by gill1109 » Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:20 am
Jarek Duda posted this to several groups:
We are reactivating the QM Foundations and Nature of Time seminar - focused on discussion, hoping to have talks every two weeks Thursdays or Fridays at 17 Warsaw time (CEST).
Please contact us if wanting to give a talk, or maybe having some organizational suggestions.
The current link and list of talks are in the webpage:
http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/QMFNoT also
https://researchseminars.org/seminar/QMFNoT
This Thursday 25 November at 17:00 CEST/Warsaw time we have talk:
Speaker: Marian Kupczyński (UQO)
Title: Quantum nonlocality: how does nature do it?
Abstract: Local realistic and stochastic hidden variable models define experimental protocols, which are inconsistent with experimental protocols used in real Bell Tests. Therefore, it is not surprising that they fail to describe correctly the experimental data. In 2009 Nicholas Gisin claimed in Science, that quantum correlations come from outside the space-time due to the quantum magic. Since we do not believe in magic, we propose a locally causal explanation of these correlations. Neither super-determinism nor retro- causality is needed, nor is experimenter’s freedom of choice (EFO) compromised. In our contextual model, setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced. Outcomes are predetermined both by instrument variables and variables describing incoming correlated signals at the moment of the measurement. There does not exist a joint probability distribution of variables describing all the possible settings, thus Bell inequalities may not be derived. In this talk, based on the articles listed below, we also explain in detail why the assumption called free choice-no conspiracy-measurement independence has nothing to do with EFO and should be rather called noncontextuality assumption. The violation of Bell inequalities neither implies the nonlocality of Nature nor the violation of EFO. It only confirms the contextuality of some observables in quantum domain and that outcomes are not predetermined before the experiment is done.
Kupczynski M., Bell inequalities, experimental protocols and contextuality. Found Phys. (2015) 45:735–53. doi: 10.1007/s10701-014-9863-4;
https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7085
Kupczynski M., Is the Moon there when nobody looks: Bell inequalities and physical reality, Front. Phys., 23 September 2020 |
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00273
Kupczynski M.,.Contextuality-by-Default Description of Bell Tests: Contextuality as the Rule and Not as an Exception,Entropy 2021, 23(9), 1104;
https://doi.org/10.3390/e23091104
Kupczynski, M. A comment on: The violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2105.14279.
Kupczynski, M., Quantum nonlocality: how does nature do it?, In preparation
Topic: QM Foundations and Nature of Time seminar
Time: Nov 25, 2021 05:00 PM Warsaw
Jarek Duda posted this to several groups:
We are reactivating the QM Foundations and Nature of Time seminar - focused on discussion, hoping to have talks every two weeks Thursdays or Fridays at 17 Warsaw time (CEST).
Please contact us if wanting to give a talk, or maybe having some organizational suggestions.
The current link and list of talks are in the webpage: http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/QMFNoT also https://researchseminars.org/seminar/QMFNoT
This Thursday 25 November at 17:00 CEST/Warsaw time we have talk:
Speaker: Marian Kupczyński (UQO)
Title: Quantum nonlocality: how does nature do it?
Abstract: Local realistic and stochastic hidden variable models define experimental protocols, which are inconsistent with experimental protocols used in real Bell Tests. Therefore, it is not surprising that they fail to describe correctly the experimental data. In 2009 Nicholas Gisin claimed in Science, that quantum correlations come from outside the space-time due to the quantum magic. Since we do not believe in magic, we propose a locally causal explanation of these correlations. Neither super-determinism nor retro- causality is needed, nor is experimenter’s freedom of choice (EFO) compromised. In our contextual model, setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced. Outcomes are predetermined both by instrument variables and variables describing incoming correlated signals at the moment of the measurement. There does not exist a joint probability distribution of variables describing all the possible settings, thus Bell inequalities may not be derived. In this talk, based on the articles listed below, we also explain in detail why the assumption called free choice-no conspiracy-measurement independence has nothing to do with EFO and should be rather called noncontextuality assumption. The violation of Bell inequalities neither implies the nonlocality of Nature nor the violation of EFO. It only confirms the contextuality of some observables in quantum domain and that outcomes are not predetermined before the experiment is done.
Kupczynski M., Bell inequalities, experimental protocols and contextuality. Found Phys. (2015) 45:735–53. doi: 10.1007/s10701-014-9863-4; https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7085
Kupczynski M., Is the Moon there when nobody looks: Bell inequalities and physical reality, Front. Phys., 23 September 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00273
Kupczynski M.,.Contextuality-by-Default Description of Bell Tests: Contextuality as the Rule and Not as an Exception,Entropy 2021, 23(9), 1104; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23091104
Kupczynski, M. A comment on: The violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2105.14279.
Kupczynski, M., Quantum nonlocality: how does nature do it?, In preparation
Topic: QM Foundations and Nature of Time seminar
Time: Nov 25, 2021 05:00 PM Warsaw
