by gill1109 » Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:30 am
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:I do not care about your supposed challenge. No sane person should. It has nothing to do with physics. It is an empty game. You can keep playing your game. Your game, your rules. Enjoy!
Yeah, nah we are not going to do that game because we already won anyways. If anything, the rules would have to also be set by a third party and only be set to what Nature allows. IOW, no man-made restrictions.
It was not a game, it was a challenge. I challenged Joy and you. I made a bet that you could not fulfil a fairly simple challenge. Last time you attempted to win the bet you lost the challenge. Unfortunately I had not demanded that you put any money on the table. But apparently, at that time, you did think that the experimental set-up was legitimate. You entered a submission and it failed to win.
The rules were set by John Bell in 1981,
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00220688/document. By the way, the rules don't give local realism an unfair advantage. John Bell himself was quite ambivalent about whether or not QM would win. He admitted as much in correspondence to E. Santos, long ago. This point of view of Santos is similar to the minority point of view, held by a few QM authorities, that large scale quantum computing is doomed to failure because of *quantum* noise.
The rules have to be agreed by us jointly. I don't see how you can complain that I choose to use an experimental framework which every experimenter since 2015 has been using, and every experimenter since 1981 has been moving towards.
Experiments are performed by human beings who have to choose an experimental design. Then they investigate what nature can do, within the framework they have chosen. The 2015 framework was chosen by the scientific community (not by me) because people agreed that Bell's 1981 framework would test quantum mechanics (not; test Joy Christian's model, or local realism in general) to the utmost. The results were ... according to the predictions of quantum mechanics. Therefore also according to the predictions of Joy Christian's model. If Joy Christian's model is mathematically sound and if it can be faithfully simulated on a network of computers, then that computer network can do what a bunch of lasers, glass fibre cables, polarization filters and and photo-detectors can do.
Philip Pearle (1970), Luigi Accardi et al. (2001), Caroline Thompson (1996), Michel Fodje (First version: 4 November 2013), Hans de Raedt et al. (2007), Gisin & Gisin (1999) and no doubt, a host of others, rose to the challenges put down by previous generations of lab experiments. Since 2015 they have *all* been silent. But if Joy Christian is right then his model should work in the 2015+ framework. What the hell is the problem?
I kind of imagine that you are afraid that you can't do it. Hence the bluster.
Anyways, my challenge to you (and the fact that I am ready to stake 64 thousand dollars - I don't know what you are prepared to put on the table) is already on record, and I will remind the audience at the symposium that I challenged you. I expect I will be forced to tell the audience, in a year and half, that you have failed to rise to the challenge. I will feel free to quote from responses here by Fred Diether and Joy Christian.
The reason I can happily raise the bet from 15 thousand Euro to 64 thousand dollar is that in the mean time my earlier probability calculations got improved by various *physicists* who moreover used my approach in their computation of p-values for their experiments.
[quote="FrediFizzx"]
[quote="Joy Christian"]
I do not care about your supposed challenge. No sane person should. It has nothing to do with physics. It is an empty game. You can keep playing your game. Your game, your rules. Enjoy!
[/quote]
Yeah, nah we are not going to do that game because we already won anyways. If anything, the rules would have to also be set by a third party and only be set to what Nature allows. IOW, no man-made restrictions.
[/quote]
It was not a game, it was a challenge. I challenged Joy and you. I made a bet that you could not fulfil a fairly simple challenge. Last time you attempted to win the bet you lost the challenge. Unfortunately I had not demanded that you put any money on the table. But apparently, at that time, you did think that the experimental set-up was legitimate. You entered a submission and it failed to win.
The rules were set by John Bell in 1981, [url]https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00220688/document[/url]. By the way, the rules don't give local realism an unfair advantage. John Bell himself was quite ambivalent about whether or not QM would win. He admitted as much in correspondence to E. Santos, long ago. This point of view of Santos is similar to the minority point of view, held by a few QM authorities, that large scale quantum computing is doomed to failure because of *quantum* noise.
The rules have to be agreed by us jointly. I don't see how you can complain that I choose to use an experimental framework which every experimenter since 2015 has been using, and every experimenter since 1981 has been moving towards.
Experiments are performed by human beings who have to choose an experimental design. Then they investigate what nature can do, within the framework they have chosen. The 2015 framework was chosen by the scientific community (not by me) because people agreed that Bell's 1981 framework would test quantum mechanics (not; test Joy Christian's model, or local realism in general) to the utmost. The results were ... according to the predictions of quantum mechanics. Therefore also according to the predictions of Joy Christian's model. If Joy Christian's model is mathematically sound and if it can be faithfully simulated on a network of computers, then that computer network can do what a bunch of lasers, glass fibre cables, polarization filters and and photo-detectors can do.
Philip Pearle (1970), Luigi Accardi et al. (2001), Caroline Thompson (1996), Michel Fodje (First version: 4 November 2013), Hans de Raedt et al. (2007), Gisin & Gisin (1999) and no doubt, a host of others, rose to the challenges put down by previous generations of lab experiments. Since 2015 they have *all* been silent. But if Joy Christian is right then his model should work in the 2015+ framework. What the hell is the problem?
I kind of imagine that you are afraid that you can't do it. Hence the bluster.
Anyways, my challenge to you (and the fact that I am ready to stake 64 thousand dollars - I don't know what you are prepared to put on the table) is already on record, and I will remind the audience at the symposium that I challenged you. I expect I will be forced to tell the audience, in a year and half, that you have failed to rise to the challenge. I will feel free to quote from responses here by Fred Diether and Joy Christian.
The reason I can happily raise the bet from 15 thousand Euro to 64 thousand dollar is that in the mean time my earlier probability calculations got improved by various *physicists* who moreover used my approach in their computation of p-values for their experiments.
