wave is a graphical depiction that is analogous to the photon but formally they are deacribing the same phenomena
a photon in a superposition of horizontal and vertical polarization is circularly polarized. the wave has the exact same description.
if you take a quantum interpretation literally as classical particles and look at the spin modrl i linked. then the interpretation of photon spin is an orbiting particle and the rotating arrows in the wave graphic are directly analogous to rotating vectors describing the particle motion.
>Only the anti-correlation of entangled photons is predefined but not the polarization of individual photons [23]. This is why the polarization direction should not be thought of as an element of reality.
>The phase relation of partial beams at the source thus leads to the strong polarization correlation although the information on the polarization status is not a hidden property of the photons. Einstein et al. [1] had claimed that a property equally found in two no longer interacting quantum states must be an element of reality. The pronounced polarization correlation of entangled photons seems to be a counterexample.
already said this paper takes very different interpretation. superposition principle applies to stochastic mechanical velocities via ensembles of particle trajectories. theres no hidden variable.
the velocity vector is obviously not predefined because it is constantly rotating.
>gyromagnetic ratio
irrelevant for reasons pointed out in text and because the point is merely to show that the generic property of localized polarization for any field exists in quantum state too, as clearly depicted.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:47:35 UTC No. 16498370
>>16497991
again the graphic only provides intuition that you really can get perfect anticorrelations or correlations in a physically classical sense. a circularly polarized photon is not same as circularly polarized wave. but they have the same properties that are meaningful for this correlation, so the analogy sticks. and in stochastic interpretation they have the same source in orbiting particles. the only difference between classical and quantum spin / circular polarization is the quantization and the many particles.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:12:06 UTC No. 16498788
>>16497919
>just as any other media with spin - this medium is probability density in the paper. stochastic interpretation the quantum state a predictive tool
What do you call an exchange that facilitates the transfer of a specified quantity of a given material, by reciprocating the transfer with a material that has a comparatively equivalent value?
>
>Answer:
>
>
>A Stoch Market
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:50:11 UTC No. 16498824
>>16498367
>formally they are deacribing the same phenomena
no. the equations for a single photon state and a circularly polarized wave solution of maxwell's equations are completely fucking different. if they weren't there'd be no need to quantize the latter and award feynman, schwinger, and tomonaga the nobel prize. the gif depicts a rotating electric field vector. E(x,y,z,t) doesn't commute with photon number, so a single photon doesn't even have a definite value for E(x,y,z,t), by the uncertainty principle. nor does it necessarily have a definite circular polarization before measurement. there aren't any photons in classical electromagnetism either. what part of this do you still fail to understand?
>a photon in a superposition of horizontal and vertical polarization is circularly polarized. the wave has the exact same description.
superposition of classical waves isn't the same damn thing as quantum superposition. the former applied to orthogonal vectors yields the zero vector. with the latter this is not true.
the qed creation operators for circular |L> and |R> polarized photons are as equally reasonable as kets such as |H>, |V> |D>, |A>, and all other combinations allowed by the linearity of the fock space. this applies to stokes observables as well. {|L>,|R>} isn't the only allowed basis. photon polarization may be measured circularly, horizontally, diagonally etc. in all cases there are always two possible eigenstates with the same two possible eigenvalues 1 and -1 post-measurement. the probabilities are correctly predicted by quantum mechanics. banning everything other than circular polarization breaks the rotational invariance and leads to incorrect predictions. it's akin to claiming that because 1+3=4, 2+2=4 is racist and preschool math must be cancelled and replaced with terryology, or something like that.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:52:03 UTC No. 16498826
>>16498367
>if you take a quantum interpretation literally as classical particles and look at the spin modrl i linked
post the first principles of this 'spin model' here along with a derivation of bell violations for two entangled photons. i don't see it in any of the random garbage you've linked.
>superposition principle applies to stochastic mechanical velocities via ensembles of particle trajectories. theres no hidden variable.
am i talking to a wall? classical stochastic variables are still variables. you already claimed "a photon is a single classical particle". if nothing is hidden, then go measure them and collect a nobel prize for disproving quantum mechanics.
>the velocity vector is obviously not predefined because it is constantly rotating.
what velocity vector?
>irrelevant for reasons pointed out in text and because the point is merely to show that the generic property of localized polarization for any field exists in quantum state too, as clearly depicted.
the authors assume the existence of an angular momentum operator and "spin probability current" that's completely broken and ad hoc. and only for a single spin-1/2 non-relativistic massive particle. no massless particles, no (interacting) fields, no other spins. how's this an improvement over wigner's classification? and spin-0 (scalar) fields do not have polarization, your quantifier fails. i don't know what the fuck "localized polarization" is supposed to mean, or how it's supposed to favor anything you've posted over standard textbook quantum theory, let alone remaining compatible with experiments.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:54:48 UTC No. 16498829
>>16498370
>a circularly polarized photon is not same as circularly polarized wave.
epic backpedal
>but they have the same properties that are meaningful for this correlation, so the analogy sticks. and in stochastic interpretation they have the same source in orbiting particles. the only difference between classical and quantum spin / circular polarization is the quantization and the many particles.
that's just completely false. violations of bell's inequalities are all about the predictions when the the spin of the two particles are measured using different axes and bases. local hidden variable theories do not give the right results. if they're forced to be the same there's nothing beyond classical probability.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 05:46:39 UTC No. 16498915
POST 1
>>16498788
dunno what youre on about pal
heres the model.
you have a circularly rotating velocity vector that represents the orbital angular momentum of photons as it spirals towards the polarizer
this is an average orbital angular momentum for an ensemble of infinitely many possible particles that move stochastically in orbit as they travel to polarizer
you can only recreate the statistics of these ensembles by repeating the experiment many times, one particle at a time
all particles are orbiting periodically with a phase shift from entangled pair so 90 degree difference
the ensemble effectively contacts polarizer with its vector pointing in one direction. but when i say this, its metaphorical because the experimeny is done one particle at a time obviously. particles passing polarizer probability given by malus law due to superposition. ensemble can be decomposed into any pair of orthogonal components. polarizer lets through particles of one component but not other.
over many repetitions, contact of ensemble with polarizer is going to be random... we cannot predict it. so probability of passing averages to 1/2.
because of phase shift is applied to creation of every individual photon in ensemble, when we apply the polarizer, it just blocks some photons and allows others through. those allowed through will obviously be still phase shifted from entangled partmer because that phase shift was set at source. so we now have a subensemble that has passed the filter, oriented generally in different direction on average to original ensemble.
once we know this subensemble (call it A) direction, we know direction of its partner sub-ensemble (call it B) which is 90 degree ohase shifted (you could apply same logic but from blocked sub-ensemble perspective but not ad helpful).
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 06:00:46 UTC No. 16498924
POST 1 CONTINUE
>>16498915
>>16498788
what is the probability of entangled sub-ensemble going through? well you do malus law for the 90 degree phase shift plus the polarizer. cos^2 (polarizer (B)- orientation (B)) or whatever. now we know orientation B is a fixed 90 degree shift from polarizer A's angle: i.e. cos^2 (polarizer B - polarizer A (+ 90)) = sin^2 ( B - A)
if we apply same logic but with a 90 or 180 degree phase shift we just get cos^2 (a - b). we recoveered correlations of 1/2 cos^2 (a - b) or 1/2 sin^2(a - b).
why should this ensemble interpretation of velocity work?
that is just how velocity is defined in stochastic mechanics.
stochastic mechanics is full formulation of quantum mechanics where classical particles diffuse stochastically on continuous trajectories. it produces all predictions of quantum mechanics in stochastic model. stochastically quantize angular momentum then you can build spin models with commutation relations of spin that imply the superposition statistics of quantum spin using the stochastic mechanical velocities.
here is paper where they reproduce electron spin correlations:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
Now I show you what the velocities look like (kind of):
Loose depictions in pg. 17 here -
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
fig. 2 here - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/1
fig. 1 - https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/5
the last one is special because it is actually talking about the momentum of path integral interpretation but this momentum and the paths themselves are identical to the ones in stochastic interpretation - they mention that the path integral momentum same as bohm momentum. bohm momentum is same as stochastic mechanical momentum, also mentioned in the 2nd link up above this one, pg. 29.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 06:14:32 UTC No. 16498934
POST CONTINUE 3RD TIME
>>16498788
obviously photon will have similar commutation relation kind of things like so: e.g.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
stochastic mechanics even has field theory version:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola
So the stochastic mechanics should achieve correct correlations as a model through its velocities. and the orbiting is a plausible way of getting the anti-correlations when you consider the application of superposition to these velocities allowing filtering... superposition is sufficient for this to not be a hidden variable theory with local beables since there is no joint probability distribution for the particle statistics even though my whole description has been on the level of not the quantum state, but underlying particle description beneath the quantum state, quantum is nothing more than predictive tool here. you can use the polarizer to bisect the ensembles of particles at any angle one wishes. how is this possible? because the particle stochastic motion, as you see in pictures, can go in many directions within the same ensemble.
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 10:19:24 UTC No. 16499088
>>16498915
>dunno what youre on about pal
>What do you call an exchange that facilitates the transfer of a specified quantity of a given material, by reciprocating the transfer with a material that has a comparatively equivalent value?
>What do you call an "exchange"
in stock market, an "exchange", is basically a platform used in financial investing
in stoichiometry , the substances they work with interact with and have their properties defined based on how they "exchange" their atomic particles
>that facilitates the transfer of a specified quantity of a given material
in stock market, that could mean something like Xamount of Ystocks <---- ----> Xamount of Ycurrency
in stoichiometry that could mean transfer of associated variables like P(rotons) N(eutrons) E(lectrons) and their composite forms such as molecules
>by reciprocating the transfer with a material that has a comparatively equivalent value
in stock market, that could mean something like Xamount of Ystocks <---- ----> Xamount of Ycurrency
in stoichiometry that could mean Xmoles of Ysubstances exchanging ZElectrons, or balancing equations for xCO2 + yNHO3 <--- ----> zN2O + wH2O + uCO6
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 10:34:30 UTC No. 16499096
Bells paradox is more fucky than that.
Three axis of measurement in both stations. Perfect (anti) correlation if the measurement axis are the same. But here is the problem. 25% (75%) correlation as the axis are different?
All normal sense would think 33% or 66%
Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 20:24:19 UTC No. 16499500
>>16499096
i explain it fully in the 3 big posts i made 2 posts up from here, all starting with headline
"POST"
DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 20:30:15 UTC No. 16499506
>>16497991
>proof is offered
>i'm not gonna waste my time
the absolute state of /sci/
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 00:00:25 UTC No. 16499721
>>16498826
and local polarization just means wave field polarized at every point. in mita paper. you see the graphic of the grid of circles. thise are the local polarizations
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 00:21:15 UTC No. 16499728
>>16499500
Filtered by bell's theorem.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:56:07 UTC No. 16499807
>>16498915
>>16498924
>all particles are orbiting periodically with a phase shift from entangled pair so 90 degree difference
>because of phase shift is applied to creation of every individual photon in ensemble
>what is the probability of entangled sub-ensemble going through? well you do malus law
>it produces all predictions of quantum mechanics in stochastic model.
if phase shift exists pre-measurement, how do you reproduce doi.org/10.3367/UFNe.2017.09.038210
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:58:12 UTC No. 16499809
>>16498924
>>16498934
>here is paper where they reproduce electron spin correlations:
>https://scholar.google.co.uk/schol
this predicts deviations from qm that are "averaged out", stochastic beables for position and orientation, superluminal transfer of information, continuous spin, and a rotational-invariance-breaking preferred axis. where are the experimental tests of these things? i don't understand how to generalize this toy to other entangled pairs of two-level systems like qubits, calculate ghzm and general n-particle entanglement (it seems like additional beables would be required to emulate the anticommutivity of pauli matrices), stern-gerlach analyzer loops, hardy's paradox, or relativistic variants either.
>stochastic mechanics even has field theory
>https://scholar.google.co.uk/schol
this one breaks lorentz invariance, picks a preferred frame, puts the background geometry on a lattice, needs superluminal information transfer, and uses field beables. why are none of these things observed in experiments? it says field beables sometimes have localized 'spikes', but i don't see how to guarantee this for the pointwise detection of all particles made so far. it gets to part of tree-level self-interacting phi^4, everything else is 'future work', including spin >0 of course. i don't know how lattice insights can help further, given the nielsen–ninomiya theorem. lemme know when there's a calculable g-factor for the electron, calculable hyperfine splitting, and calculable loop-corrected standard model cross sections, some of which even undergrads do nowadays, corroborable with the hundreds of petabytes of data from accelerators.
btw, the inventor of what you're proposing gave the baby up
https://web.archive.org/web/2013031
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nel
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:07:27 UTC No. 16500934
>>16499807
check out "entanglement and the measurement probkem" by Art Hobson
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:17:18 UTC No. 16500945
>>16499809
>I post 9000 word rants that I know nobody is going to read just because typing out a bunch sci fi buzzwords and jargon makes me feel smart
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:19:44 UTC No. 16500970
>>16499809
>>16499809
>this predicts deviations from qm that are "averaged out"
which deviations?
>rotational-invariance-breaking preferred axis
where?
>stochastic beables for position and orientation
umm no local beables. it haas stochastic particles coz its an intetpretation, hello. not gomna be identical to qm. but it can produce all predictions.
>i don't understand how to generalize...
so what? you are expecting a marginalized and therefore underdeveloped formulation to capture literally everything that has taken decades for a mainstream theory to construct? same goes for the field theory. not a real criticism. im not even that interested in its capability as a full formulation. i am interested in quantum interpretation.
>it says field beables sometimes have localized 'spikes
this isnt important because the 'localized spike' isnt actually a particle.
>Nelson gave up
All of the issues Nelson had have in principle been solved.
Kuipers' latest formulation has no multi-time correlation problem and found out that the wallstrom quantization condition was in the theory all along. nelson himself showed that the theory is no longer superluminal when the diffusion is non-markovian. krener and levy subsequently constructed a non-markovian formulation in 1996. a separate unrelated non-markovian stochastic formulation of quantum mechanics has also been created by barandes in 2023.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:20:53 UTC No. 16500971
heres the real question
the real question you should all be asking yourselves is why is it evem possible to reproduce all of the quantum predictions with a classical stochastic theory?
doesnt make any sense
unless it was correct.
its insanely conspiratorial that you can produce all quantum behavior using classical particles, that most other areas of science and everyday experience has this purviee of commonsensical classical world where everything is in one place at a time
its insanely conspiratorial that this is not true.
its head and shoulders above every other interpretation in the sense of reclaiming commonsense reality, avoids all of this weird measurement problem issues, and is actually based on a mathematical formulation which is independent from quantum theory in the sense that it is just constructed from what you would ordinarily call a classical stochastic system
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:32:20 UTC No. 16501863
>>16500934
dunno how that helps you show phase shift is a hidden variable. the paper assumes ordinary qm without hidden variables but drops the projection postulate. in order to 'derive' the projection postulate, proof by example is used in which collapse is implicitly assumed for the incoming state, just apply bayes' theorem. also, none of the examples are time-dependent so the 'proof' is manifestly incomplete: in this case if you make a measurement the state has to be replaced with what's actually observed to get the right probabilities for subsequent measurements. these articles are about many worlds, but the same arguments are applicable
https://web.archive.org/web/2019092
https://web.archive.org/web/2021102
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:34:05 UTC No. 16501867
>>16500970
>which deviations?
an electron being a spherical ball, for starters. the stochastic rotations become noticeable at smaller length scales. so this influences spin-dependent tunneling and small barn scattering processes, for example. unless you infinitely fine tune the radius. and what happens when you add backreaction? a charged rigid rotator emits radiation and loses angular momentum. i also don't see anything preventing me from building an ftl walkie-talkie with a singlet state, or doing a galilean boost to ftl for that matter.
>where?
there's a rotational axis associated with each electron to get projections of spin, even if the initial distribution is uniformly random. so it becomes possible to measure a non-discrete angular momentum from a rotated coordinate system, unless you violate the conservation of angular momentum. and how's this supposed to work when a ferromagnet gets repeatedly remagnetized.
>it haas stochastic particles coz its an intetpretation
you can't call something an interpretation when there's empirical distinguishability. what fundamentally stops anyone from measuring them? at least the intelligent design people say that divine intervention is unphysical.
>not gomna be identical to qm. but it can produce all predictions.
>so what? you are expecting a marginalized and therefore underdeveloped
these sentences contradict one another. you don't get to pull the minority card when literally everyone hates quantum theory and have been trying to replace it with hidden variables since the very beginning. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. i can't even find a demo showing atoms don't spontaneously ionize when you introduce electrodynamics.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:35:06 UTC No. 16501871
>>16500970
>im not even that interested in its capability as a full formulation. i am interested in quantum interpretation.
then you should find no problem with what's written in >>16497860, which doesn't rely on any interpretation, just the math. what are you even doing on /sci/ if you don't want to discuss science (which by definition requires falsifiability) or math.
>this isnt important because the 'localized spike' isnt actually a particle.
yeah, it's particle-like, which is kinda important to not instantly contradict observations and can't just be hand-waved away.
>All of the issues Nelson had have in principle been solved.
then getting back to the op dilemma, where's a fully worked out photon bell test for one of these allegedly viable models.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:49:52 UTC No. 16502093
>>16501863
it helps because the phase shift is of the same kind that exists in those papers. its an interpretation of something that already is somewhere in the conventional quantum theory / formalism / experimental methods
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:06:10 UTC No. 16502101
>>16501867
>>16501867
>an electron being a spherical ball
well i dont agree with that either but the general gist of the model is still valid.
>unless you infinitely fine tune the radius.
what do you mean?
>a charged rigid rotator emits radiation and loses angular momentum
this is explicitly accounted for in stochastic mechanics. the system is in equilibrium with the background field.
>i also don't see anything preventing me from building an ftl walkie-talkie with a singlet state, or doing a galilean boost to ftl for that matter.
depends what you mean. it reproduces predictions of qm so it precludes ftl communication in the sense qm does.
it does not preclude ftl communication in aspects of the theory not in qm. but the authors interpret this as not physical but information updating in the model.
imo theres good reason to take that seriously because it has been shown at least twice that if you use a non-markovian diffusion instead of a markovian one then the ftl communication disappears even despite entanglement. one might suppose that what is happening here is that non-markovian diffusions allow the system to effectively remember correlations that originated in local interactions. markovian diffusions are exolicitly memoryless so the only way to satisfy the predictions of quantum mechanics while being memoryless is in a way that looks non-local. but one might argue that in reality the markov assumption is a false idealization and the non-markovianity is more veridical. why think this? markov diffusions are dissipative and not time-reversible. stochastic mechanics is explicitly time-reversible and so something additional is added to get from markovian diffusions to stochastic mechanics. stochastic mechanics is a non-markovian theory pretending ti be markovian
>so it becomes possible to measure a non-discrete angular momentum
well not in this paper
>unless you violate the conservation of angular momentum
explicitly conserved in stochastic mechanics
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:10:47 UTC No. 16502102
>>16497919
>Using Google scholar
>For physics
Opinion discarded. You're an idiot.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:15:58 UTC No. 16502106
>>16501867
>what fundamentally stops anyone from measuring them?
you can measure them, you are measuring them in every quantum experiment but because their behavior is random, measurements are only meaningful in a statistical sense in exactly the same way it is for qm. in the double slit experiment if you let photons go through one by one, you are seeing these particles on the screen, but they still produce interferences and can be subject to decoherence in a statistical sense
>these sentences contradict one another.
no they dont. its literally the definition of a quantum interpretation - something metaphysically distinct but reproduces all quantum predictions
bohmian mechanics reproduces all predictions
same with qbism
same with many worlds
many people in conventional qm call the quantum state ir wavefunction a particle
in stochastic mechanics the wavefunction / quantum state is not a real physical object but a tool for statistical prediction. the actual particles are underneath. when they talk about local beables in that paper it seems to clear to me that they are pandering to or talking through the lense of conventional qm. they talk about the spikes in the pictures as if they are the particles you want when in reality (and obviously they know this and probably mention it) the spike is just a depiction of time-averaged statistical behavior. You could have a localized spike or spread out wave, it doesnt matter because both are just statistical depictions, not actual self-contained physical objects. its not really ontologically significant if the long-run statistical behavior of particles looks like a spike or spreads out over space. thats a distraction from the actual physical ontology of the theory.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:24:16 UTC No. 16502113
>>16501871
>>16501871
>then you should find no problem with what's written in >>16497860
whats written there is not in the category im talking about. those points are points about simple ontology and metaphysics, nothing to do with having a complete quantum field theory. there are cores and peripheries to all scientific theories. something like stochastic mechanica clearly reproduces the core of quantum mechanics. it hasnt got to the peripheries but that isnt necessarily because it cant, its because it takes an i credible amount of work to apply these theories in specific detail and to solve specific problems. it has taken qm 100 years to get to where it is now without changing the core principles of qm. you cant expect the same for stochastic mechanics which hasnt had the opportunity for people to work on it in the same way.
>yeah, it's particle-like, which is kinda important to not instantly contradict observations and can't just be hand-waved away.
already addeessed before
>then getting back to the op dilemma, where's a fully worked out photon bell test for one of these allegedly viable models.
you already have an electron one and the theory is demonstrably equivalent to qm.