The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Fri May 22, 2020 3:22 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
In pure mathematics one can go for absolute truth but on the other hand those absolute truths are mere tautologies.

That is exactly right. A fine example of that is Bell's theorem. It is tautologous. It assumes (in a different guise) what it wants to prove, in order to prove it. Nice mathematics, bad physics.

Actually, Bell's theorem suffers from a "double whammy." It is a circular argument to begin with, because it assumes something that amounts to assuming the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator that it intends to prove. But what is more, what it assumes [i.e., Eq. (16) of my paper] is a false premise. So it assumes a false premise to derive a false conclusion. :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:30 pm

***
I have revised the abstract of this paper, which I am reproducing below. The revised version of the paper should be online by Monday.

Image

The Bell-worshipers have been cheering Bell for ridiculing von Neumann for making a silly mistake in his theorem. Now the only options left for them are dishonesty and double-standards.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:59 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
I have revised the abstract of this paper, which I am reproducing below. The revised version of the paper should be online by Monday.

Image

The Bell-worshipers have been cheering Bell for ridiculing von Neumann for making a silly mistake in his theorem. Now the only options left for them are dishonesty and double-standards.

***

I think you are wrong, Joy. If you look at Bell's proof carefully you will see that the addition of expectation values of observations of objects which, under quantum mechanics, are modelled through an abstract mathematical framework involving non commuting operators, is carefully justified *under the assumption of local hidden variables*. Remember, that when we work under a hidden variables theory, we may forget *all* the dogmas of quantum theory. We are limited by experimental reality, only, and possibly other more fundamental principles such as locality and no-conspiracy.

Your confusion is typical of the confusion of physicists who have been brought up in a universe of quantum physics. They have too deeply absorbed dogmas from their teachers. They have absorbed "lies for children" which those teachers learnt from their teachers. I think I should write a short response paper to yours.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:18 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
I have revised the abstract of this paper, which I am reproducing below. The revised version of the paper should be online by Monday.

Image

The Bell-worshipers have been cheering Bell for ridiculing von Neumann for making a silly mistake in his theorem. Now the only options left for them are dishonesty and double-standards.

***

I think you are wrong, Joy. If you look at Bell's proof carefully you will see that the addition of expectation values of observations of objects which, under quantum mechanics, are modelled through an abstract mathematical framework involving non commuting operators, is carefully justified *under the assumption of local hidden variables*. Remember, that when we work under a hidden variables theory, we may forget *all* the dogmas of quantum theory. We are limited by experimental reality, only, and possibly other more fundamental principles such as locality and no-conspiracy.

Your confusion is typical of the confusion of physicists who have been brought up in a universe of quantum physics. They have too deeply absorbed dogmas from their teachers. They have absorbed "lies for children" which those teachers learnt from their teachers. I think I should write a short response paper to yours.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have no understanding of what a hidden variable theory is. You have not read my paper to understand my argument. You have not even read my Introduction. What you have written above is nothing but dogmatic folklore of Bell-worshipers. I should have added a third "d": dishonesty, double-standards, and denial.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:08 am

I have very carefully read the current version of Joy Christian’s paper. Obviously, I disagree with his evaluation of my motives and of my intellectual capacities. I will proceed to write out a more full analysis (refutation) of his argument. When I have done that, I’ll publish in a suitable medium and inform folks here. His standpoint is interesting and important because, as I wrote this morning, it represents a still prevalent misconception about Bell’s discovery.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:24 am

gill1109 wrote:
I have very carefully read the current version of Joy Christian’s paper. Obviously, I disagree with his evaluation of my motives and of my intellectual capacities. I will proceed to write out a more full analysis (refutation) of his argument. When I have done that, I’ll publish in a suitable medium and inform folks here. His standpoint is interesting and important because, as I wrote this morning, it represents a still prevalent misconception about Bell’s discovery.

Bell did not discover anything. Bell simply made the same silly mistake that von Neumann had made in his own little theorem. The revised abstract of my paper explains this quite clearly:

Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:20 pm

***
Here is a published paper by Richard D. Gill: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-2657-4.

It is a critique of one of my papers, published in the same journal. I have criticized Gill's paper before for different reasons in this unpublished preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

But here I want to point out the mistake in all Bell-type arguments I have been highlighting in this thread. This mistake is conspicuous in Gill's published paper, which I reproduce below:

Image

It is the second unnumbered equation seen above that is wrong. Gill is referring to me and my published paper in the above paragraph. Mind you, there is nothing mathematically wrong in his equation. Mathematically it is a trivial equation and its LHS is indeed equal to its RHS. But physically the equation is nonsense. It assumes that the sum of expectation values is equal to the expectation value of the sum. That is not valid for hidden variable theories, as I have explained here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876. That is the same mistake von Neumann had made in his theorem --- the one that Bell ridiculed him for making.

Exactly the same mistake exists in every single proof of Bell's theorem, starting with the proof presented by Bell in his famous 1964 paper. The physics community has been fooled by Bell and his followers for the past 56 years. And I have to report this here because the followers of Bell have been stonewalling my papers exposing Bell's mistakes for the past thirteen years.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:48 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Here is a published paper by Richard D. Gill: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-2657-4. It is a critique of one of my papers, published in the same journal. I have criticized Gill's paper before for different reasons in this unpublished preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393. But here I want to point out the mistake in all Bell-type arguments I have been highlighting in this thread. This mistake is conspicuous in Gill's published paper, which I reproduce below:
Image
It is the second unnumbered equation seen above that is wrong. Gill is referring to me and my published paper in the above paragraph. Mind you, there is nothing mathematically wrong in his equation. Mathematically it is a trivial equation and its LHS is indeed equal to its RHS. But physically the equation is nonsense. It assumes that the sum of expectation values is equal to the expectation value of the sum. That is not valid for hidden variable theories.

Strange that a trivial arithmetical identity, in whose truth there is no doubt whatsoever, as Joy Christian himself agrees, should suddenly fail to be true *for physical reasons* when the numbers involved happen to be the values taken on by *hidden variables*. The hidden variables theory is a physical theory of what is going on behind the scenes which supposes that there are physical properties of physical objects, which take on numerical values in any particular instance but which happen not to be directly observable by human experimenters. The odd thing is that they apparently do not obey ordinary rules of arithmetic. What rules they do follow is never revealed. The physical meaning of the word "hidden" is that only certified physicists can talk about them. I don't think it makes sense to call such a theory a "theory" at all. It sounds more like a mystery religion to me. The high priest makes pronouncements which make no sense to anybody, but since his actions seemed to ensure that Winter gave way to Spring every year (because he performed those ritual incantations every Winter and so far, hey presto, every year, Spring did come again), the faithful continue to make sacrifices and offerings at his temple, enabling the high priest to live a cushy life, and giving him lots of political influence, since the rich and powerful need to consult him and get scientific backing for their policy decisions.

The amusing thing about Christian's proposed experiment involving colourful exploding balls which disintegrate into pairs of contrarywise spinning hemispheres, tracked by state of the art video cameras and video processing software, is that the so-called hidden variables are not hidden at all, but are in fact directly observed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:19 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Here is a published paper by Richard D. Gill: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-2657-4. It is a critique of one of my papers, published in the same journal. I have criticized Gill's paper before for different reasons in this unpublished preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393. But here I want to point out the mistake in all Bell-type arguments I have been highlighting in this thread. This mistake is conspicuous in Gill's published paper, which I reproduce below:
Image
It is the second unnumbered equation seen above that is wrong. Gill is referring to me and my published paper in the above paragraph. Mind you, there is nothing mathematically wrong in his equation. Mathematically it is a trivial equation and its LHS is indeed equal to its RHS. But physically the equation is nonsense. It assumes that the sum of expectation values is equal to the expectation value of the sum. That is not valid for hidden variable theories.

Strange that a trivial arithmetical identity, in whose truth there is no doubt whatsoever, as Joy Christian himself agrees, should suddenly fail to be true *for physical reasons* when the numbers involved happen to be the values taken on by *hidden variables*. The hidden variables theory is a physical theory of what is going on behind the scenes which supposes that there are physical properties of physical objects, which take on numerical values in any particular instance but which happen not to be directly observable by human experimenters. The odd thing is that they apparently do not obey ordinary rules of arithmetic. What rules they do follow is never revealed. The physical meaning of the word "hidden" is that only certified physicists can talk about them. I don't think it makes sense to call such a theory a "theory" at all. It sounds more like a mystery religion to me. The high priest makes pronouncements which make no sense to anybody, but since his actions seemed to ensure that Winter gave way to Spring every year (because he performed those ritual incantations every Winter and so far, hey presto, every year, Spring did come again), the faithful continue to make sacrifices and offerings at his temple, enabling the high priest to live a cushy life, and giving him lots of political influence, since the rich and powerful need to consult him and get scientific backing for their policy decisions.

The amusing thing about Christian's proposed experiment involving colourful exploding balls which disintegrate into pairs of contrarywise spinning hemispheres, tracked by state of the art video cameras and video processing software, is that the so-called hidden variables are not hidden at all, but are in fact directly observed.

Your emotional rambling has near-zero scientific content. You say:
Richard D. Gill wrote:
The odd thing is that they apparently do not obey ordinary rules of arithmetic. What rules they do follow is never revealed. The physical meaning of the word "hidden" is that only certified physicists can talk about them.

There is no truth in these statements, except perhaps in the last one. Yes, you have to be a certified physicist, such as von Neumann, Bell, Wigner, or Shimony, to truly understand what is meant by "hidden variables." But that is true about any science. All editors of physics journals seek approval of only certified physicists. Why? Because there are very good reasons for that.

But I digress. The rules that must be respected by any hidden variable theory are precisely known since the work of von Neumann and others in the early 1930s. The main rule is so simple that even uncertified non-physicists can understand it. The rule is that, unlike in quantum theory, every observable in a hidden variable theory must have a definite value, which must be an eigenvalue of the corresponding quantum mechanical operator. That is it. The rule is hardly mysterious or imprecise. Therefore the mistake in Richard D. Gill's second unnumbered equation I have quoted above is also crystal clear. The RHS of his equation is not summing over the correct eigenvalue. The correct eigenvalue, for the current case, is given in Eq. (35) of my paper.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:42 am

Dear Joy, you are repeating von Neumann's error! You are confusing physical categories and mathematical categories. Von Neumann was a mathematician, not a physicist, that is why he fell into this error. He confused the mathematical model for the physical reality, because he only really knew about the mathematical model. You are a physicist and make the same error, but for the complementary reason. Bell was a real scientist and a real meta-physicist, who understood the distinction.

For a real physicist, the ultimate authority is nature. For a real mathematician, the ultimate authority is mathematical truth (abstract logic). Not many people reach the summits of both kinds of science. Bell was such a seldom person. He led a double life. Most mere mortals are trapped in one or the other. Statisticians are people who live on the interface. Nobody loves us. In fact, everyone hates us. But they all need us.

Physical observables are represented by Hermitean operators. But not every Hermitean operator represents a physical observable.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The Mistakes by Bell and von Neumann are Identical

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:32 am

gill1109 wrote:
Physical observables are represented by Hermitean operators. But not every Hermitean operator represents a physical observable.

Wrong!

According to Hilbert space quantum mechanics --- which is universally accepted by all physicists --- the correspondence between Hermitian operators and observables is one-to-one.

But that is not the main problem. The main problem is that Bell's theorem is based on the assumption that the sum of expectation values is equal to the expectation value of the sum.

This assumption is not valid for hidden variable theories. Therefore Bell's theorem against local theories is as invalid as von Neumann's theorem against general hidden variable theories.

By the way, the correct spelling is Hermitian, not Hermitean.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library