ABSTRACT: It is argued that perfect quantum correlations cannot be due to additive conservation. Dr. Bertlmann likes to wear two socks of different colours. Which colour he will have on a given foot on a given day is quite unpredictable. But when you see that the first sock is pink you can already be sure that the second sock will not be pink. Observation of the first, and experience of Bertlmann, gives immediate information about the second. Bell (1981) Most interesting features of quantum mechanics have at least something to do with interference, which will not, however, be at issue here at all. Interference is brought out by an appeal to different bases, but here the same (product) basis is adhered to throughout. It is often claimed, and even more often suspected, that conservation accounts for quantum correlations (by which perfect quantum correlations will be meant). The underlying intuition is well expressed by Bertlmann’s socks, or by the fact that the distribution of wine over two glasses can be worked out, provided one knows the total amount in both, by a measurement on one of them. Or consider a conservative classical Hamiltonian where T is kinetic energy and the potential energy V depends only on position. Conservation here means that exchanges of kinetic and potential energy along a trajectory have to satisfy where is the total energy of that motion. Kinetic energy will then be a function only of position, so that at any stage of the motion can be deduced from the potential; they are perfectly correlated. Or take two free classical particles, each one subject only to the influence of the other, with initial momenta and Irrespective of whether they collide their total momentum will remain the momentum of the primed particle can always be derived from the momentum p of the other. These cases are paradigmatic for additive conservation. (),H T V q = +
ABSTRACT: It is argued that perfect quantum correlations cannot be due to additive conservation. Dr. Bertlmann likes to wear two socks of different colours. Which colour he will have on a given foot on a given day is quite unpredictable. But when you see that the first sock is pink you can already be sure that the second sock will not be pink. Observation of the first, and experience of Bertlmann, gives immediate information about the second. Bell (1981) Most interesting features of quantum mechanics have at least something to do with interference, which will not, however, be at issue here at all. Interference is brought out by an appeal to different bases, but here the same (product) basis is adhered to throughout. It is often claimed, and even more often suspected, that conservation accounts for quantum correlations (by which perfect quantum correlations will be meant). The underlying intuition is well expressed by Bertlmann’s socks, or by the fact that the distribution of wine over two glasses can be worked out, provided one knows the total amount in both, by a measurement on one of them. Or consider a conservative classical Hamiltonian where T is kinetic energy and the potential energy V depends only on position. Conservation here means that exchanges of kinetic and potential energy along a trajectory have to satisfy where is the total energy of that motion. Kinetic energy will then be a function only of position, so that at any stage of the motion can be deduced from the potential; they are perfectly correlated. Or take two free classical particles, each one subject only to the influence of the other, with initial momenta and Irrespective of whether they collide their total momentum will remain the momentum of the primed particle can always be derived from the momentum p of the other. These cases are paradigmatic for additive conservation. (),H T V q = +
Introduction The philosopher in the street, who has not suffered a course in quantum mechanics, is quite unimpressed by Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations. He can point to many examples of similar correlations in everyday life. The case of Bertlmann's socks is often cited. Dr. Bertlmann likes to wear two socks of different colours. Which colour he will have on a given foot on a given day is quite unpredictable. But when you see (Fig. 1) that the first sock is pink you can be already sure that the second sock will not be pink. Observation of the first, and experience of Bertlmann, gives immediate information about the second. There is no accounting for tastes, but apart from that there is no mystery here. And is not the EPR business just the same? Consider for example the particular EPR gedanken experiment of Bohm (Fig. 2). Two suitable particles, suitably prepared (in the ‘singlet spin state’), are directed from a common source towards two widely separated magnets followed by detecting screens. Each time the experiment is performed each of the two particles is deflected either up or down at the corresponding magnet. Whether either particle separately goes up or down on a given occasion is quite unpredictable. But when one particle goes up the other always goes down and vice-versa. After a little experience it is enough to look at one side to know also about the other.
In physics (including classical physics), conservation of momentum is always considered, but one must be more careful with conservation of energy as it may include forms like sound etc. As a result, there is a tendency to focus on conservation of momentum all of the time, and conservation of particle energy only in elastic collisions. In addition to this, one may think of a particle striking a target, in which case two equal momentum (but different energies due to different v speed and mo rest mass) cause the same impact. In the case of an interaction with a potential, however, it is strictly energy considerations which are important classically, i.e one uses p dot p /2m + V(x) = E. Knowing momentum without rest mass is not sufficient. One may consider it unusual that one may consider two different scenarios, one which focuses only on momentum (impulse) or conservation of momentum in collisions while only energy is the focus in classical bound states or motion in V(x). Given the classical focus on momentum, imagine that one wishes to describe all free particles with different momenta as a uniform probability distribution such that a product of two probabilities for p1,p2 is the same as for p3,p4 if p1+p2=p3+p4. (We use 1-dimension for simplicity.). One cannot use P= 1/n because p is absent and n->infinite. In one sense, all particles must have the same probability, but at the same time must contain extra information related to p for the conservation of p part of the problem. The notion of a uniform distribution is independent of conservation of momentum, hence of p momentum. Conservation of momentum requires an explicit presence of p. As a result, there seems to be a paradox. One may, however, resolve this paradox by arguing that a probability is a mathematical way of presenting a subset of the information present. If one argues for a uniform probability, then it does not need to contain p, and one would have 1 as an unnormalized probability for any free particle p. A different probability (representing a different subset of information) which respects all free particles as having the same weight, but includes p can also be constructed, namely exp(i C p). C is a constant introduced for unit issues. In this case, the modulus gives all free particle probabilities with p the same weight, but the presence of p allows one to have conservation of momentum. Given that momentum is the key variable that is conserved in classical physics, one should be satisfied with exp(i C p). One might argue that there is no need to consider energy E. We note, however, that if one has p, E1 and -p, E2 in a frame, then in a frame moving with -v, one has gp+gvE1= p1’ and p2’ = -gp + gvE2. Adding yields gv(E1+E2) and so energy automatically appears and cannot be discarded. Furthermore for p, E1 and -p, E2, exp(i C 0) is exp(i C gv(E1+E2)) as seen in the moving frame and so one is forced to consider conservation of energy together with momentum and include both p and E in the more detailed probability. In other words, special relativity automatically links p and E in a 4-vector, leading to the idea that both are important. We argue that one cannot simply consider exp(i C p) due to special relativity. Both E and p must be considered together and this is a key idea, we argue, because if one wishes to have a Lorentz invariant probability, it must be in E and p, i.e. -Et+px. Instead of having a probability for an interaction with p given by exp(i C p) , one has exp(-iEt+ipx) and we argue that this must have the same value in all frames for a particular interaction. One may note that E and p are, on the one hand, separated allowing for impulse hit versus E related interactions, but that overall the probability for interaction includes both and it is the full -Et+ipx which must be invariant. This further suggests that if one does not artificially force an interaction to occur at the center-of-mass, then x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E are equally good points for the interaction. We argue that there is no need to force x=vt because exp(-iEt+ipx) * exp(iEt+ipx) already shows that one has uniformity, not only for any p,E, but also for any x, t, as there are now four variables. Thus, there is no reason to enforce x=vt in exp(-iEt+ipx), when considering an interaction, we argue. This means that one has two possible interactions at different x,t values, i.e. x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E. If one is unable to follow the interaction in time, but may follow it in space as in the case of 2-slits about hbar/p apart or for a potential V(x), then one may use the exp(ipx) part of the interaction probability piece by itself. Thus, we argue that special relativity does not allow one to treat p independently of E. For example, for p values that are the same in one frame, but have E1, E2, will be different in another frame. One must consider E and p together and so instead of creating a probability for p alone, one must create one for E,p and then impose Lorentz invariance which leads to different x,t pairs yielding the same probability value for an interaction, i.e. free particle quantum mechanics.
We suggest that quantum mechanics is concerned with preserving two conservations, one related to a kind of probability and the other to a mechanical balance.These two conservations exist at the level of a single particle and are interlinked. Specifically, the derivative d/dx, which measures the effect of a change in a kind of probability, also measures the associated resistance or impulse for a free particle. For a free particle, the “kind of probability” is exp(ipx) and d/dx exp(ipx) = ip exp(ipx) showing that there is an impulse related to p linked with the probability. In other words, a free particle moves through space in a probabilistic manner related to the resistance associated with the impulse p. These two conservations, a kind of probability and a kind of resistance, lead to two independent equations when one considers continuity at points which change momentum. We consider again the problem of a photon moving in the x direction which reflects or refracts at an interface along the y axis between n1-n2 (indices of refraction). Classically, probability is conserved i.e. 1= P(reflect) + P(refract) ((1)). The steady state problem, however, has the appearance of an equilibrium and should have a second conservation, namely one in space, i.e. a balance of pressure. This balance, linear in momentum, however, is the identical equation as ((1)). Thus, there are still two unknowns P(reflect), P(refract) and one equation. In the quantum case, double conservation may classically be manifested by the same equation. This seems to suggest, we argue, that ((1)) is a consequence of an equation based on p (which is linked to momentum). We try to find this association in two ways. First, we argue that the interface may exist at xo and that there are various momenta in the problem, We argue these represent pertinent information which does not appear in ((1)). We suggest that ((1)) seems to be a kind of magnitude equation with p and xo information being part of the direction of vectors i.e. p and xo may exist in a phase exp(i f(p,x)). Together with the conservation of pressure condition, we argue that exp(i f(p,x)) = exp(ipx). This argument, however, implicity involves consider the phase function exp(if(p,x)) as a kind of probability. Alternatively, we consider finding this probability follows from maximizing Shannon’s entropy subject to the periodic constraint i p x P(x), but we investigate why Shannon’s entropy form should be used, i.e. what is its physical significance?
I point out critical errors in the article “Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality” by J. Christian, published in IEEE ACCESS. Christian's model does not generate the singlet correlations but in fact simply reproduces the Bertlmann effect. John Bell's colleague Reinhold Bertlmann of CERN, in his younger days, always wore one pink and one blue sock, at random. The moment you saw his left foot, you knew what colour sock would be on his right foot. Action at a distance? As John Bell liked to explain, quantum entanglement cannot be explained away in such an easy way. Yet Christian's model assigns the two particles of the EPR-B experiment an equal and opposite spin at the source, the choice being determined by a fair coin toss. However they are measured, these spins are recovered. Christian's computer simulation works by not actually simulating his model at all but by almost directly tracing the negative cosine built into his computer algebra package. Bell's theorem has not been disproved. Debate as to what it means for the foundations of physics as well as for quantum information engineering (quantum communication, computation) is more lively today than ever before. A possible role for Geometric Algebra is still wide open and deserves further investigation, informed by a proper understanding of the mathematical content of Bell's theorem.
Abstract Two or more particles which have interacted in the past, may in general maintain nontrivial quantum mechanical correlations, described by non-factorized wave functions. These correlations, under optimal conditions, can manifest themselves no matter how far they travel away from each other and even when the separate parts cannot dynamically influence each other, leading to apparently paradoxical situations. These correlations are known as quantum entanglement. However counter-intuitive and surprising it may sometimes look, it is rather one of the more beautiful and experimentally well established predictions of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is very puzzling. A particle can be delocalized, it can be simultaneously in several energy states and it can even have several different identities at once. This schizophrenic behavior is encoded in its wavefunction, which can always be written as a superposition of quantum states, each characterized by a complex probability amplitude. Interferences between these amplitudes occur when the particle can follow several indistinguishable paths. Any attempt to determine which trajectory it “actually takes” destroys these interferences. This is a manifestation of wave—particle complementarity, which has recently been illustrated in textbook fashion by several beautiful experiments.