Spin and Wind Directions II: A Bell State Quantum Model

In the first half of this two-part article (Aerts et al. in Found Sci. doi:10.1007/s10699-017-9528-9, 2017b), we analyzed a cognitive psychology experiment where participants were asked to select pairs of directions that they considered to be the best example of Two Different Wind Directions, and showed that the data violate the CHSH version of Bell’s inequality, with same magnitude as in typical Bell-test experiments in physics. In this second part, we complete our analysis by presenting a symmetrized version of the experiment, still violating the CHSH inequality but now also obeying the marginal law, for which we provide a full quantum modeling in Hilbert space, using a singlet state and suitably chosen product measurements. We also address some of the criticisms that have been recently directed at experiments of this kind, according to which they would not highlight the presence of genuine forms of entanglement. We explain that these criticisms are based on a view of entanglement that is too restrictive, thus unable to capture all possible ways physical and conceptual entities can connect and form systems behaving as a whole. We also provide an example of a mechanical model showing that the violations of the marginal law and Bell inequalities are generally to be associated with different mechanisms.

[1]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Concepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum-Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[3]  Zeyu Zhao,et al.  Violation Of Bell’s Inequality , 2013 .

[4]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Beyond-Quantum Modeling of Question Order Effects and Response Replicability in Psychological Measurements , 2015, ArXiv.

[5]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The unreasonable success of quantum probability II: Quantum measurements as universal measurements , 2014, Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

[6]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Cognition Beyond Hilbert Space: Fundamentals and Applications , 2016, QI.

[7]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  On the Foundations of the Brussels Operational-Realistic Approach to Cognition , 2015, Front. Phys..

[8]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Unreasonable Success of Quantum Probability I: Quantum Measurements as Uniform Fluctuations , 2014, 1401.2647.

[9]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure , 2010 .

[10]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Interpreting Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities , 2010, 1004.2531.

[11]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Theory and Conceptuality: Matter, Stories, Semantics and Space-Time , 2011, 1110.4766.

[12]  Matt Jones,et al.  On contextuality in behavioural data , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[13]  M. Genovese Research on hidden variable theories: A review of recent progresses , 2005, quant-ph/0701071.

[14]  N. Gisin,et al.  Violation of Bell Inequalities by Photons More Than 10 km Apart , 1998, quant-ph/9806043.

[15]  E. Schrödinger Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems , 1935, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[16]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models of Cognition , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  On Selective Influences, Marginal Selectivity, and Bell/CHSH Inequalities , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Towards a Quantum World Wide Web , 2017, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics and the hidden-measurement solution to the measurement problem , 2014, 1404.2429.

[21]  P. H. Eberhard,et al.  Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality , 1978 .

[22]  N. Gisin,et al.  General properties of nonsignaling theories , 2005, quant-ph/0508016.

[23]  S. Wehner,et al.  Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres , 2015, Nature.

[24]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics: Explaining superposition, interference, and entanglement , 2015, 1504.04781.

[25]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Spin and Wind Directions I: Identifying Entanglement in Nature and Cognition , 2015, Foundations of Science.

[26]  J. S. BELLt,et al.  The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox , 1974, Synthese.

[27]  Jerome R Busemeyer,et al.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[28]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Entanglement in Concept Combinations , 2013, ArXiv.

[29]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Social Science , 2013 .

[30]  J. Bell On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1966 .

[31]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities: A Possible Explanatory Framework for Quantum Theory , 2009, 1004.2530.

[32]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Potentiality and Conceptuality Interpretation of Quantum Physics , 2010, Philosophica.

[33]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Identifying Quantum Structures in the Ellsberg Paradox , 2013, International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

[34]  H. Weinfurter,et al.  Violation of Bell's Inequality under Strict Einstein Locality Conditions , 1998, quant-ph/9810080.

[35]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld , 2000, quant-ph/0007044.

[36]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Bell violation using entangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption , 2012, Nature.

[37]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure and human thought. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[38]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  La mecánica cuántica y la conceptualidad: materia, historias, semántica y espacio-tiempo , 2013 .

[39]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. , 2011, Psychological review.

[40]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition , 2008, 0805.3850.

[41]  D. Aerts,et al.  The missing elements of reality in the description of quantum mechanics of the E.P.R. paradox situation , 1984 .

[42]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum theory and human perception of the macro-world , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[43]  Aaron J. Miller,et al.  Detection-loophole-free test of quantum nonlocality, and applications. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[44]  Douglas L. Nelson,et al.  Entangled Associative Structures and Context , 2007, AAAI Spring Symposium: Quantum Interaction.

[45]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  The Potential of Quantum Probability for Modeling Cognitive Processes , 2011, CogSci.

[46]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition: Why and How Concepts Are Entangled , 2011, QI.

[47]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A mechanistic classical laboratory situation violating the Bell inequalities with 2-2 , 1991 .

[48]  G. Roger,et al.  Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time- Varying Analyzers , 1982 .

[49]  S. Wehner,et al.  Experimental loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 km , 2016 .

[50]  Guillaume Adenier,et al.  Is the fair sampling assumption supported by EPR experiments , 2007 .

[51]  Peter Bruza,et al.  Entangling words and meaning , 2008 .

[52]  P. Grangier,et al.  Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment : A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities , 1982 .

[53]  Peter Bruza,et al.  Extracting Spooky-Activation-at-a-Distance from Considerations of Entanglement , 2009, QI.

[54]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .