Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

[gill1109]

Then what are you going to do about Joy's classical local realistic model that gives the exact predictions of QM? It proves that you and Bell's CHSH is wrong.

Good to se a smile there I guess I'll just conclude that Joy's proof is wrong, and keep smiilng

You're right Heinera. Keep on smiling.

[gill1109]

Yes Heinera, you are home. They might violate it a little, but in all probability they won't violate it by much.

I recommend these articles:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0129v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0006014.pdf

Maybe if it's not me making the argument, both of you will get past your mental block.

OK one paper on Vixra that sure is some endorsement of quality, and another one on Arxiv, never got published despite repeated attempts. An establishment conspiracy? Or ... maybe these two guys have a mental block and you have the same one?

Honestly, you are making exactly the same mistake as many other people made. It's an easy trap to fall into. Some people climb out of the trap again (Giullaume Adenier, for instance). Others stay in the dark for ever (Elmer Rosinger).

So: did you do the experiment yet? Experiments are opportunities to learn! Surely it can't hurt you to run that piece of code of mine, 20 times? And just observe the results ...

A real scientist learns from experience. Other people are so sure of themselves that they never get any new experiences.

[minkwe]

If someone restricts me to a LHV model (source can't know the settings, one detector can't now the other setting, etc.), the best I can do is 2. QM is somewhere in between..

Yet we have seen in this thread, that E(a,b) in the CHSH "knows" about E(a,b') and E(a', b), and E(a,b') knows about E(a',b') and E(a,b).

Please read those articles, you might learn something from it. As Rosenberg states

The celebrated Bell inequalities cannot be violated by quantum systems. This paper presents in more
detail the surprisingly elementary, even if rather subtle related basic argument.

And Adenier says the same:

It is demonstrated that once this meaning is determined, no discrepancy appears between local realistic theories and quantum mechanics: the discrepancy in Bell’s Theorem is due only to a meaningless comparison between a local realistic inequality written within the strongly objective interpretation (thus relevant to a single set of particle pairs) and a quantum mechanical prediction derived from a weakly objective interpretation (thus relevant to several different sets of particle pairs).

Sica says the same thing:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0841v3

The Greenberger, Horne, Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem is critically important to consideration of the possibility of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Since it depends on predictions of single sets of measurements on three particles, it eliminates the sampling loophole encountered by the Bell theorem which requires a large number of observations to obtain a small number of useful joint measurements. In evading this problem, the GHZ theorem is believed to have confirmed Bell's historic conclusion that local hidden variables are inconsistent with the results of quantum mechanics. The GHZ theorem depends on predicting the results of sets of measurements of which only one may be performed, i.e., counterfactuals. In the present paper, the non-commutative aspects of these unperformed measurement sequences are critically examined. Three classical examples and two variations on the GHZ construction are analyzed to demonstrate that combined counter factual results of non-commuting operations are in general logically inconsistent with performable measurement sequences that take non-commutation into account. As a consequence, negative conclusions regarding local hidden variables do not follow from the GHZ and Bell theorems as historically reasoned.

[minkwe]

OK one paper on Vixra that sure is some endorsement of quality, and another one on Arxiv, never got published despite repeated attempts.

So you are back resorting to ad-hominems again. Read the papers and point out what is wrong with them. You may learn a thing or two in the process.

[gill1109]

From what I gather from this thread is that CHSH derived by Bell 1971 is basically "rigged". Nothing can violate its bound of 2. Not even QM. And it is easy to see from what I presented here that the calculation for an experiment (or even a simulation) the bound is 4. So I do believe Michel is right.

Fred: you are missing the point.

We all agree that when one calculates four correlations from four different samples, and subtracts three of them from the the fourth, you can essentially find any number between -4 and +4. In particular: it's always possible that the answer is 4.

OK, so having cleared that up, let's move on, get a life, and talk about real physics and real experiments.

Have you ever heard about the difference between an ensemble average and a sample average? Ever heard of error bars? Ever heard of the law of large numbers, or of the central limit theorem? The root N law?

[gill1109]

OK one paper on Vixra that sure is some endorsement of quality, and another one on Arxiv, never got published despite repeated attempts.

So you are back resorting to ad-hominems again. Read the papers and point out what is wrong with them. You may learn a thing or too in the process.

Pointing out that some self-published documents never made it into the "official" scientific literature through peer review is not an ad hominem. It might mean that these are independent mind telling unwelcome truths and there is an establishment conspiracy trying to block them out. Or it might mean they are wrong.

I already read those papers. I know them well. They make the same mistake which you do, which I already explained to you. I already said that your mental block is quite common. It's a blind spot. And you are so certain that you are right, that you can't even open your eyes to a new experience from which you might learn your mistake. This is called tunnel vision. You are extremely intelligent, independent, creative, obstinate. All of these are fine qualities. You think you have got it right. You are so certain that everyone else is a fool that you have no need to take a step back, take a deep breath, pretend you know nothing, open your eyes, and think about what you actually see. You won't even open your eyes to see what you might see since you are so certain you are right.

The other problem is that physicists don't know much about probability and don't know much about statistics, though obviously every experiment they do, and the reason their experiments have any connection with the theories they are so fond of, must involve statistics and probability. A sample mean, with large probability, is close to an ensemble mean (population mean, expectation value...).

The published literature is a mess and the most famous physicists say things which are obviously wrong. It can be very confusing.

Did you run my code 20 times yet?

What did you see?

[Joy Christian]

No, Joy has not constructed one. His construction is no construction. He is is confused about the difference between "for all" and "there exists". He thinks he showed something exists, but if you look closely, it doesn't exist.

This is a blatantly false claim. It is either motivated by dishonesty, or sheer lack of understanding of basic mathematics. It is not the first time I have noticed this.

[FrediFizzx]

I'll just repeat my request: Why don't you construct one, and prove us all wrong?

I've proved you wrong without constructing one. Joy has proved you wrong by constructing one.

No, Joy has not constructed one. His construction is no construction. He is is confused about the difference between "for all" and "there exists". He thinks he showed something exists, but if you look closely, it doesn't exist.

Well, we are getting off-topic for this thread. I say that Michel is correct and he has proved that Bell's 1971 CHSH is wrong even without Joy's model.

[gill1109]

No, Joy has not constructed one. His construction is no construction. He is is confused about the difference between "for all" and "there exists". He thinks he showed something exists, but if you look closely, it doesn't exist.

This is a blatantly false claim. It is either motivated by dishonesty, or sheer lack of understanding of basic mathematics. It is not the first time I have noticed this.

Well Joy, your comment here exhibits either a sheer lack of understanding of basic mathematics, or is motivated by dishonesty. It is not the first time I have noticed that, either. Right now I tend to the former interpretation.

Now it's your turn.

[FrediFizzx]

Off-topic; let's get back on topic. Start a new thread about Joy's model to continue this if you wish.

[gill1109]

Heinera said: "I'll just repeat my request: Why don't you construct one, and prove us all wrong?"
I've proved you wrong without constructing one. Joy has proved you wrong by constructing one.

No, Joy has not constructed one. His construction is no construction. He is is confused about the difference between "for all" and "there exists". He thinks he showed something exists, but if you look closely, it doesn't exist.

Well, we are getting off-topic for this thread. I say that Michel is correct and he has proved that Bell's 1971 CHSH is wrong even without Joy's model.

I say that Michel has treated us to a splendid irrelevant diversion. He showed us a lot of trivialities which everyone already knew (or should have known), then pasted on a punch-line at the end, which is a total non-sequitur.

Bell's CHSH is an inequality about ensemble averages. Population means. An experiment only ever generates sample averages.

Experimental physics needs to allow a margin of error and a small probability of large errors.

Yet experimental physics feeds theoretical physics. No scientific knowledge without experiment. Yet all experimental knowledge is uncertain.

[gill1109]

Off-topic; let's get back on topic. Start a new thread about Joy's model to continue this if you wish.

Fred, we walked all the way through Michel's questions, answered them all in the affirmative, but did not discuss his conclusion. His conclusion does not follow from the answered questions.

You want me to start a new thread about the connection between theory and experiment? I thought that the topic of this thread was "CHSH type inequalities and experiments".

Michel should have phrased his last statement as a question: "do you agree with me, that after we have answered all these questions with the obvious answers, that it follows that ... is obviously true?"

My answer is: NO, and I have explained why, but Michel refuses even to read my explanation of why. This is what I call insanity in science.

[Joy Christian]

No, Joy has not constructed one. His construction is no construction. He is is confused about the difference between "for all" and "there exists". He thinks he showed something exists, but if you look closely, it doesn't exist.

This is a blatantly false claim. It is either motivated by dishonesty, or sheer lack of understanding of basic mathematics. It is not the first time I have noticed this.

Well Joy, your comment here exhibits either a sheer lack of understanding of basic mathematics, or is motivated by dishonesty. It is not the first time I have noticed that, either. Right now I tend to the former interpretation.

Now it's your turn.

You are playing a childish game like a disgruntle teenager who does not like to loose. How dare you question my knowledge of mathematics and physics when you do not even know the difference between what is a bi-vector and what is a multi-vector? You made a false claim above without justification. There are several threads here where I have explained to you over and over again that "for all" means "for all". Do you have a problem understating English, or just elementary mathematics?

[gill1109]

You are playing a childish game like a disgruntle teenager who does not like to loose. How dare you question my knowledge of mathematics and physics when you do not even know the difference between what is a bi-vector and what is a multi-vector. You made a false claim above without justification. There are several threads here where I have explained to you over and over again that "for all" means "for all". Do you have a problem understating English, or just elementary mathematics?

I have justified all my claims. I know the differnce between a bi-vector and a multi-vector. Your mathematics proves to me that you do not know the difference between "for all" and "for some" (via the ambiguity of "for any"). You are making ad hominem remarks. Who is behaving like a disgruntled teenager? (I am happy, not disgruntled, because we made a lot of splendid progress today). Good night.

[minkwe]

Pointing out that some self-published documents never made it into the "official" scientific literature through peer review is not an ad hominem. It might mean that these are independent mind telling unwelcome truths and there is an establishment conspiracy trying to block them out. Or it might mean they are wrong.

Scientists don't speculate what an article might mean, when it's claims are clearly statement. Scientists read the argument and determine if it is correct or not, and point out the faults if they believe it is not correct. Scientists to point to somebody's background or the fact that the paper on which the article is written is dirty as reasons to discount an argument.

You have never pointed to a single thing in Adenier's paper that you claim is wrong. You have never pointed to a single thing in Rosinger's paper that you believe is wrong. In fact I doubt you have ever read them. Rosinger is simply highlighting the results of De Raedt, whom you claim is your friend and you have previously claimed that you and De Raedt are on the same page. So my advice is that you actually read the papers before you shoot off your other foot too.

[gill1109]

Pointing out that some self-published documents never made it into the "official" scientific literature through peer review is not an ad hominem. It might mean that these are independent mind telling unwelcome truths and there is an establishment conspiracy trying to block them out. Or it might mean they are wrong.

Scientists don't speculate what an article might mean, when it's claims are clearly statement. Scientists read the argument and determine if it is correct or not, and point out the faults if they believe it is not correct. Scientists to point to somebody's background or the fact that the paper on which the article is written is dirty as reasons to discount an argument.

You have never pointed to a single thing in Adenier's paper that you claim is wrong. You have never pointed to a single thing in Rosinger's paper that you believe is wrong. In fact I doubt you have ever read them. Rosinger is simply highlighting the results of De Raedt, whom you claim is your friend and you have previously claimed that you and De Raedt are on the same page. So my advice is that you actually read the papers before you shoot off your other foot too.

I told you, I have read these papers, and de Raedt's, I know all these people more or less, and they are all (or were, in Giulaume's case) equally confused as you are.

I've explained to you exactly where your arguments break down but you are afraid to look.

Have you run my piece of code 20 times? What do you see? What are you afraid of?

[minkwe]

Richard,
Here is the argument you have agreed to:

The CHSH inequality is a statement about the upper bound of a relationship between 4 mutually dependent expectation values. It does not apply to independent terms. The inequality relating mutually independent expectation values has an upper bound of 4 and has never been violated by QM or any experiment, nor will it ever be.

And here is the conclusion:

He knows a thing or two about statistical degrees of freedom and he knows that the CHSH bound does not apply in this case. The only certain bound one can give is 4. I must say, that he's absolutely right there.

There is no point running your silly irrelevant code. You already accept my argument and conclusion. Start a new thread about your code if you think it means anything.

[Joy Christian]

You are playing a childish game like a disgruntle teenager who does not like to loose. How dare you question my knowledge of mathematics and physics when you do not even know the difference between what is a bi-vector and what is a multi-vector. You made a false claim above without justification. There are several threads here where I have explained to you over and over again that "for all" means "for all". Do you have a problem understating English, or just elementary mathematics?

I have justified all my claims. I know the differnce between a bi-vector and a multi-vector. Your mathematics proves to me that you do not know the difference between "for all" and "for some" (via the ambiguity of "for any"). You are making ad hominem remarks. Who is behaving like a disgruntled teenager? (I am happy, not disgruntled, because we made a lot of splendid progress today). Good night.

Here is the proof that you do not know the difference between what is a bi-vector and what is a multi-vector:

"...his standardized correlations are the bivectors - a . b - a x b"

This is a sentence from your abstract. Your paper has been online for several years now. Many people have noticed your lack of understanding of basic algebra. The above sentence from your abstract speaks for itself. Need I say more?

[gill1109]

Richard,
Here is the argument you have agreed to:

The CHSH inequality is a statement about the upper bound of a relationship between 4 mutually dependent expectation values. It does not apply to independent terms. The inequality relating mutually independent expectation values has an upper bound of 4 and has never been violated by QM or any experiment, nor will it ever be.

And here is the conclusion:

He knows a thing or two about statistical degrees of freedom and he knows that the CHSH bound does not apply in this case. The only certain bound one can give is 4. I must say, that he's absolutely right there.

Yes.

But I never said that the CHSH bound "applies" to an experiment in the sense that the experimental results will certainly be below that bound. I've kept saying that with large probability, they will be below a slightly larger bound.

Did you get that? I am not stupid.

[gill1109]

Here is the proof that you do not know the difference between what is a bi-vector and what is a multi-vector:

"...his standardized correlations are the bivectors - a . b - a x b"

This is a sentence from your abstract. Your paper has been online for several years now. Many people have noticed your lack of understanding of basic algebra. The above sentence from your abstract speaks for itself. Need I say more?

Question of notation. Do you want me to change my notation or terminology? At least my algebra is correct. Nobody has pointed out any error in my derivation of what should have been your correlation starting from your very own assumptions. David Hestenes, Lucien Hardy, Izhar Aqbal, Manfried Faber, and many, many others have agreed with it entirely. They are not bothered by a slip of the tongue or pen or a slightly unorthodox terminology.

The nice thing about mathematics is that if you give clear definitions then from then on, it doesn't matter what words you use. Your derivation is either logically correct or it isn't correct. This is a big difference with science fantasy (one sees a lot of it in string theory) where there is some kind of poetry going on, verbal, imagery, with what looks like mathematical formulas as some kind of window dressing. I have accidentally sat in lectures by famous string theorists, and was the only guy in the audience (of professors and phd students in string theory) who pointed out the error in the algebra. They all thought I must be a great expert in string theory myself, though they could't quite figure out who I was. I had no clue what it was all about but I did spot the error in the formal Taylor expansion, nobody else did. The speaker was very greatful for the correction. Fortunately it did not spoil his main conclusion. Being off by a factor 2 is not going to make any difference in a field where there are not going to be any experiments for 1000 years.