Critical Evaluation "Quantum Randi Challenge"


The purpose of the "Quantum Randi Challenge" is to challenge the scientists who do not agree with the results quantum mechanics. It should be mentioned that the author of this document is not completely sure about all the details of this challenge. The scientist who do not agree are called pseudo-scientists.
For more detail about the Quantum Randi Challenge see the following documents:

Evaluation of the 4 QRC Documents

  1. Document 1 starts with the following sentence:
    The Quantum Randi Challenge (QRC), first introduced here, exists in order to stop the spread of pseudo-science by simply teaching quantum mechanics.
    IMO you do not need any Challenge or Contest to stop pseudo-science. What you should do is only teach quantum mechanics. But that is the problem: Exactly what is Quantum Mechanics
    The next sentence in document 1 reads:
    The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.
    When you read that sentence apperently a scientist agrees that:
    Quantum entanglement experiments can not be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.
    The problem is what is the exact definition of (1) an entanglement experiment. What means (2) classically realistic and what means (3) locally causal model . All those concepts have to be clearly defined. If you do not explain these concepts unambiguous you become yourself a pseudo-scientist.
    Next we read:
    John Bell has proven [1], via the Bell inequality, that by quantum physics predicted and also by experimental observation confirmed measurements cannot possibly arise within a locally real world.
    How can you prove something that is not clear i.e the text "arise within a locally real world". This makes everything shaky.
    Next we read:
    Any classically local model can on principle be simulated by today’s classical computers. In other words: That a computer can model a system is the very essence of that the system is classically real (everything depends on locally available, perhaps hidden data**).
    IMO this is rather tricky. First of all you can not simulate each and every physical system (process) on a classical computer accurately. In order to simulate a physical system on a computer you must know the differential equations that describe the system (the total process involved) Those differential equations are normally know under stable conditions but can become very difficult under extreme or hazardous conditions. Secondly what means (4) Classical local and what is (5) hidden data However there is here a deeper problem: You can not use a computer to discover the laws of nature. Specific at the level of elementary particles i.e. at the level of Quantum Mechanics.
    In the paragraph "" We read:
    The following picture depicts the single computer “getting started version” of the QRC, written using Mathematica5™. With this obviously very short program, the QRC is officially published! (Being published and widely known at all is the main power of a Randi-type challenge. Please help to make it known. )
    Specific the last suggestion any reader should not do.
    The problem is you can not validate or invalidate "The Bell Inequality" by modifying a computer program.
    Or even more specific: You should not spend time and effort on something that is not clear.
    The last sentence reads:
    lastly: If you think you can meet the challenge, do not contact me. The QRC is specifically designed in such a way that you can easily post it on your own blog for example, and that if it meets the challenge, it will become famous fast without established physicists being involved.
    This whole challenge seems like a 1 April Joke.

  2. Document 2 at page 4 shows the following text:
  3. This paper is still somewhat addressed at expert readers, because their support can promote the QRC to IT professionals and artists who can help perfecting it.
    This misty sentence gives a good impression about the flavour of the whole document. Specific why mention IT professionals and artists why IMO audience is scientists and physicists.
    At page 5 we read:
    QM has been experimentally confirmed to astounding accuracy.
    I "like" this sentence specific without a good definition what Quantum Mechanics is.
    Let us assume that both The periodic table and Standard Model belong to the realm of Quantum Mechanics. Both concepts are general agreed upon.
    Next we read:
    Applications like quantum cryptography (Ekert 1991) are based on superposition of states. Superposition is proven to be non-classical by the experiments and theory around the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) (Einstein 1935) paradox and John Bell’s famous inequality (Bell 1964).
    The three areas discussed are much less clear. What does it mean that something is proven to be non-classical ?
    At page 6 we read:
    However, such sophistication is ill advised when publicly defending QM against those who aim to save naïve realism by exploiting the detection loophole in ad hoc ways. Nature cunningly exploiting loopholes to deceive us about being classical would imply it wanting to do so rather than being a mere classical mechanism. Sophisticated refutation can validate nonsense as profound genius which the establishment allegedly cannot grasp and therefore suppresses.
    IMO all of this text is nonsense.
    Also at page 6:
    Although one cannot use it to transport matter or information with superluminal velocities, it would be a form of faster than light physics. This “spooky interaction at a distance” was already quite ‘unreal’ to A. Einstein and in fact, increasingly it is the “realism” in “local realism” which is called into doubt.
    I do not understand what the writers try to show. The whole sentence is not clear. I also do not know what their opinion is about superluminal velocities.

    To clarify this point I have set up Instantaneous Communication Contest The purpose of this contest is to demonstrate "faster than light communication"

    Document 2 at page 19 shows the following text:

    The QRC is not a bet. It refuses interaction with challengers. It is irrational to try convince irrational challengers rationally. The QRC is explicitly about refusing interaction with people who insist on an agenda designed to discredit quantum mechanics.
    When I read this text I get the impression that when you do not agree your are a pseudo_scientist.
    When you honour such an appoach IMO you can not call yourself a scientist.

  4. Docement 3 starts with the following sentence:
  5. Modern physics has disproved direct realism: There is no locally realistic description of our world possible.
    When I read that sentence I do not get the Eureka feeling
    Next we read:
    Imagine a source of pairs of photons (quanta of light). One photon is send to Alice who resides to the left. The second photon is send to Bob, who is far away to the right.
    The problem is that you can not discover the laws of nature by thought experiments. Only by real experiments. What you should discuss are real set ups and describe what is measured or observed. Of course you can ask the reader what he espects as the outcome of the experiment. If the observer is right you can continue, but if he is wrong you should perform more detailed experiments to get the observer synchronized. (Or you should convince the observer of his errors in his reasoning) Next we read:
    The important point to understand is: Every photon pair is prepared in such a way that if the crystal axes of Alice’s crystal is parallel to that of Bob’s, only the measurements (0,1) and (1,0) ever result!
    This is exactly the wrong way to do science. You should perform detailed experiments to convince the observer what is happening.
    The same thing should also happen with the person who does not agree with the way of your thinking. He or she should perform detailed experiments to convince you of his point of view. The same rules apply on both sides.
    Next we read:
    That such is possible has to do with the conservation of angular momentum of the photon pair and so on and is basic physics – no big mystery involved here. I am not going to somehow “prove” such basics, because you could in principle go into the laboratory and check it yourself.
    Again the wrong way to do science. The what you call pseudo scientist can do the same and than you will never discover the laws of science.
    Next we read:
    We accept these measurements and photon pair preparations as daily laboratory routine and go on to prove non-locality from it
    When I read to the end of this chapter no where the concept of non-locality is explained.
    Next we read:
    the probability to exit as a horizontally polarized photon through the H-channel is cos^2(d), and the probability of going through the V-channel instead is sin^2(d).
    You should convince the reader of these rules by performing experiments. After that no-one will claim something else.
    Next we read:
    When the photon going to the left is maybe about half way on its path to Alice’s crystal, Alice randomly rotates her crystal either so that the crystal's internal z-axis is at phi0 = 0º or at phi1 = 3p/8 = 67.5º. Similarly, after the preparation of the photon pair but before the photon going to the right is about to arrive at Bob’s crystal, Bob randomly puts his crystal either at phi1= 67.5º or at phi2 = p/8 = 22.5º.
    How do you know that the photon is half way ? Why do you those experiments with some random aspect? There are 4 combinations. First you do the combination phi0,phi1 than phi0,phi2 than phi1,phi1 and finally phi1, phi2.
    The reason of why those specific angles is currently not clear.
    Didactic point: No other angles will be considered. The relative d angles’ magnitudes are thus zero, one, two, and three times phi2, but realists claim that the photons only know about locally present absolute angles, and disproving them is the main issue!
    Who are the realists? Are this the pseudo scientists ? What is the meaning of (6) locally present absolute angles The issue is as long as you are discussing the outcome of real experiment there is nothing to agree or disagree. The problems starts when you discover rules (based on measurements and observations) and you make predictions about the outcome of certain experiments.

  6. Document 4 shows the following text:
  7. Modern science has disproved naïve realism: There is no locally realistic description of our world possible. We can approach this insight from different directions, for example by explaining that 'real stuff' cannot provide an acceptable fundament ‘at the bottom’. However, anybody with some interest into science and philosophy should work through one of the rigorous proofs of ‘non-locality in quantum physics’ at least once.
    All of this text does not make sense, which makes the whole Quantum Randi Challenge rather misty sience.
    A litle further we read:
    Local realism cannot possibly describe the world as it reveals itself to us in the laboratory. Whatever ‘structural realism’ or ‘functional realism’ you may hold dear, whatever it is that you call “real”, it should not be based on a fundament that is locally real,
    All of this is IMO does not make sense

Evaluation "Quantum Randi Challenge"

The Quantum Randi Challenge as depicted in the above mentioned documents is not a chalenge or contest based on rigid scientific principles. The major problems are:

In Nature of 12 September 2013 there is an article "Quantum Quest" which discuss problems with Quantum Mechanics. For a review of that article read this: Quantum Quest

Instantaneous Communication Contest

The purpose of the contest is to chalenge "faster than the speed of light communication"

The rules of the contest are rather simple:

In order to win the contest the time between the clock signal of each individual bit send and the raising edge of the corresponding received bit should be at least 2 times smaller than the total distance travelled divided by the speed of light c = 300.000 km/second

Created: 3 Oktober 2013

Back to my home page Contents of This Document