SciPhysicsForums.com

My latest post at RW:

Jay,
You keep asking the question that has been answered by contra-Bell over and over and over. Are you ignoring the points we’ve been making or what part of it don’t you understand? Perhaps it is time for you to start answering some questions too. For example, it is well known that Gill is pro-Bell.

1) Do you agree with Gill when he says “The problem here is that the ensemble on which the correlations are evaluated changes with the settings, while the original Bell inequality requires that they stay the same. In effect, the Bell inequality only holds on the common part of the four different ensembles ΛAB , ΛAB′ , ΛA′B , and ΛA′B′”? [notation changed for consistency]. In other words, are each of the averages in the CHSH inequality evaluated on the same ensemble (strongly objective) or from separate *disjoint* ensembles (weakly objective). Or if you like, does the CHSH inequality require that the ensembles used to calculate each average stay the same?

2) On the Wikipedia page you pointed to, where it claims QM violates the inequalities, you have the expression

⟨A(a)B(b)⟩ + ⟨A(a)B(b’)⟩ + ⟨A(a’)B(b)⟩ – ⟨A(a’)B(b’)⟩ = 2√2

Are the averages in that expression based on experimental outcomes from a single ensemble (strongly objective), or averages from separate *disjoint* ensembles (weakly objective)? If your answer is “strongly objective”, then it should be possible to use QM to produce the Nx4 spreadsheet of data demonstrating violation of the CHSH.

3) If you answer [YES] to (1) like I do, then please answer, what is the common part of *disjoint* ensembles that are used to calculate ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₂B’₂⟩ + ⟨A’₃B₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ in QM or EPRB Experiments.

4) There have been many experiments claiming to violate the CHSH. In your opinion, has an experiment ever been carried out in which each of the terms was calculated from the same ensemble? If such an experiment exists, it should be possible to produce the Nx4 Spreadsheet from such an experiment demonstrating the violation.

The unanswered questions are mounting. Here is another one to keep the pro-Bellers up at night.

Larsson and Gill, two famous pro-Bellers stated the following quite eloquently in their paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312035v2.pdf, page 4):

Larsson & Gill wrote:The problem here is that the ensemble on which the correlations are evaluated changes
with the settings, while the original Bell inequality requires that they stay the same. In effect,
the Bell inequality only holds on the common part of the four different ensembles ΛAC′ , ΛAD′ ,
ΛBC′ , and ΛBD′

So my question for all Bell believers is simple:

What is the common part of the 4 disjoint ensembles used to evaluate the expression:

⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩

FrediFizzx wrote:
LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

My straightforward but uncomfortable question is systematically ignored at Retraction Watch by the Bell-fanatics:

Joy Christian wrote:
HR, Is the Bell-CHSH inequality | ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ | ≤ 2 “violated” in the EPR-B experiments, or not? Please answer Yes or No without trying to switch to a different inequality with a higher bound of 4. If it is “violated”, then please provide an N x 4 data set.

Needless to say, there are only two logically possible answers to my question:

(1) Yes, the Bell-CHSH inequality | ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ | ≤ 2 is “violated” in the EPR-B experiments,

in which case the Bell-fanatics should be able to provide a data set in the form of an N x 4 matrix violating the above inequality,

or

(2) No, the Bell-CHSH inequality | ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ | ≤ 2 is not “violated” in the EPR-B experiments,

in which case why have they been making a false claim of "violations" and misleading the physics community for many decades?

***

minkwe wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

I had to try. I thought perhaps there was a glimmer of self respect left deep down somewhere.

A bell fanatic who doesn't know if the CHSH can ever be violated or not.

Welcome to the post-truth world of Bell-fanatics. Witness their shameless attempts at RW to either run away when proven wrong (like Gill and Parrott), change the subject when cornered (like HR), ignore your direct questions (like LJ), or shamelessly switch to a completely different inequality from the one being discussed (like HR). If Gill didn't keep interfering with my academic life by blocking my papers from being published, then I would never bother to deal with such a dishonest bunch.

***

FrediFizzx wrote:LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

I had to try. I thought perhaps there was a glimmer of self respect left deep down somewhere.

A bell fanatic who doesn't know if the CHSH can ever be violated or not.

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Nice try, I mean the CHSH, can the CHSH be violated or not?yes or no. Your answer should be at most 3 letters. Why is this question so difficult for you? If you can't answer, then you are not intellectually honest enough for me to engage you in a discussion.

So let the next thing you say to me be a maximum 3 letter answer to my question, if you want me to even recognise your presence.

Don't be sloppy. You have the CHSH expression involved in all of your four inequalities. Which one do you mean, (1), (2), (3) or (4)?

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Nice try, I mean the CHSH, can the CHSH be violated or not?yes or no. Your answer should be at most 3 letters. Why is this question so difficult for you? If you can't answer, then you are not intellectually honest enough for me to engage you in a discussion.

So let the next thing you say to me be a maximum 3 letter answer to my question, if you want me to even recognise your presence.

LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

Heinera wrote:If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Nice try, I mean the CHSH, can the CHSH be violated or not?yes or no. Your answer should be at most 3 letters. Why is this question so difficult for you? If you can't answer, then you are not intellectually honest enough for me to engage you in a discussion.

So let the next thing you say to me be a maximum 3 letter answer to my question, if you want me to even recognise your presence.

minkwe wrote:

I asked you for something completely different - 16 numbers that woulld make a 16 slip urn model create similar data that would violate (4). You can't do that.

I won't do that because I told you it is a nonsensical request. I told you I'm not interested in square-circles or unfair "fair coins".

This was the only interesting part of your reply, so I snipped everything else. Why is it nonsensical? Because you can't come up with those 16 numbers? Do you agree it is impossible?

minkwe wrote:Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated by any data whatsoever? Yes or No.

Let's see how you Bob and weave out of answering this simple question.

If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated by any data whatsoever? Yes or No.

Let's see how you Bob and weave out of answering this simple question.

Heinera wrote:That is of course not the issue. Instead: Please provide a fair coin that regularly lands heads in 8000 out of 10000 trials.

I should provide a fair coin that is unfair? Is that what you are asking? How smart of you.

You have provided some con data that was clearly created by a non-local model

.
Lol, there's no such thing as non-local data, the data exists locally on the same local spreadsheet, don't they.

Where is your "non-local" data violating (1). Please use any con technique you like, and any violation margin you like. Just produce data violating (1) by .00000000000001 since you claim the CHSH can be violated.

I asked you for something completely different - 16 numbers that woulld make a 16 slip urn model create similar data that would violate (4). You can't do that.

I won't do that because I told you it is a nonsensical request. I told you I'm not interested in square-circles or unfair "fair coins".

I'm interested in mathematical proofs and experimental data. Expression (4) is wrong anyway, so it can easily be violated, I've provided data violating it, putting that issue to rest. If you want to reopen it, go ahead and provide the proof of (4).

Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated by any data whatsoever? Yes or No.

I believe it can't. Can you answer this simple question?

minkwe wrote:Please provide a fair coin which disproves the fact that some coins are unfair

That is of course not the issue. Instead: Please provide a fair coin that regularly lands heads in 8000 out of 10000 trials.

Aren't you tired of BS. I'm not interested in your urn, I've already given you a counterexample to expression (4), -- data violating it.

No, you haven't. You have provided some con data that was clearly created by a non-local model. I asked you for something completely different - 16 numbers that woulld make a 16 slip urn model create similar data that would violate (4). You can't do that. You failed.

Please provide a fair coin which disproves the fact that some coins are unfair

Aren't you tired of BS. I'm not interested in your urn, I've already given you a counterexample to expression (4), -- data violating it. You claim the CHSH, ie expression (1) can be violated, where is the data?????


Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated or not? If you do, provide the data please. How many times do I have to ask for it. You claim nonlocality can violate the CHSH ( expression (1) ), use your nonlocality to give me the data demonstrating violation of expression (1). There is only one CHSH expression which Bell proved, expression (1). You believe it has been violated by experiment. Where is the DATA.

You know it doesn't exist, so you try to cheat by slipping in expression (4) through the back door. But Bell never proved expression (4), nobody has. If you believe expression (4) is correct, provide the proof.

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

Fred says (4) can't be violated with the 16 slip urn model. That's not good enough proof for you?

You have no shame? Do you know what a proof is? Please provide the proof of (4) and data demonstrating violation of (1).

You have no sense of humor? Do you know what a counterexample is? Please provide a counterexample of 16 frequencies for the 16 slip urn model that demonstrate a violation of (4).

Heinera wrote:

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

Fred says (4) can't be violated with the 16 slip urn model. That's not good enough proof for you?

You have no shame? Do you know what a proof is? Please provide the proof of (4) and data demonstrating violation of (1).

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

Fred says (4) can't be violated with the 16 slip urn model. That's not good enough proof for you?

Heinera wrote:If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

FrediFizzx wrote:

Heinera wrote:I'm back.

Has anyone here, after a few days thougth, managed to come up with 16 frequencies for the 16 slip urn model that generates a CHSH value for (4) that converges to something outside -2, +2?

Why would anyone want to do something impossible that is not even a point in the current debate? If you wish to continue, you need to prove that Michel's eq. (3) is true. But sorry... it is already proven that it is not true.

If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

FrediFizzx wrote:

Parrott at RW wrote:Is there anyone following this discussion who is *not* affiliated with SciPhysicsFoundations and who thinks that the above is a correct analysis? If so, I will explain what is wrong with it. If not, I won’t bother. This discussion has become tedious and probably fruitless. The same arguments are repeated and refuted over and over.

In response to Michel's argument. LOL! Michel brings in a new argument to the discussion and Parrott thinks it is not new. Folks, this is a typical Bell fanatic response when cornered. So far no refutation of it on RW. Heine tried to refute it so give him credit for that. But the math does not lie. It is impossible to refute.
.

That was completely empty threat from Stephen Parrott of explaining "what is wrong with it." In addition to Michel's argument, I have now derived the Bell-CHSH inequality form the hypothesis that one can be in two places at once. Gill and Parrott are finished. And so is Bell's so-called "theorem." Bell fanatics are defeated.

***