The violation of 'local realism' and Zeilinger's experiment emulated by classical means

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the violation of 'local realism' is a distinctive feature of quantum systems, and it cannot be modeled by classical means. Our pilot study shows that this is actually possible. When analyzing the emulation of well-known 'quantum paradoxes', it turns out that the key role in their occurrence is played by the operation of the coincidence counter, which differently distinguishes a subset of entangled pairs from the set of all registrations. Its operation leads to the illusion of instantaneous 'spooky action' and 'retroactive eraser', when changing the system setting changes the settings of statistical sampling from data collected in the past. In the light of new thought experiments, the 'collapse' of the wave function can be interpreted in a subjective manner, as a change in the practical attitude of the experimenter's mind, which does not contradict however the objective nature of reality. In this case, the wave function is only a way of describing statistical 'ensembles' in the Blokhintsev's sense. The presence of non-classical interference between distant macroscopic cyclic processes should lead to non-local effects in animate and inanimate nature and in the human brain.

Delayed choice quantum eraser: сlassic emulation

 There is an opinion that experiments with delayed choice quantum eraser cannot be emulated by classical methods. However, this opinion is not true.

Let's conduct the following thought experiment: imagine that in the direction of Alice and Bob, whose laboratories are located at a distance in space, not pairs of particles are launched, but pairs of macroscopic arrows at different random angles in a certain plane (YZ). All participants in the experiment know in advance that each pair is launched at the same angle to the Z-axis, but if we take many pairs of launched pairs, the angles are randomly distributed between the pairs of arrows. It is also known that if one arrow in a pair is directed with its nose in one direction, then the other - in strictly opposite direction.

The registration of arriving arrows in each space laboratory is as follows: at the edge of a circular hole in the plane (YZ) in the spacecraft of Alice and Bob, which are distant from each other, through which the arrows fly, there is a registration sensor directed to the center of the hole. He knows how to register the 'nose' or 'tail' of the arrow. If the arrow is turned towards it with the nose at least at a small angle, the arrow sensor registers the 'nose'. If on the contrary, then the 'tail'. For clarity, we can assume that there are red lights on the 'noses', and green ones on the 'tails', and only one of the two lights is visible to the detector.

In the diagram, the holes in the walls of the space laboratories of Alice and Bob are superimposed on one another. During the experiment, a strict arrangement of these holes in parallel planes is maintained. Alice's and Bob's pointers for registering arrows are mutually located as shown in the diagram: at an angle φ.

The nonlocality theorem of 'Another' and the 'hard problem of consciousness'

 While in Plato the Soul, with the help of Reason, learns sciences, in Aristotle it itself is an object of scientific study. The states of the soul, according to Aristotle, come from the state of the body. In modern terms, consciousness is an 'epiphenomenon' of the body: and if the body corresponds to certain characteristics (functions), it should necessarily be interpreted as the presence of consciousness or 'mind'.

In another way, this idea can be formulated through the 'principle of supervenience': 'it cannot be so that one state of the body would correspond to two different states of consciousness, the opposite is quite possible'. The principle of supervenience puts mind and body in unequal, asymmetric relations, where the source of causation, movement and, in general, any change is the body, and consciousness is like a 'mirror'.

It follows that if the body is in the state of F, possessing consciousness, then it cannot be in the same state of F, and at the same time be a soulless 'zombie'.

Any suitable body is 'infused' with mind - this is the opinion of the functionalists. Of course, 'suitable' means the state of a living, healthy (or nearly healthy) human body.

The paradox is that modern physical theory is such that it does not just allow, but requires the existence of 'zombie twins', that is, living bodies that are obviously have not consciousness. We have formulated this statement in the form of a theorem.

The theorem on the nonlocality of another consciousness

Formulation:

Let Ψ1 be the consciousness of one, and Ψ2 is the consciousness of the other, and if the temporary localization of Ψ1 is determined from the point of view of himself, then either 1) from the point of view of Ψ1, the localization of Ψ2 is not determined, or 2) the special theory of relativity is false.

Non-formal proof:

Since in the special theory of relativity, simultaneity depends on the choice of a frame of reference, then along with a change in the frame of reference, the relative time localization of events that are distant from each other also changes. Events A and B, which were simultaneous in one of the frames of reference, in another - in a time order, can be located one after the other.

To begin with, let us choose a frame of reference in which events A and B occur simultaneously:

1) consciousness Ψ1 is present in the body of F1 drinking wine (event A), and

2) consciousness Ψ2 - is present in the body of F2, contemplating the surroundings (event B).

It would seem that both minds from any point of view are localized in time. However, in reality this cannot be. After all, if the body of the owner of consciousness Ψ1 changes its speed, then in the new frame of reference in which it finds itself, events A and B for it will no longer be simultaneous!

New SRT interpretation

For lovers of physics and philosophy, let me present the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) in a new simple interpretation.

The derivation of the basic relations of SRT ( Lorentz transformations) is possible from the coordinate transformations of rotation on the Euclidean plane by means of a new geometric interpretation of relativistic measurements.

1)      We arbitrarily choose an orthogonal coordinate system with the origin of coordinates O on the Euclidean plane and denote it by the axes: (X, Y '). Let's rotate it through the angle α. The rotated system will be denoted by the axes (X ', Y).

Let us express the coordinates of point A in the original system (X, Y ') through its coordinates in the rotated system (X', Y):

x = x'⋅cosα + y⋅sinα

y'= y⋅cosα - x'⋅sinα

1) ⇒ 2)

2) x = (x'– y⋅sinα) / cosα

    y = (y'+ x⋅sinα) / cosα

 3) All that remains for us is to give the correct physical interpretation of what is shown in the figure. This is not difficult if we assume that the localized consciousness of the observer S moves in one direction parallel to the Y axis, passing the point-event A.

 As can be seen from 2), the coordinate y' is "lagging'' in relation to y, and x' experiences a 'contraction of the length of the moving rod'!

 When replacing y by ct, y' by ct', sinα = v / c, cosα = (1 - (v / c) ²) ^1/2, it turns out that the rod moving relative to the observer S is defined for S as a rod of length:

 x⋅cosα = x⋅ (1 - (v / c) ²) ^½

 At the same time, in the frame of reference (cT ', X) moving with respect to S, the rod is at rest, and its length is equal to x.

The time observed from S on the cT' scale will lag behind the readings observed by S on the cT scale in the direction of movement of the observer S: ct '= ct⋅cosα.

 Returning to point 2): in it, the equation for x - corresponds to the direct Lorentz transformation, and the equation for y = ct - to the inverse Lorentz transformation:

 x = (x'– t⋅v) / (1 - (v / c) ²) ^1/2

 ct = (ct '+ x⋅v /c) / (1 - (v / c) ²) ^1/2

 Thus, the physical interpretation of SRT effects is possible if we assume the motion of the localized 'Ego' of the observer in Euclidean space, where the direction of motion acts as 'proper time'. In this case, the coordinate transformations of the time and distance measurement data, in fact, correspond to the coordinate transformations during the transition from one rectangular Cartesian coordinate system to another, rotated by a certain angle with respect to the first. All the features of these transformations are explained by a specific physical interpretation, or in another way: by special rules for linking measurement data to coordinate axes.

The above can be formulated in a shorter way: the standard interpretation of SRT is misleading as to the true nature of space-time. This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the measurement of spatial distances. In the general case, the result of the measurement carried out by a stationary observer should be attributed to a moving frame of reference. And vice versa: the result of measuring the distance, carried out by a moving observer, should be attributed to a stationary frame of reference. If in this way we correlate measurements with coordinate axes, the whole SRT is geometrically described in 4-dimensional Euclidean space-time, which, if desired, can be considered Kantian in the philosophical sense of the word.