## CHSH - the facts!

### 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

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

FrediFizzx wrote:E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> is the only thing we really have to be concerned about as Bell-CHSH with its bound of 2 is a rigged game. If that produces -a.b or close to it, then nothing else matters.

Indeed. E(a, b) = -a.b is the only local-realistic physics that matters. The whole idea of inequalities and bounds is just smoke and mirrors, made up by Bell-believers.

The concepts of locality and realism are already rigorously encapsulated by Bell in his definitions of A(a, r) and B(b, r) themselves, where r is the shared randomness.

***

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Joy Christian wrote:***
We have tired to explain in this forum many times the confusion the Bell-believers are having. Let me try to explain their confusion once again.

Let me stick to my proposed, classical, macroscopic experiment so hopefully there will be no confusion: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... opExp1.pdf

The four EPR-Bohm type classical experiments that are physically meaningful can be described by the four separate averages

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> ,

***

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> is the only thing we really have to be concerned about as Bell-CHSH with its bound of 2 is a rigged game. If that produces -a.b or close to it, then nothing else matters.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

***
We have tired to explain in this forum many times the confusion the Bell-believers are having. Let me try to explain their confusion once again.

Let me stick to my proposed, classical, macroscopic experiment so hopefully there will be no confusion: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... opExp1.pdf

The four EPR-Bohm type classical experiments that are physically meaningful can be described by the four separate averages

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> ,

E(a, b' ) = << A(a)B(b' ) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A(a' )B(b) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A(a' )B(b' ) >> ,

where A and B are equal to +1 or -1.

The corresponding CHSH-correlator is then bounded by 4 (or 2\/2 if you do not neglect the crucial geometrical and topological properties of the physical space):

- 4 < E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) < + 4 ....................... (1)

But Bell-believers derive their inequalities (or the bound of 2) by discarding the above four actual experiments altogether and replacing them with a completely different, physically entirely meaningless experiment described by the single average

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(a)B(b) + A(a)B(b' ) + A(a' )B(b) - A(a' )B(b' ) >> ........................ (2)

Note that this single average has nothing whatsoever to do with the EPR-Bohm experiment. In fact, it does not pertain to any physically possible experiment at all.

Now it is easy to work out that the bound on the above single average is 2 (see, for example, this derivation http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf).

But as we have repeatedly stressed, the single average (2) has nothing to do with any physics or with experiment, even if it is mathematically possible to compute.

Now why is this so hard to understand? The single average E( a, b, a', b' ) is physically not the same thing as the sum of averages E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ).

***

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Folks, see the dishonesty we have to put up with constantly with Bell fanatics. Heine's question has already been answered but he is just going to keep asking it anyways over and over and over. I can't believe he is not really paying attention so it just has to be dishonesty.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

"Clearly, your argument against Bell's theorem is incorrect (argument saying that it is impossible to fill in the 4xN table with experimental values), given the experiment that Joy Christian proposes, where this clearly is possible. So for the last time, will CHSH < 2 hold in Joy Christian's experiment, for which it is trivial to fill in the 4xN table?"

Is a simple yes/no answer to this question really so hard?

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with.

You are being unscientific by not even paying attention to what has been said. Go back and study the thread; you definitely need to.

For me it suffices to note that you didn't answer my question.

It is ridiculous to continue a debate when you (and others) constantly ignore what has be said previously.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with.

You are being unscientific by not even paying attention to what has been said. Go back and study the thread; you definitely need to.

For me it suffices to note that you didn't answer my question.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with.

You are being unscientific by not even paying attention to what has been said. Go back and study the thread; you definitely need to. It is ridiculous to continue a debate when you (and others) constantly ignore what has be said previously.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with. My involvement in this thread was originally as a reply to minkwe; I register he has withdrawn from the discussion (i.e., he got the point). Clearly, your argument against Bell's theorem is incorrect (argument saying that it is impossible to fill in the 4xN table with experimental values), given the experiment that Joy Christian proposes, where this clearly is possible. So for the last time, will CHSH < 2 hold in Joy Christian's experiment, for which it is trivial to fill in the 4xN table?

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

For the last time but I doubt very much that it will sink in. It is impossible to compute in a quantum experiment!!!!

But Joy Christian is not suggesting a quantum experiment. His experiment is one with exploding balls. Why bring quantum experiments into this?

I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

For the last time but I doubt very much that it will sink in. It is impossible to compute in a quantum experiment!!!!

But Joy Christian is not suggesting a quantum experiment. His experiment is one with exploding balls. Why bring quantum experiments into this?

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

For the last time but I doubt very much that it will sink in. It is impossible to compute in a quantum experiment!!!!

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Did you even read the thread I posted? Stop trolling and learn something for a change.

Here is another thread for you to digest: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

***

I read the thread you posted. Unfortunately, the argument provided there doesn't apply to your own experiment. In that thread you claim the impossibility of

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>

but of course, in your proposed experiment it is unproblematic to compute the spins for severeal different angles for the same fragment of the ball, at the same time.

So what?

I think you are in need of a brain.

***

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

NO!!!! Your logic is messed up as usual. Bell's argument is about comparing LHV models with QM models. But he fails with that. Now if Joy's mechanical singlet experiment is done and is successful, then we know for sure that table has to be rejected for all scenarios. But if the experiment is not successful, then that only tells us something about the macroscopic case and not the microscopic case. IOW, the experiment needs to be done to make sure.

But the bottom line is that if one assumes Nature to be local and realistic, then the table is to be rejected in the microscopic case since the quantum experiments thus prove that it is wrong. My bet is that it is wrong for all singlet scenarios.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Joy Christian wrote:Did you even read the thread I posted? Stop trolling and learn something for a change.

Here is another thread for you to digest: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

***

I read the thread you posted. Unfortunately, the argument provided there doesn't apply to your own experiment. In that thread you claim the impossibility of

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>

but of course, in your proposed experiment it is unproblematic to compute the spins for severeal different angles for the same fragment of the ball, at the same time.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Nonsense. No one needs to reject the table for rejecting the Bell-delusion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

***

I agree that there is no need to reject the table, but FrediFizzk seems to do so. Anyway, you can't have it both ways: You can't have an experiment that fills in the table, and at the same time expect it to replicate the QM predictions. Just ask minkwe. He understands that.

Did you even read the thread I posted? Stop trolling and learn something for a change.

Here is another thread for you to digest: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

***

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Nonsense. No one needs to reject the table for rejecting the Bell-delusion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

***

I agree that there is no need to reject the table, but FrediFizzk seems to do so. Anyway, you can't have it both ways: You can't have an experiment that fills in the table, and at the same time expect it to replicate the QM predictions. Just ask minkwe. He understands that.

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Nonsense. No one needs to reject the table for rejecting the Bell-delusion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

***

### Re: CHSH - the facts!

FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Top