Ghenadie Mardari

Mathematical Realism is not Physics.

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

“Quantum Correlations in Classical Systems” is now featured on the front page of Quantum Reports. https://t.co/nJCpDVd3j6

This paper explains how to obtain quantum-like inseparable distributions with two independent computers.

Such a result is possible despite Bell’s Theorem. The nuance is that Bell used two definitions of Locality (verbal and mathematical), with an important difference between them. The mathematical definition boils down to Separability, which is not the same thing as physical independence. Some observables can be inseparable locally, as part of the same projection, due to system-level effects on individual behavior. Therefore, it is possible to achieve “second-hand” inseparability from system-level correlations between two independent projections (emerging from a prior common cause).

Several outstanding puzzles needed to be solved for this result. 1/3 🧵

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@ThStoneh @skdh Parallel universes is the “mumbo-jumbo” part. It goes away if we stop assuming that quanta have zero size.

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@VickiCocks15 @LabPadre Apparently, they are also known as “diddy bags”. 😎

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

For more details, look up the following papers:

1. “Quantum monogamy with predetermined events”
https://t.co/GeNi7TPLBW

2. “Quantum correlations in classical systems”
https://t.co/ccvFOsBdHz

3/3 🧵

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

“Quantum Correlations in Classical Systems” is now featured on the front page of Quantum Reports. https://t.co/nJCpDVd3j6

This paper explains how to obtain quantum-like inseparable distributions with two independent computers.

Such a result is possible despite Bell’s Theorem. The nuance is that Bell used two definitions of Locality (verbal and mathematical), with an important difference between them. The mathematical definition boils down to Separability, which is not the same thing as physical independence. Some observables can be inseparable locally, as part of the same projection, due to system-level effects on individual behavior. Therefore, it is possible to achieve “second-hand” inseparability from system-level correlations between two independent projections (emerging from a prior common cause).

Several outstanding puzzles needed to be solved for this result. 1/3 🧵

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

Bell’s inequality can be shown to apply to any physical system. So, the first question to ask is:

1. Where is Locality hiding?

The answer is provided by the phenomenon of “quantum monogamy”. A set of three observables A, B, and C cannot violate Bell’s inequality, if considered at the same time, because they form a global joint distribution (A,B,C). However, the same observables can violate Bell’s inequality with pairwise measurements. Specifically in the case of mutually exclusive properties, the three pairwise joints (A,B), (B,C) and (C,A) are not subsets of a global joint distributions (A,B,C). This is even true in classical systems.

In short, Bell’s inequality applies to every system, but not all the time. Yet, this leads to the second question:

2. How to derive incompatible correlations from a common prior cause?

The answer is that mutually exclusive properties can emerge from irreducible macroscopic effects on microscopic behavior. This is true in quantum mechanics, where Born’s rule describes system-level effects on quantum distributions. It is also true in classical mechanics, though rarely acknowledged.

The problem is that vector decomposition (A=B+C) is interpreted as an “identity” relationship (with non-physical implications), even though it describes “equality under transformation”. For example, energy redistribution is commonly interpreted as a reducible process, in terms of virtual spectral components.

In short, the problem is that real physical transformations (with incompatible outcomes) are mistaken for measurements of pre-existing compatible properties.

To sum up, we can achieve Bell violations with isolated computers, but only when we sample the output of mutually exclusive system-level transformations with pairwise measurements.

2/3 🧵

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@PaulRRobichaud This paper was a big inspiration for my work. It helped me understand the difference between ontological realism and Bell realism. There is too much conceptual confusion in the field.

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

Follow the linked thread:
https://t.co/HBs16u24LO

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

A "quantum measurement" is not what you think.

The words “quantum measurement” describe an act of energy redistribution. For example, an optical beam is split in two by a polarizing beam-splitter (PBS). One input projection becomes two output projections (even if detected one quantum at a time).

As a continuation of the classical tradition, this act of redistribution is interpreted as a “measurement”, because the PBS is presumed to reveal undisturbed components from the input beam. For example, vector decomposition D = V + H describes a diagonally polarized projection as the sum of two coherent components (vertical and horizontal). The misunderstood revelation of quantum mechanics was that beam-splitters do not expose pre-existing components, but rather produce irreducible macroscopic transformations.

Linear superposition is “the only mystery” in quantum mechanics. Once we understand it as a macroscopic approximation, everything else falls into place. Even the definition of “local realism” changes, and quantum entanglement is demystified. This is why it was possible to reproduce quantum correlations in classical systems, as shown in the article referenced below.

Read this thread for more. 1/8 🧵

https://t.co/VEIFev736f

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

A "quantum measurement" is not really a measurement.

It is an invasive act of preparation (a physical transformation) that happens before the act of detection. The quanta themselves are never measured in a classical sense. They are counted without distortion, in order to confirm predicted distributions.

Surprisingly, the tradition to describe quantum operators as "observer effects" is rooted in classical mechanics, where spectral decomposition is interpreted as a measurement, rather than as a transfomration with energy redistribution.

Read more about it in the thread below. 🧵

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@PTrubey @Hitchslap1 There is an easier way, just by looking at the drawings: 200 + 2turtles =230.

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

I wonder if Andrei saw something encouraging. He may not just want to participate, but also to influence the outcome. Maybe his nanochat self-improvement is transparent, in a way that makes the progress auditable, even in a runaway scenario.

Also, Elon mentioned being satisfied with Anthropic “safety” standards, when he approved the Colossus deal. At first, the story was that Colossus 1 was underused, but now they are talking about using Colossus 2 as well. It cannot be just about money… Can it? 🤔

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@jawwwn_ @elonmusk @pmarca @joerogan

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@CburgesCliff This is what Big Coffee wants you to think…

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

@DrKnowItAll16 The irony of putting a "Human" t-shirt on a person doing dehumanizing work...

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

The fundamental conflict between classical and quantum mechanics is essentially a question about linear superposition. What happens when a PBS confirms an equation like D = V + H ? There are two possible answers:

1.Identity means structure. We must assume that the diagonal input state of polarization is a macroscopic appearance. The “true reality” is a mixture of two component populations of quanta, with vertical and horizontal polarization. This means that a beam-splitter is a measurement device, revealing undisturbed properties from the source. Bell violations are impossible without “new physics”.

2.Identity means conservation. We must assume that the diagonal input state of polarization is an actual physical profile. Yet, any transformation or decomposition of the input beam must obey the relevant conservation laws. This means that a beam-splitter produces irreducible transformations, creating new properties that cannot exist at the source. Local Bell violations are natural in this case.

If we choose the first answer, we commit ourselves to the “measurement” paradigm, with its plethora of interpretive paradoxes. If we choose the second answer, we can finally acknowledge the difference between preparation and detection, both in classical and in quantum mechanics, with an open path towards unification.

8/8 🧵

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

A "quantum measurement" is not what you think.

The words “quantum measurement” describe an act of energy redistribution. For example, an optical beam is split in two by a polarizing beam-splitter (PBS). One input projection becomes two output projections (even if detected one quantum at a time).

As a continuation of the classical tradition, this act of redistribution is interpreted as a “measurement”, because the PBS is presumed to reveal undisturbed components from the input beam. For example, vector decomposition D = V + H describes a diagonally polarized projection as the sum of two coherent components (vertical and horizontal). The misunderstood revelation of quantum mechanics was that beam-splitters do not expose pre-existing components, but rather produce irreducible macroscopic transformations.

Linear superposition is “the only mystery” in quantum mechanics. Once we understand it as a macroscopic approximation, everything else falls into place. Even the definition of “local realism” changes, and quantum entanglement is demystified. This is why it was possible to reproduce quantum correlations in classical systems, as shown in the article referenced below.

Read this thread for more. 1/8 🧵

https://t.co/VEIFev736f

[Ghenadie Mardari @QM_Rev]

Imagine two macroscopic optical projections that are identical, and therefore strongly correlated from a common source. They cannot violate the Bell inequalities. Yet, suppose that each projection is eventually transformed in a different way, according to some non-linear rule (such as Malus’ Law). Alice and Bob use different settings for their PBS and therefore induce mutually exclusive transformations.

The choice of experimental setting is unconstrained. Alice and Bob are free to choose their transformations. The result of each choice is a physical effect on the corresponding input beam, with dedicated hidden variables. At the final stage, there is a passive “read-only” measurement that simply confirms the number of photons in each output projection.

The causal arrow is straightforward in this case. The choice of experimental settings determines the final profile of hidden variables (not the other way around). Therefore, there is no need to worry about freedom of choice (or other types of non-classical causality). Yet, correlations are still explained by a common source, because they are inherited from the input beams that were transformed.

In short, “Local Realism” – as defined by Bell – is a combination of “correlations from a common cause” and “simultaneous existence”. The second part is falsified in Bell experiments, but this has nothing to do with “Classical Reality”. The issue is simply that premodern physics did not have adequate tools for the analysis of mutually exclusive properties.

7/8 🧵