SciPhysicsForums.com

by **FrediFizzx** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:00 pm

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Are you, by chance, referring to your post that I answered within 32 minutes?

Do you mean the one where your response was "??"? The error indicated there alone (or with my or Fred Diether's clarification) invalidates your refutation. But I didn't mean specifically that. Errors pointed out in the other comments do the same. So you have not refuted Fred's claim.

Yes, it is pretty easy to show mathematically that Bell's eq. (14a) is equal to (14b) with the required binary outcomes of +/-1 for A and B as you did. And as Joy pointed out to me in an email, those binary outcomes are necessary to produce A = -B when a = b. However, what Bell did perhaps inadvertently is make the expectation terms dependent on each other for LHV models where that same dependency is not imposed for QM theory or the experiments. Easy to see the problem as I have stressed before. Bell's original inequality can be written,

E(a, c) - E(b, a) - E(b, c) =< 1

And since each expectation term can range from -1 to +1 then we could have for independent terms,

(+1) - (-1) - (-1) = 3

So we can see that for independent terms, the bound is 3 not 1. The same can be done for CHSH to show the bound for independent terms is 4 not 2 and for CH the bound is 1 not 0. Why are LHV models restricted to dependent expectation terms and QM theory and experiments not? Quite frankly, it is absurd.

by **Mikko** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:46 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Are you, by chance, referring to your post that I answered within 32 minutes?

Do you mean the one where your response was "??"? The error indicated there alone (or with my or Fred Diether's clarification) invalidates your refutation. But I didn't mean specifically that. Errors pointed out in the other comments do the same. So you have not refuted Fred's claim.

by **Gordon Watson** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:00 pm

Are you, by chance, referring to your post that I answered within 32 minutes?

by **Mikko** » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:52 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Bell's theorem and Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or me?
A certain Fred likes to say: "It's mathematically impossible for anything to violate an inequality of Bell's type (BI)."

Although http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0035v1.pdf attempts to demonstrate that Fred is wrong, it fails. The primary target is Bell's proof, but even if Bell's proof were wrong, there are other proofs. And attempted demonstration of error fails, as a central step in the demonstration is invalid, as shown in the discussion of the referred page. The attempted demonstration of the invalidity of theorem is copied from an earlier article without correcting the error pointed out in the discussion on that articles discussion page. Therefore the claim that Fred be wrong is unjustified.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:17 pm

Great. TKS!

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:46 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Fred, Can you point me to minkwe's stuff? Tks, G

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39

Just do a search on minkwe on the forum for more recent comments from this year. Make that an advanced search with minkwe as the author. Perhaps discussions involving Schmelzer and Jochen.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:20 pm

Fred, Can you point me to minkwe's stuff? Tks, G

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:00 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Correct Fred, re my lovely A and B; both true mathematical functions, as befits BT's premises (by my reading).

In eq. (2) you just state as a "Given" that A and B are +/-1. You should have actual functions for A and B that can produce the + or - one analytically. You really don't have any kind of good model until you can do that.

I trust my reply to Mikko helps to make better sense of my essay. It is answering a Bellian's question:' What is your problem with BT?' So I don't put the actual functions in the early text since the focus is initially on my problem with BT. I'll put mathematically-correct functions of (a, λ) and (b, λ') in the Appendix.

I didn't need your reply to Mikko to make better sense of it. It is good that you are going to work on more specifics of a model later. As I said previously, you don't need a LHV model to show that Bell was wrong anyways. And getting back to the main theme of this thread, the way I see it is that your argument is a variation on what Michel has presented extensively on this forum. Though your argument may be sort of an inverse of that so a bit new.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Correct Fred, re my lovely A and B; both true mathematical functions, as befits BT's premises (by my reading).

In eq. (2) you just state as a "Given" that A and B are +/-1. You should have actual functions for A and B that can produce the + or - one analytically. You really don't have any kind of good model until you can do that.

I trust my reply to Mikko helps to make better sense of my essay. It is answering a Bellian's question: "What is your problem with BT?" So I don't put the actual functions in the early text since the focus is initially on my problem with BT. I'll put mathematically-correct functions of (a, λ) and (b, λ') in the Appendix.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:50 pm

Mikko wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Gordon, I am unable to make any sense of your (3) or #3.7.

The text is not as clear as it should be. (3) should be split and each part explained separately.
First two different notations are given for the average value <AB>. Then the value is expressed in terms of observations at the two detectors. The use of λ' is unnecessary but not wrong although λ+λ' = 0 is more restrictive than necessary (there is no reason to require that + be a valid operation for the type of λ).
The next expression is equivalent as a consequence of the perfect anticorrelation when the same measurement direction is chosen.
The last inequality expresses that the quantum mechanical result is impossible (although it should add that certain angles are exceptions.

Mikko, thanks, and please do not hold back. You have some helpful comments here! Indeed: if you, a presumed (by me) Bellian, want to expand my essay to critique or refute it, I'd be very happy to check that the expansion was fair and devoid of Bellian oversights.

Alas, I have to say it all seems so clear to me: in that it is all there (pretty much). However (thank you Mikko): when I do the next revision I will start on a proper draft introduction. There I will spell out that the essay is a reply to Gill (2015) -- that is: Gill, R.G. (2015). Personal communication, 22 Sept. 2015. So it is written for a Bellian that is (one expects/hopes/prays) fair and open-minded and fully conversant with BT and the related experiments. Then, for the non-Bellian reader (NBR): every paragraph and equation is numbered so that they can join the discussion via specific focussed questions, criticism, etc. So when you correctly write -- "The next expression is equivalent as a consequence of the perfect anticorrelation when the same measurement direction is chosen" -- I take that to be instantly understood by a Bellian. And I also take it that a keen NBR will read Bell (1964) -- available online via my References -- and see that sort of stuff there. NB: I do not myself see that any of my material is beyond a questing and questioning NBR!

Re (3). I trust it is now clearer why I do not see two different notations in (3). And I trust you realise that it is fully equivalent to Bell (1964: eq. 3)? That it better reflects how the experimental values are determined?

Yes, the notation is different to Bell's. Indeed, if Bell had used mine he might not have blundered via Bell's error -- Bell's realism; BLNR = Bell's local naive-realism -- in his analysis with that erroneous (14a) = (14b): erroneous, with certainty, under EPRB. PS: I will also spell out that pristine λ is taken to be a Multivector in 3-space and show how that works (in an Appendix).

Thanks again! Gordon

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:44 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Correct Fred, re my lovely A and B; both true mathematical functions, as befits BT's premises (by my reading).

In eq. (2) you just state as a "Given" that A and B are +/-1. You should have actual functions for A and B that can produce the + or - one analytically. You really don't have any kind of good model until you can do that.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:26 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:My ontological model (with particles, detectors and event-by-event interactions) is based on the epistemic one; probably best incorporated in some detail in an Appendix (when I address the "interesting" part of BT).

Yeah, you need to have some A and B functions that can produce at least analytically what Joy said above. You can't just state the results and call it a model. But you don't need a LHV model to show that Bell was wrong as you have already seen. Though it does help. So far Joy's model is the best and is based on a very simple common sense postulate. And leads to some other very remarkable new physics. You should use it in your work if you can.

Correct Fred, re my lovely A and B; both true mathematical functions, as befits BT's premises (by my reading).

My model is based on GA in 3-space; with s = 1/2 and s = 1 in the same formulation: so I haven't kept pace with Joy's work.

And re that, in case you didn't know: I am one of Joy's earliest fans!

PS: Thanks again for SPF!!!

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:26 pm

Mikko wrote:The use of λ' is unnecessary but not wrong although λ+λ' = 0 is more restrictive than necessary (there is no reason to require that + be a valid operation for the type of λ).

You can see in paragraph 1.3 that his λ is tied to angular momentum so he is just conserving angular momentum. As λ defined as a unit vector in 3-space, then λ = -λ'. I don't think there has been any success in making that the hidden variable. Though it is physical.

by **Mikko** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:47 am

Joy Christian wrote:Gordon, I am unable to make any sense of your (3) or #3.7.

The text is not as clear as it should be. (3) should be split and each part explained separately.
First two different notations are given for the average value <AB>. Then the value is expressed in terms of observations at the two detectors. The use of λ' is unnecessary but not wrong although λ+λ' = 0 is more restrictive than necessary (there is no reason to require that + be a valid operation for the type of λ).
The next expression is equivalent as a consequence of the perfect anticorrelation when the same measurement direction is chosen.
The last inequality expresses that the quantum mechanical result is impossible (although it should add that certain angles are exceptions.

by **FrediFizzx** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:59 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:My ontological model (with particles, detectors and event-by-event interactions) is based on the epistemic one; probably best incorporated in some detail in an Appendix (when I address the "interesting" part of BT).

Yeah, you need to have some A and B functions that can produce at least analytically what Joy said above. You can't just state the results and call it a model. But you don't need a LHV model to show that Bell was wrong as you have already seen. Though it does help. So far Joy's model is the best and is based on a very simple common sense postulate. And leads to some other very remarkable new physics. You should use it in your work if you can.

by **Gordon Watson** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:34 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Gordon, I am unable to make any sense of your (3) or #3.7. As far as I can see, you do not have a model, let alone a local model.

#3.7 is OK. If you get A to be +1 half the time, <A> will be close to zero.

As I see it:

My (3) is OK. That's how my experimental results are obtained; via summations over coincident discrete outcomes; coincident to ensure properly-paired lambdas. The equating to -a.b, to an adequate accuracy, comes via the appropriate (high) number of coincidences n.

Clarifying Fred's remark: (3.7) is fine. If you get A^+ half the time then <A> = 0. Same for B^+.

In that I use classical probability theory in a local realistic manner, my essay provides an epistemological model. My ontological model (with particles, detectors and event-by-event interactions) is based on the epistemic one; probably best incorporated in some detail in an Appendix (when I address the "interesting" part of BT).

Thanks for taking the time to comment: In that my writing tends to be "short and sweet" -- with most details covered sweetly but maybe too tersely -- this an area where I can always benefit from tough feedback! And I always appreciate it (despite my habitual defending; only when justified, I hope) .

by **FrediFizzx** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:33 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Gordon, I am unable to make any sense of your (3) or #3.7. As far as I can see, you do not have a model, let alone a local model.

#3.7 is OK. If you get A to be +1 half the time, <A> will be close to zero.

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:24 pm

Gordon, I am unable to make any sense of your (3) or #3.7. As far as I can see, you do not have a model, let alone a local model.

by **Gordon Watson** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:03 pm

Thanks Joy,

Referring to http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0035v1.pdf and seeking to clarify our differences, I'll put my response beside your key points and after a colon.

The following is observed in the experiments;

< A(a) B(b) > = -a.b: Doesn't my (3) meet this specification?

< A(a) > = 0: Doesn't my #3.7 meet this specification?

and

< B(b) > = 0: Doesn't my #3.7 meet this specification?

Here

A(a) = +/-1: Agreed.

B(b) = +/-1: Agreed.

< ... > represent averages: Agreed.

and a and b are the directions about which the spins (or photons) are observed: Fixing a minor typo (changing "spins" to spin-half particles), I agree.

I look forward to further comments. Thanks again; G

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:18 pm

Gordon,

I looked at your paper. As far as I can see you do not have a model for what is observed in the experiments. The following is observed in the experiments:

< A(a) B(b) > = -a.b ,

< A(a) > = 0 ,

and

< B(b) > = 0 .

Here

A(a) = +/-1 ,

B(b) = +/-1 ,

< ... > represent averages,

and a and b are the directions about which the spins (or photons) are observed.

Whatever you have in your paper does not reproduce these results --- even non-locally.

You do not have to produce a simulation. Just reproduce the above results analytically to convince us that you have a model. At the moment you don't have a model.

SciPhysicsForums.com

Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or me?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or me?

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or

Re: Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or