Gull and Gill's theory

[gill1109]

You don't get it do you? Those so-called "proofs" use the so-called prediction of QM. If you can't prove the QM prediction then they don't go through.

Is there a plot of Aspect's finding of -a.b? Or did he just agree with CHSH?
.

Dear Fred, You don’t get it, I think! Read the paper. You are mentioned in it.

It mentions (does not even use) the QM prediction -a.b when the measurements are not “separate”.

When Joy Christian plots the negative cosine and derives it with GA, he does not “use” the QM “prediction”.

Aspect’s famous papers contain plots, I believe. He neither agrees nor disagrees with the CHSH inequality. They are experimental papers.

What is this? Some kind of clown show act? You are claiming that a local theory can't do the -a.b prediction with event by event outcomes!

I meant "exceeds CHSH" instead of "agree with CHSH". I believe he only exceeded CHSH which doesn't necessarily validate -a.b as you well know. Could be something else.
.

No, Fred, I am not claiming that! It is easy to get -a.b with a local theory when the measurements are not separated.

[FrediFizzx]

Dear Fred, You don’t get it, I think! Read the paper. You are mentioned in it.

It mentions (does not even use) the QM prediction -a.b when the measurements are not “separate”.

When Joy Christian plots the negative cosine and derives it with GA, he does not “use” the QM “prediction”.

Aspect’s famous papers contain plots, I believe. He neither agrees nor disagrees with the CHSH inequality. They are experimental papers.

What is this? Some kind of clown show act? You are claiming that a local theory can't do the -a.b prediction with event by event outcomes!

I meant "exceeds CHSH" instead of "agree with CHSH". I believe he only exceeded CHSH which doesn't necessarily validate -a.b as you well know. Could be something else.
.

No, Fred, I am not claiming that! It is easy to get -a.b with a local theory when the measurements are not separated.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes, some kind of clown show act. You are still claiming -a.b for separated measurements. Now, prove that -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurements.
.

[minkwe]

Yeah! Gull's proof is saved. https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/gull.pdf

You assume regularity of the function . How can an obviously non-differenciable function that has outcomes be considered regular?

Secondly, I don't see anything in your proof that restricts it to local realism.

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah! Gull's proof is saved. https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/gull.pdf

You assume regularity of the function . How can an obviously non-differenciable function that has outcomes be considered regular?

Secondly, I don't see anything in your proof that restricts it to local realism.

Of course, that function can't be considered regular at all. The whole business with the Fourier series and transform is just a bunch of nonsense that you probably shouldn't waste your time with. And of course it is not restricted to local realism since QM can't do it either. Plus Gill thinks there is something special about running A and B on two separate computers. LOL! It is all quite farcical.
.

[gill1109]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes, some kind of clown show act. You are still claiming -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurements.
.

I am not claiming that, Fred. And let’s not bring clown show acts or inhabitants of the heavens into this.

Show me an experiment with separated measurements and no experimental loopholes which actually produces -a.b. Then we’ll no that it can be a correct prediction. Then it’s worth discussing which theories do or do not predict that data.

Experimental loopholes are loopholes which could have been avoided by a rigorous experimental protocol, as opposed to metaphysical loopholes, which are matters of philosophy, religion or opinion.

[gill1109]

Yeah! Gull's proof is saved. https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/gull.pdf

You assume regularity of the function . How can an obviously non-differenciable function that has outcomes be considered regular?

Secondly, I don't see anything in your proof that restricts it to local realism.

1) Depends what you mean by “regular”. A bounded piecewise constant function making at most a countable number of jumps is certainly regular enough. I can think of even weirder functions which are regular enough, e.g. a function which equals +1 on the rationals and -1 on the irrationals, on half of the circle, and the other way round on the other half.

If you abandon the axiom of choice you may assume that *all* functions are measurable and hence all bounded functions are integrable.

2) Depends what you mean by local realism. The paper contains an argument that if you could program functions A and B with the usual properties, and simulate draws from rho, then you could program the two computers which would then operate according to Gull’s specifications.

Gull’s proof is an alternative proof of what Gull thinks of as being Bell’s theorem. Do you think the theorem is true? If you trust Bell’s proof, then you should not have problems with Gull’s, now that I believe I’ve fixed the ambiguities and misprints, and filled in one gap at the end of the proof-sketch.

Do let me know if you have more difficulties.

A new version came out on arXiv this morning. And the paper is now submitted to a journal for peer review.

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah! Gull's proof is saved. https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/gull.pdf

You assume regularity of the function . How can an obviously non-differenciable function that has outcomes be considered regular?

Secondly, I don't see anything in your proof that restricts it to local realism.

Of course, that function can't be considered regular at all. The whole business with the Fourier series and transform is just a bunch of nonsense that you probably shouldn't waste your time with. And of course it is not restricted to local realism since QM can't do it either. Plus Gill thinks there is something special about running A and B on two separate computers. LOL! It is all quite farcical.
.

The word “regular” in applied maths (including physics, engineering, statistics) usually means “subject to conditions which I can’t be bothered to look up now - the conditions which are needed to make the proof work”. In my paper I discuss those conditions. Let’s see what peer review makes of it. And experts here can help too, of course!

[FrediFizzx]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes, some kind of clown show act. You are still claiming -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurements.
.

I am not claiming that, Fred. And let’s not bring clown show acts or inhabitants of the heavens into this. ...

OMG! It continues. If you are not claiming that then why don't you say what you are claiming? Or don't you even know what you are claiming? You've adopted Gull's work and he says, "Write a computer program which is to run on two independent personal computers which mimics the QM predictions for the EPR setup." Is there some other prediction he might be talking about other than -a.b? No!
.

[minkwe]

2) Depends what you mean by local realism. The paper contains an argument that if you could program functions A and B with the usual properties, and simulate draws from rho, then you could program the two computers which would then operate according to Gull’s specifications.

You nave a meaning for "local realism", which you use in the paper, that's what I mean too. Do you think



encodes anything specific to local realism?

If one computer calculates and another calculates how is that different from one computer
calculating and another calculating ?

Consider little exercise for a moment: let us step away from the underlying mechanism (QM or LR) altogether and just posit the following facts about the experiment, which are true irrespective of underlying mechanics:
1) there are outcomes
2) The outcome at Alice is labeled and the outcome at Bob is labeled
3) The outcomes are function of settings at Alice and Bob thus
4) The particles come in pairs such that for all particles within a pair the outcomes are perfectly anti-correlated for the same setting. Let us give pairness a symbol , thus . In fact if bothers you, let us just identify them by counting indices where the same value of represents the same pair, thus the outcomes are

There is nothing in statements 1-4 above that apply differently between QM and LR or any other underlying mechanics. It is just a description of the experiment. Now, say we want to calculate the expectation value of the paired-product of this experiment -- there is only one way to do it, that is take an average of the product of the paired outcomes at Alice and Bob. In other words:


or


Now my question: Is there anything in this little excercise that is specific to "local realism" but does not apply to "quantum mechanics"?

[gill1109]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes, some kind of clown show act. You are still claiming -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurements.
.

I am not claiming that, Fred. And let’s not bring clown show acts or inhabitants of the heavens into this. ...

OMG! It continues. If you are not claiming that then why don't you say what you are claiming? Or don't you even know what you are claiming? You've adopted Gull's work and he says, "Write a computer program which is to run on two independent personal computers which mimics the QM predictions for the EPR setup." Is there some other prediction he might be talking about other than -a.b? No!
.

My paper is not about quantum mechanics. It’s about whether or not independent personal computers can produce outputs correlated as -a.b when their settings are a and b. You’ve been busy writing computer programs for one computer which do that.

[gill1109]

There is nothing in statements 1-4 above that apply differently between QM and LR or any other underlying mechanics. It is just a description of the experiment. Now, say we want to calculate the expectation value of the paired-product of this experiment -- there is only one way to do it, that is take an average of the product of the paired outcomes at Alice and Bob. In other words:


or


Now my question: Is there anything in this little excercise that is specific to "local realism" but does not apply to "quantum mechanics"?

You’re right. It doesn’t at all. But you mentioned local realism, I was referring to your use of the phrase, nothing more.

I should just have written, regarding your second comment:

“The paper contains an argument that if you could program functions A and B with the usual properties, and simulate draws from rho, then you could program the two computers which would then operate according to Gull’s specifications”

[FrediFizzx]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes, some kind of clown show act. You are still claiming -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurements.
.

I am not claiming that, Fred. And let’s not bring clown show acts or inhabitants of the heavens into this. ...

OMG! It continues. If you are not claiming that then why don't you say what you are claiming? Or don't you even know what you are claiming? You've adopted Gull's work and he says, "Write a computer program which is to run on two independent personal computers which mimics the QM predictions for the EPR setup." Is there some other prediction he might be talking about other than -a.b? No!
.

My paper is not about quantum mechanics. It’s about whether or not independent personal computers can produce outputs correlated as -a.b when their settings are a and b. You’ve been busy writing computer programs for one computer which do that.

So, you are claiming -a.b which is THE accepted prediction for QUANTUM MECHANICS. Now, prove it is the prediction for QM with separated measurements like you are doing with the computers.
.

[gill1109]

My paper is not about quantum mechanics. It’s about whether or not independent personal computers can produce outputs correlated as -a.b when their settings are a and b. You’ve been busy writing computer programs for one computer which do that.

So, you are claiming -a.b which is THE accepted prediction for QUANTUM MECHANICS. Now, prove it is the prediction for QM with separated measurements like you are doing with the computers.
.

Fred, what do you mean by “claim”?

With all respect, I think that your question is off topic. Gill’s theory, and Gull’s theory, are both about the limits of local realism. I make no claims about quantum mechanics. Read Hensen et al. (2015), published in Nature by the Delft team, using spin half systems realised as Nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamonds, to see how they get the QM predictions, which describe their experimental data pretty well.

Version 3 of my paper on Gull’s proposed approach to proving Bell’s theorem, with co-author my last PhD student Dilara Karakozak, is now on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719, and submitted for peer review. Comments and questions are welcome! To be sure, plenty of improvements will need to be made.

[FrediFizzx]

My paper is not about quantum mechanics. It’s about whether or not independent personal computers can produce outputs correlated as -a.b when their settings are a and b. You’ve been busy writing computer programs for one computer which do that.

So, you are claiming -a.b which is THE accepted prediction for QUANTUM MECHANICS. Now, prove it is the prediction for QM with separated measurements like you are doing with the computers.
.

Fred, what do you mean by “claim”?

With all respect, I think that your question is off topic. Gill’s theory, and Gull’s theory, are both about the limits of local realism. I make no claims about quantum mechanics. ...

??? What question? I made a statement and did not ask a question. Claim here means just exactly what it means. You are claiming that a local theory can't match the QM prediction of -a.b. As minkwe pointed out it doesn't matter whether classical or quantum. Only "local" matters in your theories. The theories may not be about details of QM but you are using a QM prediction for comparison. Now, your problem is that if you somehow prove that -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurement like in your proposed scenario, then that prediction would have to be by local action. Entanglement is screwed anyways. When you do a proof, it has to go through all the way to the end. No stone can be left unturned. So, since you most likely can't make the proof complete, they will just remain theories until forever. Most likely will end up as junk physics theories like Bell's.
.

[gill1109]

My paper is not about quantum mechanics. It’s about whether or not independent personal computers can produce outputs correlated as -a.b when their settings are a and b. You’ve been busy writing computer programs for one computer which do that.

So, you are claiming -a.b which is THE accepted prediction for QUANTUM MECHANICS. Now, prove it is the prediction for QM with separated measurements like you are doing with the computers.
.

Fred, what do you mean by “claim”?

With all respect, I think that your question is off topic. Gill’s theory, and Gull’s theory, are both about the limits of local realism. I make no claims about quantum mechanics. ...

??? What question? I made a statement and did not ask a question. Claim here means just exactly what it means. You are claiming that a local theory can't match the QM prediction of -a.b. As minkwe pointed out it doesn't matter whether classical or quantum. Only "local" matters in your theories. The theories may not be about details of QM but you are using a QM prediction for comparison. Now, your problem is that if you somehow prove that -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurement like in your proposed scenario, then that prediction would have to be by local action. Entanglement is screwed anyways. When you do a proof, it has to go through all the way to the end. No stone can be left unturned. So, since you most likely can't make the proof complete, they will just remain theories until forever. Most likely will end up as junk physics theories like Bell's.
.

Sorry Fred, I should have said “request”, not “question”.

You made a request of me, to “do a correct QM prediction with separated measurements”. I declined to deliver. It doesn’t matter, for my theorem. Bell’s theorem is confirmed. Do you have a problem with that?

Bell doesn’t say that -a.b is “correct”. He said explicitly that maybe it is not correct. Many people (physicists, doing quantum mechanics) thought it could indeed not be correct.

Bell’s theorem (in my reading) says you can’t get -a.b from a local, realistic, non-conspiratorial theory.

Conspiratorial: retro-causal, or superdeterminism, or otherwise plain cheating.

[jreed]

Richard:
I have read your paper "Gull's theorem revisited", and found it very interesting. What is interesting is that it points out the fundamental difference between correlations due to quantum mechanics and those from hidden variables. Usually what we look at is the plot of the cosine and triangle functions where there is a small difference. When the spectra of these two are compared, this fundamental difference is obvious; the two singular values for quantum mechanics, and what must be a continuous spectrum for the triangle.

[FrediFizzx]

So, you are claiming -a.b which is THE accepted prediction for QUANTUM MECHANICS. Now, prove it is the prediction for QM with separated measurements like you are doing with the computers.
.

Fred, what do you mean by “claim”?

With all respect, I think that your question is off topic. Gill’s theory, and Gull’s theory, are both about the limits of local realism. I make no claims about quantum mechanics. ...

??? What question? I made a statement and did not ask a question. Claim here means just exactly what it means. You are claiming that a local theory can't match the QM prediction of -a.b. As minkwe pointed out it doesn't matter whether classical or quantum. Only "local" matters in your theories. The theories may not be about details of QM but you are using a QM prediction for comparison. Now, your problem is that if you somehow prove that -a.b is the correct prediction for separated measurement like in your proposed scenario, then that prediction would have to be by local action. Entanglement is screwed anyways. When you do a proof, it has to go through all the way to the end. No stone can be left unturned. So, since you most likely can't make the proof complete, they will just remain theories until forever. Most likely will end up as junk physics theories like Bell's.
.

Sorry Fred, I should have said “request”, not “question”.

You made a request of me, to “do a correct QM prediction with separated measurements”. I declined to deliver. It doesn’t matter, for my theorem. Bell’s theorem is confirmed. Do you have a problem with that?

Bell doesn’t say that -a.b is “correct”. He said explicitly that maybe it is not correct. Many people (physicists, doing quantum mechanics) thought it could indeed not be correct.

Bell’s theorem (in my reading) says you can’t get -a.b from a local, realistic, non-conspiratorial theory. ...

Well, of course that is just plain false. Bell's junk physics theory says nothing about having to use the event by event outcomes that you are imposing. What is more, since your theory doesn't distinguish classical or quantum, you are saying that Nature can't do it. Well, the experiments themselves have already shot you down on that matter. But if you want to waste your time on junk stuff, be my guest.
.

[gill1109]

Sorry Fred, I should have said “request”, not “question”. You made a request of me, to “do a correct QM prediction with separated measurements”. I declined to deliver. It doesn’t matter, for my theorem. Bell’s theorem is confirmed. Do you have a problem with that? Bell doesn’t say that -a.b is “correct”. He said explicitly that maybe it is not correct. Many people (physicists, doing quantum mechanics) thought it could indeed not be correct. Bell’s theorem (in my reading) says you can’t get -a.b from a local, realistic, non-conspiratorial theory...

Well, of course that is just plain false. Bell's junk physics theory says nothing about having to use the event by event outcomes that you are imposing. What is more, since your theory doesn't distinguish classical or quantum, you are saying that Nature can't do it. Well, the experiments themselves have already shot you down on that matter. But if you want to waste your time on junk stuff, be my guest.

Fred, I get the impression you did not read the works of J.S. Bell very carefully.

I'm not saying that Nature can't do it. Bell characterised local realism, for an EPR-B situation, as the claim that functions A and B, and a probability distribution rho, all existed, subject to conditions which you know well, which reproduced the -a.b correlation. If they existed, and if you could program them, then you could create an event by event simulation of the type Gull imposed. (Gull demands even more than I do. I allow the two computers to talk to each other between trials. Gull demanded that they never talk to each other; not ever).

So to change the subject a bit: what do you think of Joy Christian's model? He claims to have found A, B and rho. In fact, his rho is a probability distribution giving probability one half each, to two distinct outcomes. Does it work? Why are you trying new models? As far as I know, Christian never talked about "separated measurements". He talked about local realism and he claimed Bell's theorem was wrong.

What do *you* think *is* Bell's theorem?

Unfortunately a binary hidden variable can only generate two different joint outcomes for the pair (A, B); not four. Indeed, Joy's papers show that the correlation is -1. In other words: his model *is* Bertlmann's socks! When you see the right foot has a blue sock, you instantaneously know that the left foot has a pink sock.

[FrediFizzx]

Sorry Fred, I should have said “request”, not “question”. You made a request of me, to “do a correct QM prediction with separated measurements”. I declined to deliver. It doesn’t matter, for my theorem. Bell’s theorem is confirmed. Do you have a problem with that? Bell doesn’t say that -a.b is “correct”. He said explicitly that maybe it is not correct. Many people (physicists, doing quantum mechanics) thought it could indeed not be correct. Bell’s theorem (in my reading) says you can’t get -a.b from a local, realistic, non-conspiratorial theory...

Well, of course that is just plain false. Bell's junk physics theory says nothing about having to use the event by event outcomes that you are imposing. What is more, since your theory doesn't distinguish classical or quantum, you are saying that Nature can't do it. Well, the experiments themselves have already shot you down on that matter. But if you want to waste your time on junk stuff, be my guest.

...
I'm not saying that Nature can't do it. ...

Yes, you are saying that Nature can't do it. Is there some other mystery theory that is neither classical nor quantum that can do it? Probably not. Well, if classical computers can't do it and quantum mechanics can't do it, you are saying exactly that. The experiments show that you are screwed because Nature most likely does it.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Sorry Fred, I should have said “request”, not “question”. You made a request of me, to “do a correct QM prediction with separated measurements”. I declined to deliver. It doesn’t matter, for my theorem. Bell’s theorem is confirmed. Do you have a problem with that? Bell doesn’t say that -a.b is “correct”. He said explicitly that maybe it is not correct. Many people (physicists, doing quantum mechanics) thought it could indeed not be correct. Bell’s theorem (in my reading) says you can’t get -a.b from a local, realistic, non-conspiratorial theory...

Well, of course that is just plain false. Bell's junk physics theory says nothing about having to use the event by event outcomes that you are imposing. What is more, since your theory doesn't distinguish classical or quantum, you are saying that Nature can't do it. Well, the experiments themselves have already shot you down on that matter. But if you want to waste your time on junk stuff, be my guest.

...
What do *you* think *is* Bell's theorem? ...

What do you think is Bell's theorem? Obviously you think it is something more than it really is. I know exactly what it is straight from Bell himself.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=441
.