A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

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: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:28 pm

barukcic wrote:Respected all,
Bell's article has been peer-reviewed and "published". Still, it is that what is was, what it is and what it will be:
pre logical and mathematical non-sense!
It is without any sense to take into consideration that Bell's theorem/inequality or CHSH et cetera is of any scientific value.
Bell's logical non-sense is refuted already since years and for several times and is more than only far away from the truth.
See:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4773147
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... erid=65864
http://jddtonline.info/index.php/jddt/article/view/2389
Best
Ilija Barukcic

Ilja, it is good that your works get published. Now the next question is, will they become highly cited? Will your results find their way into standard university textbooks?

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by barukcic » Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:08 am

Respected all,
Bell's article has been peer-reviewed and "published". Still, it is that what is was, what it is and what it will be:
pre logical and mathematical non-sense!
It is without any sense to take into consideration that Bell's theorem/inequality or CHSH et cetera is of any scientific value.
Bell's logical non-sense is refuted already since years and for several times and is more than only far away from the truth.
See:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4773147
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... erid=65864
http://jddtonline.info/index.php/jddt/article/view/2389
Best
Ilija Barukcic

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:14 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Karl Hess is beginning to understand Bell's (impeccable) logic.

At least he now understands that Bell's theorem has everything to do with probabilities and statistics, unlike some other participants on this forum (who shall remain unnamed).

There are of course those who would like to deceive people by obfuscating a very simple physics issue by invoking probabilities and statistics because physics is not everyone's cup of tea. Bell's theorem is a fatally flawed argument, as I will demonstrate here by tomorrow. Bell and his followers have made a major boo-boo. But that is not easy for everyone to understand.

Statistics and probability certainly isn't everybody's cup of tea, I guess we can all agree on that. I think we are the most hated people in science.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by JohnDuffield » Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:41 am

I look forward to reading what you say, Joy.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:56 am

Heinera wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Karl Hess is beginning to understand Bell's (impeccable) logic.

At least he now understands that Bell's theorem has everything to do with probabilities and statistics, unlike some other participants on this forum (who shall remain unnamed).

There are of course those who would like to deceive people by obfuscating a very simple physics issue by invoking probabilities and statistics because physics is not everyone's cup of tea.

Bell's theorem is a fatally flawed argument, as I will demonstrate here by tomorrow. Bell and his followers have made a major boo-boo. But that is not easy for everyone to understand.

***

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:45 am

gill1109 wrote:Karl Hess is beginning to understand Bell's (impeccable) logic.

At least he now understands that Bell's theorem has everything to do with probabilities and statistics, unlike some other participants on this forum (who shall remain unnamed).

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Mar 01, 2020 3:28 am

gill1109 wrote:Prof. Karl Hess writes in the abstract to his new paper
J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data.

Karl Hess is beginning to understand Bell's (impeccable) logic. Bell used a single probability space because of careful and sensible physical arguments, arguments which Einstein would have approved of (the arguments which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen deployed). Those arguments lead to inequalities, which are violated in experiments (if you can trust the experiments). The consequences must be that Einstein's assumptions are false (or there are things badly wrong with recent experiments). At least one of them must be dropped. Which one, is still much a matter of taste since experimental findings so far do not distinguish between various options which are out there on the table. It seems that Prof. Hess is, at last, starting to seriously investigate the possibilities which are open to him.

What utter hogwash. Einstein's assumptions are false? How dare you? It is Bell and his followers who have made a major boo-boo, not Einstein. Just wait until tomorrow to find out more.

***

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:59 am

Prof. Karl Hess writes in the abstract to his new paper
J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data.

Karl Hess is beginning to understand Bell's (impeccable) logic. Bell used a single probability space because of careful and sensible physical arguments, arguments which Einstein would have approved of (the arguments which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen deployed). Those arguments lead to inequalities, which are violated in experiments (if you can trust the experiments). The consequences must be that Einstein's assumptions are false (or there are things badly wrong with recent experiments). At least one of them must be dropped. Which one, is still much a matter of taste since experimental findings so far do not distinguish between various options which are out there on the table. It seems that Prof. Hess is, at last, starting to seriously investigate the possibilities which are open to him.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:11 pm

Oh, for heaven's sake! Why make something that is fairly simple more complicated than it needs to be? It is mathematically impossible for anything to mathematically or physically violate any of the Bell inequalities. So how do the experiments and QM exceed the bounds? Simple. They shift to an inequality with a higher bound which they never violate.
.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:31 pm

***
Prof. Karl Hess has posted a new paper on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re ... 499feb41ac.

Title: Kolmogorov’s probability spaces for “entangled” data-subsets of EPRB experiments: no violation of Einstein’s separation principle

Abstract:

It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability
for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement
outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to
spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for
all data sets and sub-sets of data.

It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences
of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and
cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For
example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spingauges
in the two EPRB wings.

It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from
experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes third rank as soon
as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different
for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets
of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations
without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.

***

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:00 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Guys, let's try to discuss the physics of the Hess paper and not the virtues of different publishing. Thanks.
.

The 2019 paper by Karl Hess published in "Journal of Modern Physics", http://www.scirp.org/journal/JournalArticles.aspx?JournalID=172,

Categories of Nonlocality in EPR Theories and the Validity of Einstein’s Separation Principle as Well as Bell’s Theorem
http://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=94973

relies strongly on

[3] Hess, K. and Philipp, W. (2005) Foundations of Physics, 35, 1749-1767.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-005-6520-y

which is unfortunately behind a paywall. But fortunately it is also on arXiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503044

The Bell Theorem as a Special Case of a Theorem of Bass
Karl Hess, Walter Philipp
(Submitted on 3 Mar 2005)

The theorem of Bell states that certain results of quantum mechanics violate inequalities that are valid for objective local random variables. We show that the inequalities of Bell are special cases of theorems found ten years earlier by Bass and stated in full generality by Vorob'ev. This fact implies precise necessary and sufficient mathematical conditions for the validity of the Bell inequalities. We show that these precise conditions differ significantly from the definition of objective local variable spaces and as an application that the Bell inequalities may be violated even for objective local random variables.


And now for my real comment. Karl Hess is still confused and still somehow trying to rescue the work of himself and his departed friend Walter Philipp. OK, so now the whole thing is attributed to Bass or Vorobeev. At least there is some mention of the necessary and sufficient conditions found by the great Arthur Fine. I don't have time for an extensive analysis right now, but here are some comments I recently made with someone mentioned that of course Bell's inequality was discovered by Boole in 1850-whatever:

I think this reference to Boole is spurious. Yes, Boole has Bell’s three variable inequality as an exercise to the reader. But the probability part of the proof of Bell’s theorem is simply the trivial inequality Pr(A or B or ...) is less than or equal to Pr(A) + Pr(B) + ... . and that inequality is always called Boole’s inequality. So attributing Bell to Boole is about as silly as attributing any use of elementary probability whatsoever to whichever hero you like. Boole will do fine. Venn would do too. Kolmogorov if you prefer. Or Borel? The elementary axioms of probability are the elementary rules of accountancy. The point is that Bell argues on *physical grounds* that elementary probability rules did apply to probabilities in *different* physical experiments.


I would love to discuss more, but right now I have to work hard on preparing a workshop (and symposium) proposal, and preparing my lectures on quantum statistics in China, which start in a little more than a week.http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/lecture_course.html

By the way, the newest paper by Karl does have its own internet discussion forum. No one placed a comment yet. Bell lovers and haters should do so!

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:47 pm

Guys, let's try to discuss the physics of the Hess paper and not the virtues of different publishing. Thanks.
.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:39 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
The new paper by Prof. Karl Hess is now officially published: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080.

***

"Published" should be in quotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... Publishing

Where do you publish your papers? Can you give a reference?

***

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:20 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
The new paper by Prof. Karl Hess is now officially published: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080.

***

"Published" should be in quotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... Publishing

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:21 am

***
The new paper by Prof. Karl Hess is now officially published: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080.

***

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by minkwe » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:19 am

gill1109 wrote:A mathematical inequality is a mathematical statement like "If A then x > y".

Wrong. The mathematical inequality is just "x > y".

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:15 pm

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

I don't see a question. What is Fred's question?

A mathematical inequality is a mathematical statement like "If A then x > y".
Let's suppose that the mathematical statement is true.
Then if x is not larger than y, we can conclude that A is not true.
It seems to me, with all due respect to the owner of this splendid forum, that Fred's question is ill-formed and his answer is ill-considered.

Bell's theorem is an elementary, and true, theorem in theoretical computer science, more specifically, in the theory of distributed classical computing.

If its conclusions do not hold in reality then we know that physical reality cannot be mathematically modelled as a network of classical spatial automata. There are proofs of this result which depend on well-known results from Fourier analysis, which therefore do not depend on "Bell inequalities" at all, but depend on well understood functional analysis and approximation theory (Steve Gull's proof outline). It was an exam question for master students in theoretical physics in Cambridge! Not such deep stuff at all.

Guys (Fred, Joy, Michel), you really all have to wake up and smell the coffee before our symposium takes place and all these things are discussed in public.

It wasn't really a question,

"I have to inform you that in fact the experiments and QM never "violate" any of Bell's inequalities. Please demonstrate mathematically how they could possibly ever do that. You can't because what they do is use an inequality with a higher bound and never actually use the Bell inequalities."

Can you do the demonstration? There..., that is a question.

Bell fans are the ones that need to wake up instead of smelling Bell's junk physics theory. That sucker is a howler of a physics stink indeed! :mrgreen:
.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:07 pm

minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

I don't see a question. What is Fred's question?

A mathematical inequality is a mathematical statement like "If A then x > y".
Let's suppose that the mathematical statement is true.
Then if x is not larger than y, we can conclude that A is not true.
It seems to me, with all due respect to the owner of this splendid forum, that Fred's question is ill-formed and his answer is ill-considered.

Bell's theorem is an elementary, and true, theorem in theoretical computer science, more specifically, in the theory of distributed classical computing.

If its conclusions do not hold in reality then we know that physical reality cannot be mathematically modelled as a network of classical spatial automata. There are proofs of this result which depend on well-known results from Fourier analysis, which therefore do not depend on "Bell inequalities" at all, but depend on well understood functional analysis and approximation theory (Steve Gull's proof outline). It was an exam question for master students in theoretical physics in Cambridge! Not such deep stuff at all.

Guys (Fred, Joy, Michel), you really all have to wake up and smell the coffee before our symposium takes place and all these things are discussed in public.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by minkwe » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:09 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: :D I've been wondering if the QM measurement problem is somehow linked to the fact that QM can't violate the Bell inequalities? Probably not.
.

This has nothing to do with the measurement problem. It is simply a matter of elementary arithmetic. Try to convince a school student that something violates a mathematical inequality and they will quickly put you in your place. But try to point out the impossibility to a Bell-believer and they will spew out a whole load of irrelevant nonsense to convince themselves that they haven't been a total idiot for the past 55 years. :)

***

To put it in more polite terms, you are right that the truth has been obscured in plain sight for half a century.

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:17 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

:D I've been wondering if the QM measurement problem is somehow linked to the fact that QM can't violate the Bell inequalities? Probably not.
.

This has nothing to do with the measurement problem. It is simply a matter of elementary arithmetic. Try to convince a school student that something violates a mathematical inequality and they will quickly put you in your place. But try to point out the impossibility to a Bell-believer and they will spew out a whole load of irrelevant nonsense to convince themselves that they haven't been a total idiot for the past 55 years. :)

***

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library