My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat it:

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: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat it:

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Joy Christian » Wed May 19, 2021 7:13 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
For sure, local realism is not ruled out by the experiments after that. :mrgreen:

You are right, of course. The essence of the claim by Bell is that quantum correlations cannot be reproduced in a local-realistic model. But your simulation above, which supports the analytical 3-sphere model, clearly shows that Bell's claim is wrong. So that should be the end of the saga. A clear refutation by a constructive counterexample. But there is also a formal aspect to Bell's argument, with the core of Bell's so-called "theorem" supported by an application of probability theory. That formal aspect must also be defeated, and that can be decisive and convincing only by playing the Bell-believers' own formal game. So Bell's argument has now been defeated both by a constructive counterexample and a decisive formal argument. :)
.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by FrediFizzx » Wed May 19, 2021 6:20 am

There is more than one way to shoot down Bell's junk physics theory. I think the best way is to show a local model that predicts -a.b.

Image
Image

For sure, local realism is not ruled out by the experiments after that. :mrgreen:
.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Joy Christian » Wed May 19, 2021 5:16 am

.
In the last few months, there have been frequent hits on the opening post of this thread from the Einstein Centre's website: http://einstein-physics.org/.

In other words, the hits are to this link: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6681, which is to this thread.

My guess is that someone has posted a discussion on the Internet about my challenge to all Bell-believers that started this thread in 2016. That is pretty old and the challenge still stands.

But I would like to point out that now there is a serious theoretical counterpart to the challenge in the form of this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf.

My conclusion in the paper is that
... what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values.

You will have to read the paper I have linked above to understand why that is the case.

So the challenge has reached its conclusion. For obvious reasons, no one has been able to defeat the challenge in five years, but the paper shows why that was an impossibility.
.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:59 pm

Curiosity wrote:I think that Arthur Fine also proved that rejecting a deterministic model and using a probabilistic one is only an apparent generalization.
By the way, there are correct ways to reject the Bell theorem and non-locality. You only have to explain what Bell's assumption you are rejecting and why. See for instance https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.00729.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Nowadays we say that Bell's more interesting "meta-theorem" (the metaphysical conclusions which he drew from his inequalities concerning the relation between quantum mechanics and relativity theory) is that QM is incompatible with locality [local relativistic causality], realism [counterfactual definiteness] and no-conspiracy [freedom]. Loophole-free experiments furthermore show by the same reasoning that not just QM theory or any theory with approximately the same predictions but also meticulously generated laboratory observations prepared under exacting conditions are incompatible with locality [local relativistic causality], realism [counterfactual definiteness] and no-conspiracy [freedom].

The paper your refer to uses violation of no-conspiracy. Arthur Fine knew this all very well, too. Bell knew it all too, but didn't use the same words.

Progress is nowadays being made using retrocausality and using superdeterminism. Lots of people working on those devices. This might solve the problems of harmonising quantum theory and relativity theory for the purpose of modelling the early universe, but I am certain that it is not going to solve the problem of merging quantum theory and relativity theory for the purpose of understanding the quantum correlations which are observed in rigorous "loophole free" laboratory experiments, ie with distances of the order of micrometers - kilometers and time corresponding to the distances (ie the times taken by "light in vacuum" to travel such distances).

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Curiosity » Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:31 am

I think that Arthur Fine also proved that rejecting a deterministic model and using a probabilistic one is only an apparent generalization.
By the way, there are correct ways to reject the Bell theorem and non-locality. You only have to explain what Bell's assumption you are rejecting and why. See for instance https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.00729.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:26 pm

Curiosity wrote:
gill1109 wrote: Yes, what he says is correct, but it is empty. There are no other local hidden variables models which reproduce the singlet correlations than models which can be cast in the form A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda). Determinism is indeed irrelevant.

A local hidden variables model would (a) be local and (b) satisfy counterfactual definiteness. One could create a probability space with random variables A_a and B_b, for all directions a and b, such that A_a is the outcome which Alice would see if she chose setting a. Now define lambda = the pair of functions (A_a, B_b; a, b directions). Nature chooses a 0/1 valued function A_(.), and a function B_(.). The experimenter chooses settings a, b. The experimenter observes outcomes A_(a) and B_(b).

The no-conspiracy assumption says that nature and the experimenter are not constrained by one another.



I am not sure I understand. Are you saying your model includes the case when we do not assume deterministic functions A(.) but only probabilistic functions P_A(.)?

I am not saying that, but it is true.
I'm saying that a local hidden variables model, including a stochastic local hidden variables model, allows the creation of a classical probability space (Omega, F, P) with random variables X_a, Y_b defined on it. Thus X_a is a function of omega in Omega. If you like, you can think of omega as being lambda. But if you like, you can also think of the set of all functions {X_a(omega), Y_b(omega) : a, b directions} which you find when you let omega range through Omega.


If we are just interested in the probability distribution of a random variable X we can forget about the underlying probability space Omega and just take the new probability space IR (the real line) with the induced probability measure P_X on it defined as follows: for Borel subsets B of IR, P_X(B) = P(X in B) := P({omega: X(omega) in B}).

This is basic stuff in the complete standard measure theoretic foundation of probability. The theory built by Borel and Lebesgue and completed by Kolmogorov. And standard terminology from the theory of stochastic processes. We can think of all the possible outcomes of Alice's measuring spin in direction a as a random function, with time variable a. X_a(omega) as a varies, for fixed omega, is called the sample path of the stochastic process. Of course we do not observe that sample path. Alice chooses a direction a and gets to see one point on that random graph, namely X_a(omega).

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Curiosity » Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:01 am

gill1109 wrote: Yes, what he says is correct, but it is empty. There are no other local hidden variables models which reproduce the singlet correlations than models which can be cast in the form A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda). Determinism is indeed irrelevant.

A local hidden variables model would (a) be local and (b) satisfy counterfactual definiteness. One could create a probability space with random variables A_a and B_b, for all directions a and b, such that A_a is the outcome which Alice would see if she chose setting a. Now define lambda = the pair of functions (A_a, B_b; a, b directions). Nature chooses a 0/1 valued function A_(.), and a function B_(.). The experimenter chooses settings a, b. The experimenter observes outcomes A_(a) and B_(b).

The no-conspiracy assumption says that nature and the experimenter are not constrained by one another.



I am not sure I understand. Are you saying your model includes the case when we do not assume deterministic functions A(.) but only probabilistic functions P_A(.)?

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:39 pm

Curiosity wrote:
Esail wrote:Now he realizes that QM violates Bell's inequality and concludes from this that nature is not local. This is wrong. It only means that no unambiguous functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) exist which could describe the measurement results. His claim nature is nonlocal would only be correct if there could be no other models for hidden variables than A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda).


I think that is no correct. Why? Because the Bell inequality is valid even if we do not assume determinism.

Yes, what he says is correct, but it is empty. There are no other local hidden variables models which reproduce the singlet correlations than models which can be cast in the form A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda). Determinism is indeed irrelevant.

A local hidden variables model would (a) be local and (b) satisfy counterfactual definiteness. One could create a probability space with random variables A_a and B_b, for all directions a and b, such that A_a is the outcome which Alice would see if she chose setting a. Now define lambda = the pair of functions (A_a, B_b; a, b directions). Nature chooses a 0/1 valued function A_(.), and a function B_(.). The experimenter chooses settings a, b. The experimenter observes outcomes A_(a) and B_(b).

The no-conspiracy assumption says that nature and the experimenter are not constrained by one another.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Curiosity » Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:12 am

Esail wrote:Now he realizes that QM violates Bell's inequality and concludes from this that nature is not local. This is wrong. It only means that no unambiguous functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) exist which could describe the measurement results. His claim nature is nonlocal would only be correct if there could be no other models for hidden variables than A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda).


I think that is no correct. Why? Because the Bell inequality is valid even if we do not assume determinism.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:35 am

I would like to see a mathematical or computer science definition of a non-conspiratorial local realistic model which could not be expressed through hidden variables models of the type discussed by Bell. Note: there is no suggestion that "lambda" is in any way "local". It can be classical information of any kind associated with source, detectors, transmission lines... Bell is only supposing that if Alice could choose between settings a1 and a2 then both associated outcomes x1 and x2 exist, mathematically, and do not depend on which setting b1 or b2 is chosen by Bob; and vice versa. One could take lambda to be the quadruple (x1, x2, y1, y2). A local hidden variable model is just a probability distribution over {-1, +1}^4. It's just a list of 16 probabilities adding up to 1. The model says: if Alice chooses setting i and Bob chooses setting j then they'll observe outcomes xi, yj with the probability which is obtained by summing 4 of the 16 probabilities in the just mentioned list.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Esail » Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:22 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
You are not permitted to surreptitiously replace the sum E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) of four separate averages with the following single average:

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


***


I suspect you did not understand Bell's reasoning. He writes (in my words) : If the measurement results can be described by unambiguous functions A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda), then conclusions can be drawn from them - purely deductively. For instance
E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) = E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(a)B(b) + A(a)B(b' ) + A(a' )B(b) - A(a' )B(b' ) >>
and finally Bell's inequality. This is purely mathematically and has nothing to do with the possibility of simultaneous measurements.

Now he realizes that QM violates Bell's inequality and concludes from this that nature is not local. This is wrong. It only means that no unambiguous functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) exist which could describe the measurement results. His claim nature is nonlocal would only be correct if there could be no other models for hidden variables than A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda).

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:27 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.

I mentioned to Derek Abbott the idea of having a Zoom debate. He was interested. Are you in for that, Joy? Maybe Jay Yablon would like to moderate. Several of the referees would probably be very interested too.

No, I am not interested. There is nothing to debate.

Don't call it a debate then. You present something. I present something. Other people discuss. Other people also make some presentations. Call it a meeting, or a seminar, or a Spring school. You could give a course.

Or are you leaving science now?

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:38 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.

I mentioned to Derek Abbott the idea of having a Zoom debate. He was interested. Are you in for that, Joy? Maybe Jay Yablon would like to moderate. Several of the referees would probably be very interested too.

No, I am not interested. There is nothing to debate.
.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:30 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.

I mentioned to Derek Abbott the idea of having a Zoom debate. He was interested. Are you in for that, Joy? Maybe Jay Yablon would like to moderate. Several of the referees would probably be very interested too.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:12 am

gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.
.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:08 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
I will believe when I see Gill's papers published in RSOS and IEEE Access. Until then, I am not holding my breath about anything.

And the Chief editor of Entropy has assured me that they are reassessing Gill's paper and considering what action to take. His paper was accepted without proper scrutiny and despite its low quality because it was edited by one of Gill's friends who is not a proper editor but a temporary guest editor who was invited for a specific volume published in Entropy. In my opinion, Gill's paper should be retracted from Entropy if the journal wants to improve its reputation.

I wonder! I’ll ask Kevin and Andrei about this.

IEEE-Access says I should be receiving fresh reports soon.

Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 pm

Joy Christian wrote:.
I will believe when I see Gill's papers published in RSOS and IEEE Access. Until then, I am not holding my breath about anything.

And the Chief editor of Entropy has assured me that they are reassessing Gill's paper and considering what action to take. His paper was accepted without proper scrutiny and despite its low quality because it was edited by one of Gill's friends who is not a proper editor but a temporary guest editor who was invited for a specific volume published in Entropy. In my opinion, Gill's paper should be retracted from Entropy if the journal wants to improve its reputation.

I wonder! I’ll ask Kevin and Andrei about this.

IEEE-Access says I should be receiving fresh reports soon.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:13 pm

.
I will believe when I see Gill's papers published in RSOS and IEEE Access. Until then, I am not holding my breath about anything.

And the Chief editor of Entropy has assured me that they are reassessing Gill's paper and considering what action to take. His paper was accepted without proper scrutiny and despite its low quality because it was edited by one of Gill's friends who is not a proper editor but a temporary guest editor who was invited for a specific volume published in Entropy. In my opinion, Gill's paper should be retracted from Entropy if the journal wants to improve its reputation.
.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by gill1109 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:11 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I also haven’t heard from IEEE Access nor from Royal Society Open Science for a long time.

Interesting! Gill claimed in this forum and in his paper itself that he was invited by the editors of the journals to submit his papers. He also claimed on the 30th of November last year that he has gracefully accepted the invitations by the editors and submitted his papers. That was more than two months ago. Invited papers usually get published within weeks, if not days. :)

Yes, very interesting. I can supply evidence supporting my claims by showing you the emails. Just email me (or send me a Private Message on this forum) if you want to see them. I don't think I should publish them here.

So long as neither Joy Christian nor the editors-in-chief of the journals concerned inform me of specific complaints, there is nothing I can do about them. I have emailed to the editors of all three journals concerned (IEEE Access, RSOS, Entropy) to ask them if complaints have been received.

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:42 am

gill1109 wrote:
I also haven’t heard from IEEE Access nor from Royal Society Open Science for a long time.

Interesting! Gill claimed in this forum and in his paper itself that he was invited by the editors of the journals to submit his papers. He also claimed on the 30th of November last year that he has gracefully accepted the invitations by the editors and submitted his papers. That was more than two months ago. Invited papers usually get published within weeks, if not days. :)
.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library