006 Anomalies in EPR data–Preamble

Anomalies in coincidence probabilities in EPR data

By

Bryan Sanctuary

Department of Chemistry

McGill University

Preamble

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3mCauDFzvE

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeKfWAT-Ef4

Quantum Mechanics is incomplete

Up to now I have talked quite generally about where quantum mechanics fits into the scheme of mechanics.  The underlying theme is that quantum mechanics is incomplete from a philosophical point of view; from a physical point of view; and if you believe EPR from a mathematical point of view.  Physically quantum mechanics predicts most properties of matter and is the most successful theory we have of the microscopic.

However in some cases it gives nonsense results, such as the persistence of entanglement to separated particles, non-locality and these new quantum anomalies.  So in these next few entries of this blog I am going to be more technical and discuss my new sub-quantum theory.  The title of the talk is Anomalies in coincidence probabilities in EPR data.  But first a preamble to set the stage:

I gave a short 15 minute version of this talk in Torino Italy, (May 2010) and a 30 minute talk in Torun, Poland (June 2010) , the birthplace of Nicolaus Copernicus.

Notice that the theme of the conference is “Quantum channels and quantum information – theory and application.”  Now one of the consequences of the sub-quantum theory I presented at these meetings is that quantum channels do not exist.  Entanglement is a property of quantum mechanics and not of Nature and that Bell’s theorem is repudiated.

All of quantum information theory rests on the validity of Bell’s Theorem

In 2009 I also attended a meeting in Toronto and at that meeting the first John Bell prize for work in quantum information was given to Nicholas Gisin from the University of Geneva.  In his talk he made a profound and far reaching statement:

“The whole of quantum information theory rests upon the validity of Bell’s Theorem”

So I have a question: what happens to quantum information if Bell’s Theorem is incorrect?

Quantum channels

So what are quantum channels and what is Bell’s theorem?

In 1993 Bennett, Brassard, Crepeau, Jozsa, Peres and Wootters wrote the classic paper on teleportation.  The title is:

Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein Podolsky Rosen Channels.

Now by classical channels, they mean calling on the telephone. Einstein Podolsky Rosen Channels refer to the paper on 1935 called EPR and are the quantum channels.

It is certainly my contention that experimental data cannot support the notion of quantum channels. They also cannot be supported on the basis of physical intuition. Einstein Podolsky Rosen actually ruled out such connectivity in their 1935 paper.

Here it is, “Can quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?  It is worth reading a few of their points view:

“A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system.”

And then

“Any serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the distinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates.”    Please note “Independent of any theory”

And to emphasize that everything is local (that is no quantum or EPR channels) they state,

“If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.”

Which is one of the most quoted parts of the paper.

Nonetheless Quantum channels are insensately conjectured to be responsible for conservation of angular momentum between a pair of separated and entangled spins.  What this means is that no matter how far the entangled pair is apart, if one is flipped, the other must flop, with the connectivity between these particles given by “quantum channels”.

The quantum channels are supposed to mediate nonlocality.

Many people believe quantum mechanics itself is non-local.  Here we find:

“Nonlocality is one of the most striking properties of quantum mechanics.  Two distant observers, each holding half of an entangled quantum state and performing appropriate measurements, share correlations which are non-local.”

They are talking about quantum channels mediating nonlocality, but what is half a quantum state?  I defy anyone to write down half an entangled state from quantum mechanics.  According to David Bohm, an entangled state is an “undivided whole”.

Speed of communication

The speed that information is communicated over quantum channels has been calculated.  It is fast:

”We set a lower bound for the speed of quantum information in this frame at 150 thousand times the speed of light.”  We need tachyons for that.

This made it to journals like scientific American,

“Quantum weirdness wins again:  Entanglement clocks in at 10,000 + times faster than light.”

What is quantum weirdness???

Books have been written to try to rationalize quantum mechanics and relativity with mixed reviews.

You often hear to statement:

“Quantum mechanics and relativity live in peaceful coexistence.”

Well it’s not true. Let us put tachyons aside and just accept that believing that connectivity between separated entangled particles means just the opposite quantum mechanics is in conflict with relativity.

There is another alternative of course.  There is nothing incompatible between quantum mechanics and relativity, but rather quantum mechanics is an incomplete local theory and the long range correlations have an origin which is local.

Bell’s Theorem

Let’s turn to Bell’s theorem, which is not a mathematical theorem.  Rather it is a deduction based upon the fact that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequalities and states

Bell’s Theorem:  No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Note that Bell’s theorem only refers to sub-quantum theories; it says nothing about quantum mechanics being a non-local theory.  Let’s read the introduction:

“The paradox of EPR was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables (sic. Hidden Variables).  These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality.”

I think Bell’s intentions are abundantly clear; he is talking only about hidden variables, not quantum mechanics.  It also seems that John Bell disagreed with EPR and thought quantum mechanics a complete subject.  In deriving his inequalities, and showing quantum mechanics violated them, he concluded (incorrectly as I will show) that the objective reality of position and momentum that EPR proved required a hidden variable theory displaying non-local correlations.  Since the notion of non-locality is absurd, Bell ruled out hidden variables and therefore quantum mechanics is complete.

We came across “quantum Weirdness”. In Google it gets 121,000 hits Read a few:

“Quantum weirdness arises when a quantum system is enlarged to a macroscopic scale and then measured in a way that would violate the indeterminacy principle”  I do not understand this.

“non-local behavior” (or colloquially as “quantum weirdness” or “Spooky action at a distance”)  So quantum weirdness refers to non-locality.

Or Quantum magic, well I will let you read. 527,000 hits for Magic.

Quantum spookiness—more of the same—3,210,000 hits.  When scientists use words like quantum weirdness, magic and spookiness to describe Nature, then you can only conclude one thing:  They do not understand what they are talking about.  It is that simple.

Let’s move on.

As I said, Bell’s Theorem, incorrect as it might be, only refers to sub-quantum mechanics.  However many attempts have been made to try to extend Bell’s theorem to quantum mechanics.  Here is one paper by Stapp:  Bell’s Theorem without Hidden Variables.  Read the abstract:  “Experiments motivated by Bell’s theorem have led some physicists to conclude that quantum theory is nonlocal.  However, the theoretical basis for such claims is…”

And he goes on to say that Bell’s theorem refers to hidden variable theories and not quantum mechanics, and then presents a proof that extends non-locality to quantum mechanics.

His proof has not lived up to scrutiny, for example Bill Unruh from UBC has convincingly argued against Stapp.  Nonetheless, due to entanglement being considered a property of Nature, and in the absence of a reasonable alternate explanation; people continue to believe that Bell’s theorem should be extended to quantum mechanics making it is a non-local theory

But quantum mechanics is a local theory and so too, as we will see, is the sub-quantum theory that resolves the anomalies found in the EPR data.   If I can give you such a local sub-quantum theory then it means Bell’s theorem is incorrect.

This entry is more of a preamble to set the stage for the talk.  The next entry is the first part of my talk where I show that all known data including the anomalies can be obtained from a product of two spins correlated by orientation only, with no entanglement, with no quantum channels, with no magic, no weirdness and no spookiness, and definitely no tricks.

However if you wish to follow my sub-quantum theory, you will have to put aside your pre-conceived ideas of quantum mechanics.  You will have to accept that non-commuting operators have simultaneous reality; the Heisenberg relations do not hold for the sub-quantum theory; a point particle of a spin ½ is not a point particle but has structure; that Bell’s theorem is wrong and that EPR is correct.

Most physicists today have been brought up with the idea that Bell is correct and that EPR are wrong.  Most scientists I talk to shake their heads and tell me that they cannot understand it.  It makes no sense, but the majority also believes that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory and we have to accept its incompleteness as a property of Nature.  So this is a paradox

–