Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:39 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:
minkwe wrote:y = f(x)
Is x free from, and not under the control of y

...
SOS: I'm missing your point.


Dependence is not just about being under the control of. If I use Alice's data AND Bob's data in order to generate a new properly matched paired data, it is not correct to say the matching, let alone the new matched data is independent of Alice's actions or Bob's actions. I guessed you were thinking that the matching is not under the control of Alice or Bob, which is true. But that is a different thing than saying it is independent from it.

x is free from and not under the control of y, yet x is not independent of y. That is the point.

Happy New Year!

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:26 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
minkwe wrote:Gordon, define "independent"


"Free from outside control and not depending on another's authority, I don't have to define anything!"
.


y = f(x)

Is x free from, and not under the control of y

I hope you get my point about the difference between logical and physical, and why the matching is certainly not independent of the activities carried out earlier by Alice and Bob, to generate the data that is being matched.


Physical: x = Alice's input. y = orientation of Alice's detector in 3-space.

Logical: x = Alice's input. y = orientation of Alice's detector in 3-space.

SOS: I'm missing your point.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:33 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:
minkwe wrote:Gordon, define "independent"


"Free from outside control and not depending on another's authority, I don't have to define anything!"
.


y = f(x)

Is x free from, and not under the control of y

I hope you get my point about the difference between logical and physical, and why the matching is certainly not independent of the activities carried out earlier by Alice and Bob, to generate the data that is being matched.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:55 pm

minkwe wrote:Gordon, define "independent"


"Free from outside control and not depending on another's authority, I don't have to define anything!"
.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:36 pm

Gordon, define "independent"

y = f(x),

Is x, independent of y?

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:20 am

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:(i) Proper matching can occur anywhere, even automatically, and certainly independent of both detector-operators.

Mate!? Think! Independent!? Independent of the data collected by both operators? * Please tell me how you can match the data without using the data? ** The matching is certainly NOT independent of both operators. *** … [Asterisks inserted by GW!]

Dear minkwe,

As a mate, let me be responsible for bringing this exchange to an end by showing how non-productive it has become! The following fair-sampling relates to the asterisks above:

* I said "independent of the detector-operators"! Whether the detector-operators be your pals Alice and Bob, or my robots Al and Bo: proper data matching can be done quite independently via direct internet feeds from each detector to my robot Cy in Tidbinbilla.

** What on earth triggered this silly question! (Let me repeat what I said: Data matching can occur independent of the detector-operators Alice/Bob or Al/Bo.)

*** The matching certainly can be independent of any and all detector-operators. See * and ** immediately above.

Enough said. Sincerely, your mate in working to increase signal-to-noise ratios, here and beyond; Gordon
.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:30 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:(i) Proper matching can occur anywhere, even automatically, and certainly independent of both detector-operators.

Mate!? Think! Independent!? Independent of the data collected by both operators? Please tell me how you can match the data without using the data? The matching is certainly NOT independent of both operators.
(ii) "Logical nonlocality"? I won't be using that term any time soon. But (and not speaking of you) I know some confused people who do.

Perhaps you should start using it. Independent?! You swallowed the Bell hook. Dependence is not causation. Classical probability is nonlocal. It's an espsemic theory, not a physical one. P(A|B) does not mean B causes A, it means you need information from Bob in order to restrict the sample space over which to calculate the probability. P(A|B) is therefore, not a local quantity, it is global one -- aka nonlocal. Just because Alice(Bob) measured their outcomes locally does not mean P(A|B) is a local quantity. Matching is the same. You need information from both sides, in order to restrict the sample space.

(iii) I need no argument to say that "no theory is nonlocal"!

Sorry, you do. There are physical theories, there are epistemic theories and there are local and nonlocal variants of each. The problem, is that many have failed to appreciate the difference, and when they hear nonlocal, they think physical causation. QM is nonlocal in the same way as classical probability. But QM is not a physical theory. It's an epistemic theory just like PT.

You may be justified in claiming the world is not physically nonlocal, but you won't be forgiven for suggesting that there are no nonlocal theories. Bohmian Mechanics is proudly nonlocal. Path integral is proudly nonlocal. The problem I have is when people interpret epistemic nonlocality, or logical nonlocality as physical. You are making their jobs easier by confounding the two.
Perhaps that's why you thought I was advocating FTL earlier. FTL is strictly physical.

(iv) Re this from you: "The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements ..." . Wrong? For me, I'd say: the better the separation the better.

With the lecture above, it should be clear now that spending millions to ensure separate measurements, only to destroy the data by nonlocal "proper matching" manipulation is utter stupidity. If the correlation was present in the in non-manipulated data, why should there be a need to match?

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:46 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:(i) Proper matching does not occur FTL.

Who said anything about FTL? You think proper matching can happen at Alice independently of Bob, or you think the matching does not happen at the same time. You are getting confused by focusing on physical nonlocality and ignoring logical nonlocality.

I could use the same kind of argument to say no theory is nonlocal because the equations are written on the same sheet of paper "locally" that would be silly.

Please go on, but focus on the substance instead.

All the best to you too.


(i) Proper matching can occur anywhere, even automatically, and certainly independent of both detector-operators.

(ii) "Logical nonlocality"? I won't be using that term any time soon. But (and not speaking of you) I know some confused people who do.

(iii) I need no argument to say that "no theory is nonlocal"!

(iv) Re this from you: "The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements ..." . Wrong? For me, I'd say: the better the separation the better.

(v) And we don't "only do joint analysis" of the data. The "marginals" may indicate set-up problems (like a lack of symmetry).

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:10 am

Gordon Watson wrote:(i) Proper matching does not occur FTL.

Who said anything about FTL? You think proper matching can happen at Alice independently of Bob, or you think the matching does not happen at the same time. You are getting confused by focusing on physical nonlocality and ignoring logical nonlocality.

I could use the same kind of argument to say no theory is nonlocal because the equations are written on the same sheet of paper "locally" that would be silly.

Please go on, but focus on the substance instead.


All the best to you too.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:28 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Mate! ??? Please slow down, you are confusing an already confused situation!

Not at all mate :D,

WHY: Because it's a calculation NOT a measurement! A totally valid and inarguable calculation since highschool and no loophole;

So? All the experiments in the world will not give you a correlation if you do not calculate afterward. The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements while doing only joint analysis of the data. It would be delusion to claim that you measured P(AB|ab) separately, if your analysis of the measured data involves "proper-matching" in order to calculate N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-), the validity of the calculation notwithstanding. I would say in that case you surely measured P(AB|ab) jointly.

BTW, "proper-matching" is non-local, since you need information from both sides at the same time in order to do such matching. That by itself obliterates the Bell argument since the separability argument dies right there. It is forbidden to use "proper-matching" at the same time as the P(A|Bab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|b) assumption.


Mate! Mate? What are you on?

(i) Proper matching does not occur FTL. So absolutely NO nonlocality there! [Note to parents: Young minkwe really must try harder.]

(ii) "You need information from both sides [delete: 'at the same time' because it confuses many] in order to do such matching." ??? Please: Just send me your indexed data when you're ready. No time-pressure please: it tends to lead to mistakes!

(iii) Who "forbids the use of proper matching" at the same time as Bellians blunder under an erroneous understanding of PT?

(iv) I could go on [eg, re "The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements ..." ] and will, if provoked. :ugeek:

All the best to you and yours, and looking forward to learning more from you in 2016; Gordon

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Sat Dec 19, 2015 8:28 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Mate! ??? Please slow down, you are confusing an already confused situation!

Not at all mate :D,

WHY: Because it's a calculation NOT a measurement! A totally valid and inarguable calculation since highschool and no loophole;

So? All the experiments in the world will not give you a correlation if you do not calculate afterward. The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements while doing only joint analysis of the data. It would be delusion to claim that you measured P(AB|ab) separately, if your analysis of the measured data involves "proper-matching" in order to calculate N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-), the validity of the calculation notwithstanding. I would say in that case you surely measured P(AB|ab) jointly.

BTW, "proper-matching" is non-local, since you need information from both sides at the same time in order to do such matching. That by itself obliterates the Bell argument since the separability argument dies right there. It is forbidden to use "proper-matching" at the same time as the P(A|Bab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|b) assumption.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:27 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:A note here; for most EPR experiments the pairing is always done in the analysis after the measurements are done. I guess one could be a little bit pendantic about that saying that the time stamps took care of the pairing during measurements. Anyways, the experiments do attempt to measure in pairs I believe.


Your belief is right! So we can express it confidently as a fact. Thus some of the technical difficulties relate to the old Ai - Bi (i= 1,2, …, n), pair-matching problem.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:18 pm

minkwe wrote: ...

I aways give the example of the correlation between the heights of husbands and their wives C(HW). A joint measurement means you record both the husband and wife's heights on the same row and use that to jointly calculate C(HW). Separated means you measure all the Husbands only in experiment 1, then measure all the wives only in experiment 2. The only way to recover the joint correlation would be to stitch them using common information. For example if each couple had an index and you recorded the index along side the Husband's or Wife's height, later using the indices to do proper matching. If you do this, the experiment becomes a joint experiment not a separated one. This is the case in all Bell test experiments.


minkwe, (responding to the above comment which came in while my last reply was in progress). I agree that the key phrase -- the one that I also emphasised in my initial response on the matter -- is: PROPER MATCHING!

That's why I encourage others, like Don Graft and (formerly) Caroline Thompson, to monitor the matchings. However, here's where I differ from DG and CT: as the matching improves, the Bellian inequalities will continue to be breached; even more so than now!

PS: As to this line of yours: "If you do this, the experiment becomes a joint experiment not a separated one. This is the case in all Bell test experiments." I did not find this to be in line with your normal clarity (perhaps it's me and the silly season).

For, given the indexing, all the husband's can be measured in Paris, all the wives where I live! To borrow Don's phrase: they can remain "separated measurements". Indeed, in Bell tests, they are working ever harder to increase the separation. (Though, to be honest, I have no clue as to what mechanism could possibly breach ANY spacelike separation under proper matching.)

HTH.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:14 pm

A note here; for most EPR experiments the pairing is always done in the analysis after the measurements are done. I guess one could be a little bit pendantic about that saying that the time stamps took care of the pairing during measurements. Anyways, the experiments do attempt to measure in pairs I believe.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:39 pm

minkwe wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:3. Those "separated measurements", when properly consolidated via proper matching, yield the following pairs: A+B+, A+B-, A-B+, A-B-. In the following beautiful numbers: N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-)! THEN, for any Bellian inequality, it's all down-hill from there.
.

The bold text is the glue that joins them. Any calculation which uses terms like N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-) cannot be a separated measurement for those are joint terms. It does not matter how the measurements were actually made. They've been glued already prior to that point. Separated terms should be

N(A+) N(B+), N(A-), N(B-)


Mate! ??? Please slow down, you are confusing an already confused situation! I agree re the glue, but please note this next (from you):

Of course this is true: "Any calculation which uses terms like N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-)" cannot be a separated measurement for those are joint terms."

WHY: Because it's a calculation NOT a measurement! A totally valid and inarguable calculation since highschool and no loophole; not for Don, nor anyone else!
.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:24 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:3. Those "separated measurements", when properly consolidated via proper matching, yield the following pairs: A+B+, A+B-, A-B+, A-B-. In the following beautiful numbers: N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-)! THEN, for any Bellian inequality, it's all down-hill from there.
.

The bold text is the glue that joins them. Any calculation which uses terms like N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-) cannot be a separated measurement for those are joint terms. It does not matter how the measurements were actually made. They've been glued already prior to that point. Separated terms should be

N(A+) N(B+), N(A-), N(B-)

I aways give the example of the correlation between the heights of husbands and their wives C(HW). A joint measurement means you record both the husband and wife's heights on the same row and use that to jointly calculate C(HW). Separated means you measure all the Husbands only in experiment 1, then measure all the wives only in experiment 2. The only way to recover the joint correlation would be to stitch them using common information. For example if each couple had an index and you recorded the index along side the Husband's or Wife's height, later using the indices to do proper matching. If you do this, the experiment becomes a joint experiment not a separated one. This is the case in all Bell test experiments.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by Gordon Watson » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:20 pm

minkwe wrote:I don't get what all the fuss is about in relation to the word "marginal".

We are interested in measuring the joint conditional probability P(AB|ab). We can do it two ways, we measure AB jointly, or we can measure A and B separately. For example, tossing two coins (a,b) repeatedly and measuring jointly means for each toss, you evaluate if both the A and B events are true. You only need 1 column on your spreadsheet titled "AB" and the rows will be "true", "false" etc. At the end you count the number of "true" and divide by the number of "false" to get your estimate of P(AB|ab) directly. Measuring separately means you toss coin "a" only repeatedly to create a table spreadsheet with one column labeled "A". Then in a separate experiment, you toss coin "b" to create a spreadsheet with one column labeled "B", and then you try to calculate from those two separate experiments.

This is problematic because the separate experiment can only give you P(A|a) and P(B|b), but according to the chain rule of probability theory:

P(AB|ab) = P(A|ab)P(B|Aab) = P(B|ab)P(A|Bab)

and those terms do not appear. You might make the assumption that P(A|Bab) = P(A|ab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|ab) = P(B|b). With those additional assumptions, you would then be able to calculate

Although in the usual usage, the marginal probability is P(A) while P(A|ab), P(A|a) are considered conditional, it is correct to say P(A|a) is marginal with respect to the B outcome and settings, compared to P(A|ab) and P(A|Bab).

As far as QM is concerned P(A|a) = P(B|b) = 1/2
But P(AB|ab) = 0.5 cos^2(theta) =/= P(A|a)P(B|b)

Therefore the QM joint prediction can never be measured separately.


1. As I see the situation, part of the fuss re marginal arises from Don's use of that term in in his trademark phrase "marginal (separated) measurements". In my view marginal is here redundant. So Don's trademark phrase just means "separated measurements".

2. So NOW we need to recognise that "separated measurements" can indeed breach any Bellian inequality: FOR they certainly do!

3. Those "separated measurements", when properly consolidated via proper matching, yield the following pairs: A+B+, A+B-, A-B+, A-B-. In the following beautiful numbers: N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-)! THEN, for any Bellian inequality, it's all down-hill from there.
.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:15 pm

As concerns experiments
When Don says " The measurements taken in an EPRB experiment, however, are separated, so the measurement at A proceeds in ignorance of the analyzer setting at B and the outcomes at B, and vice versa."

I would say what the experimenter knows is irrelevant, it all depends in the end on what the data analyst "DOES". Note that in the coin toss example above, each toss could be performed "separately" by two different people Alice and Bob. They could each record down the time of each toss together with the outcomes on their spreadsheets. Their experiments appear to be separate, until during the data analysis, the analyst uses the recorded times to match the rows up and uses just the matched rows in order to calculate P(AB|ab). The P(AB|ab) calculated as such is joint not separated, and this is the case in all EPRB experiments. It might not even be times, it might be other criteria or even post-processing based on so-called "event-ready" signals.

Let x be the common information such as "event-ready" or coincidence time etc.
What is being calculated at the end is .

The experiments do the experiment separately. The data analysts analyse the data jointly making what the experimenters did irrelevant. The data analysis is inconsistent with the original assumption of P(A|Bab) = P(A|ab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|ab) = P(B|b).

The QM joint prediction can only be recovered in separated measurements, if there is a "glue" (x) to bind the results during data analysis and the use of this glue violates the P(A|Bab) = P(A|ab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|ab) = P(B|b) assumption.

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:07 pm

minkwe wrote:Therefore the QM joint prediction can never be measured separately.

Correct. However, in a typical EPR type experiment they attempt to always measure in pairs so not separate. Of course we can see a grey area creeps in when trying to always measure pairs. Is this what Don is trying to exploit?

Re: Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

Post by minkwe » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:51 pm

I don't get what all the fuss is about in relation to the word "marginal".

We are interested in measuring the joint conditional probability P(AB|ab). We can do it two ways, we measure AB jointly, or we can measure A and B separately. For example, tossing two coins (a,b) repeatedly and measuring jointly means for each toss, you evaluate if both the A and B events are true. You only need 1 column on your spreadsheet titled "AB" and the rows will be "true", "false" etc. At the end you count the number of "true" and divide by the number of "false" to get your estimate of P(AB|ab) directly. Measuring separately means you toss coin "a" only repeatedly to create a table spreadsheet with one column labeled "A". Then in a separate experiment, you toss coin "b" to create a spreadsheet with one column labeled "B", and then you try to calculate from those two separate experiments.

This is problematic because the separate experiment can only give you P(A|a) and P(B|b), but according to the chain rule of probability theory:

P(AB|ab) = P(A|ab)P(B|Aab) = P(B|ab)P(A|Bab)

and those terms do not appear. You might make the assumption that P(A|Bab) = P(A|ab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|ab) = P(B|b). With those additional assumptions, you would then be able to calculate

Although in the usual usage, the marginal probability is P(A) while P(A|ab), P(A|a) are considered conditional, it is correct to say P(A|a) is marginal with respect to the B outcome and settings, compared to P(A|ab) and P(A|Bab).

As far as QM is concerned P(A|a) = P(B|b) = 1/2
But P(AB|ab) = 0.5 cos^2(theta) =/= P(A|a)P(B|b)

Therefore the QM joint prediction can never be measured separately.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library