Bell’s Theorem Refuted: Bell’s 1964:(15) is False

[gill1109]

Exactly. The Christensen et al. experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5772
And there is the Giustina et al. experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0712

2013 was a miraculous year. Till last year there was no experiment done which could not be explained by LHV. However, things have changed that last year. The detection loophole was at long last overcome for experiments with photons.

Actually in those experiments there is still a "locality" loohole because the two detectors were not far enough apart. In principle, the setting used in one arm of the experiment could be communicated to the other before the measurement in the other arm is concluded. However, there are other photon experiments with no locality loophole. There does not seem to be any reason why there won't be an experiment in a year or two (at Växjö the experts predicted within a year from now) which overcomes both loopholes. As Jan de Raedt agreed, there will be no longer a LHV explanation of that experiment, if it is succesful. Michielsen (his wife) believes that that experiment won't be succesful. She believes in LHV. de Raedt however has an open mind.

So Heinera and Gill believe that the results of the Christensen and Giustina experiments can not be explained by LHV. Is that correct? Note that even the authors of those papers themselves do not believe that as if obvious if you actually read the papers.

Yes I have read those papers.

There was an issue about the coincidence loophole in the Giustina experiment. It is fixed by analysing the data in a different way.

Both experiments are still vulnerable to the locality loophole: the detectors are not far enough apart.

The experts think it will take another year to fix these defects.

de Raedt and Michielsen agree with me that those experiments can't be explained by LHV models. And certainly not when the detection efficiency has been got just a little bit larger. They are on the threshhold of needing to find a new scientific mission. I notice that de Raedt is already shifting his activities ... Michielsen is more stubborn.

[gill1109]

It is an utter waste of time then to even entertain challenges such as QRC or Gill's. Produce experimental results which can not be explained by LHV and we will be interested in it.

Enough said.

Or if you like, simulate experimental results using QM which can not be simulated by LHV and we will talk. If as some claim, a "perfect" experiment is imminent which will prove beyond any doubt that QM can do what LHV cannot, then they would produce the simulation using QM of what results such an experiment will purportedly show when it is done.

This is easy. It has been done. The simulation does have hidden variables but of course they are not local.

The simulated data is data with no detection loophole (i.e. no non-detections), pulsed emissions, independent random setting choice. Would you like me to prepare such a data-set for you? It would only take a moment ...

[Ben6993]

Q-reeus wrote on Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:51 am

Ben6993 wrote:
Leonard Susskind's autumn 2012 lecture 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nBOCF0s ... 5MmILu1nBo on Supersymmetry & Grand Unification. He starts with the topic of 4pi rotations. Dirac's belt for the first 9 minutes. The next five minutes covers magnetic field rotations in a double slit experiment, and the following five minutes cover relevant questions from the audience. He did not say he had done the experiment himself (so I remembered that incorrectly), but that he and Aharonov suggested the experiment in 1967, and that the experiment has been done.

Thanks for the link and synopsis. At a stretch it could be argued he performed such an experiment 'by hand' right there between 0:52 and 1:28 with that crazy dance move demo version of Dirac belt trick. Of course a proper 4pi rotation with no sneaky back twists would have his arm ripped from shoulder . I recall but can't find an old Scientific American article that gave examples of practical classical physics applications. One was an optical 'rectifier' that via a series of prisms transformed a rotating reference frame view into a still. An article commenter also claimed at least some helicopters make use of Dirac belt trick in connecting wiring and/or hydraulic tubing between rotor hub and 'fixed' fuselage.

I liked the humour where Susskind says he has proved the 4pi rotation effect by 'hand-waving'.

For the two-slit experiment, if one thinks that an electron goes through one slit only, then the magnet rotation affects a whole electron. If one thinks of an electron passing through both slits simultaneously then the magnet rotation affects (say) half of the electron. One can picture that electron being held at one end/slit and being twisted [like the Dirac belt] at the other slit. So it is easier to see the belt analogy in that case. But in both cases the 4pi effect applies, as the experiment has been done.

In Bell experiments, forgetting geometrical algebra here, just using QM, the electron and positron entangled pair share jointly the spin states. So when the magnet is rotated at A, a twist is being put on the joint pair system. It is as if the entangled pair is being twisted at A while anchored at B. So the belt analogy is easy to picture here and the 4pi effect should apply to Bell experiments on electrons/positrons.

I am not an experimentalist, nor even a physicist, but I am sure there must be a good reason why the magnets are treated as if they have a 2pi periodicity. Any references to an explanation?

[Heinera]

Or if you like, simulate experimental results using QM which can not be simulated by LHV and we will talk. If as some claim, a "perfect" experiment is imminent which will prove beyond any doubt that QM can do what LHV cannot, then they would produce the simulation using QM of what results such an experiment will purportedly show when it is done.

Even this toy model exactly reproduces the QM results (and it can not be simulated by LHV):
http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

[Heinera]

So Heinera and Gill believe that the results of the Christensen and Giustina experiments can not be explained by LHV. Is that correct? Note that even the authors of those papers themselves do not believe that as if obvious if you actually read the papers.

All the (known) loopholes have been closed in separate experiments. There is still left the logically feasible (but arguably ridiculous) possibility that nature takes a good look at the experimental setup, and then decides which loophole to exploit. That is what is experimentally yet to close, and what the authors are referring to.

[gill1109]

I am not an experimentalist, nor even a physicist, but I am sure there must be a good reason why the magnets are treated as if they have a 2pi periodicity. Any references to an explanation?

Ben, in experiments nothing is treated as if it has any periodicity at all. Read Bertlman's socks, please.

Yes it is clear you are not an experimentalist, nor even a physicist.

Of course, nor am I.

[Ben6993]

gill1109 wrote on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:20 pm

Ben, in experiments nothing is treated as if it has any periodicity at all.

So if a magnet is set at 350 degrees and the next reading is to be at 5 degrees? Does the experimenter rotate the magnet through +15 degrees (ie assuming 2pi periodicity) or does the experimenter rotate the magnet through -335 degrees (assuming that there is 4pi periodicity)? The periodicity seems much more important than the practical difficulties of handling bulky magnets.

[gill1109]

gill1109 wrote on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:20 pm

Ben, in experiments nothing is treated as if it has any periodicity at all.

So if a magnet is set at 350 degrees and the next reading is to be at 5 degrees? Does the experimenter rotate the magnet through +15 degrees (ie assuming 2pi periodicity) or does the experimenter rotate the magnet through -335 degrees (assuming that there is 4pi periodicity)? The periodicity seems much more important than the practical difficulties of handling bulky magnets.

Ben we are talking about an experiment where a polarization filter is set either at one angle or another angle. Do you honestly believe my polaroid sunglasses behave differently depending on how many times I twirl them around??? Turn a piece of polaroid glass 180 degrees and it does the same. But anyway, in the experiment we just switch between two different settings. There is no rotation. Just switching back and forth.

*Please* read Bertlman's socks and find out what this is all about.

[minkwe]

Yes I have read those papers.

There was an issue about the coincidence loophole in the Giustina experiment. It is fixed by analysing the data in a different way.

Both experiments are still vulnerable to the locality loophole: the detectors are not far enough apart.

The experts think it will take another year to fix these defects.

de Raedt and Michielsen agree with me that those experiments can't be explained by LHV models. And certainly not when the detection efficiency has been got just a little bit larger. They are on the threshhold of needing to find a new scientific mission. I notice that de Raedt is already shifting his activities ... Michielsen is more stubborn.

So Gill (like Heinera) claim that the Christensen and Giustina experiments can not be explained by LHV. And Gill Claims that de Raedt and Michielsen agree with him about this.

Is this a correct representation of the above?

[minkwe]

This is called "randomization".

This is why in Evidence Based Medicine, we trust randomized double blind clinical trials.

In evidenced based medicine, you do not have inequalities derived by factorizing over the same set of properties being applied to different sets of properties. In evidenced based medicine, you do not use the average weight of a single person measured repeatedly to make medical decisions about what the weight distribution of many different people each measured once is going to be.

In any field of science, it is impossible to randomly sample a variable you know nothing about. Every mathematical statistician should know this, or learn why this is the case if they don't know it already.

[Heinera]

In any field of science, it is impossible to randomly sample a variable you know nothing about. Every mathematical statistician should know this, or learn why this is the case if they don't know it already.

So now we are eagerly anticipating your new attempt to present a working LHV model including a hidden varaible that you know nothing about.

[minkwe]

In any field of science, it is impossible to randomly sample a variable you know nothing about. Every mathematical statistician should know this, or learn why this is the case if they don't know it already.

So now we are eagerly anticipating your new attempt to present a working LHV model including a hidden varaible that you know nothing about.

Sorry, I have no interest in trying to convince either Richard or you (lost causes). I have better things to do. The articles you cite clearly state that a LHV explanation of their results is possible. Anyone who doubts that can read the articles. Why would anyone be attempting to do a "better" experiment if the ones you cite already do the job convincingly? Even Richard is still equivocating.

[minkwe]

So Heinera and Gill believe that the results of the Christensen and Giustina experiments can not be explained by LHV. Is that correct? Note that even the authors of those papers themselves do not believe that as if obvious if you actually read the papers.

All the (known) loopholes have been closed in separate experiments. There is still left the logically feasible (but arguably ridiculous) possibility that nature takes a good look at the experimental setup, and then decides which loophole to exploit. That is what is experimentally yet to close, and what the authors are referring to.

Translation: Every experiment ever performed can be explained by LHV. So why do you keep putting your foot in your mouth?

So again present an experiment which can not be explained by LHV and we can talk.

[gill1109]

So Heinera and Gill believe that the results of the Christensen and Giustina experiments can not be explained by LHV. Is that correct? Note that even the authors of those papers themselves do not believe that as if obvious if you actually read the papers.

All the (known) loopholes have been closed in separate experiments. There is still left the logically feasible (but arguably ridiculous) possibility that nature takes a good look at the experimental setup, and then decides which loophole to exploit. That is what is experimentally yet to close, and what the authors are referring to.

Translation: Every experiment ever performed can be explained by LHV. So why do you keep putting your foot in your mouth?

So again present an experiment which can not be explained by LHV and we can talk.

Every experiment ever yet done can be explained by LHV (detection loophole) and/or communication between the two wings of the experiment (locality loophole).

The Christensen and Giustina experiments cannot be explained by LHV.

You will have to wait one year for an experiment with both loopholes closed simultaneously.

[gill1109]

Yes I have read those papers.

There was an issue about the coincidence loophole in the Giustina experiment. It is fixed by analysing the data in a different way.

Both experiments are still vulnerable to the locality loophole: the detectors are not far enough apart.

The experts think it will take another year to fix these defects.

de Raedt and Michielsen agree with me that those experiments can't be explained by LHV models. And certainly not when the detection efficiency has been got just a little bit larger. They are on the threshhold of needing to find a new scientific mission. I notice that de Raedt is already shifting his activities ... Michielsen is more stubborn.

So Gill (like Heinera) claim that the Christensen and Giustina experiments can not be explained by LHV. And Gill Claims that de Raedt and Michielsen agree with him about this.

Is this a correct representation of the above?

Yes this is correct.

[gill1109]

This is called "randomization".

This is why in Evidence Based Medicine, we trust randomized double blind clinical trials.

In evidenced based medicine, you do not have inequalities derived by factorizing over the same set of properties being applied to different sets of properties. In evidenced based medicine, you do not use the average weight of a single person measured repeatedly to make medical decisions about what the weight distribution of many different people each measured once is going to be.

In any field of science, it is impossible to randomly sample a variable you know nothing about. Every mathematical statistician should know this, or learn why this is the case if they don't know it already.

In evidence based medicine you prove that treatment A is better than treatment B for a certain kind of cancer patients, while you give treatments A and B to different groups of patients, and you do not know anything about the hidden variables which determine the course of their cancer.

Sorry, the parallel between Bell experiments in quantum physics, and randomized clinical trials in medicine, is actually quite good!

[Ben6993]

gill1109 wrote on Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:08 pm

Ben we are talking about an experiment where a polarization filter is set either at one angle or another angle. Do you honestly believe my polaroid sunglasses behave differently depending on how many times I twirl them around??? Turn a piece of polaroid glass 180 degrees and it does the same. But anyway, in the experiment we just switch between two different settings. There is no rotation. Just switching back and forth.

Hi Richard. Susskind was talking about rotating a magnet at one slit in a two-slit experiment, and finding 4pi periodicity in changes to the interference pattern at the screen. I take that as a series of experiments on different electrons, else how could a changing interference pattern be observed at the screen. So the vivid analogy, of clamping one end of an electron in a vice at slit 1 while twisting the other end of the electron at slit 2 by 4pi with a pair of pliers, does not apply. You seem to be assuming that I thought that such a continuous twisting on a single electron was occurring? I suppose that in the experiment the magnets were rotated in small steps of say 5 degrees and each electron had a unique magnet angle applied.

Could one get the same 4pi effect in Susskind's experiment by replacing the magnet by a rotatable polaroid filter? Presumably yes, but the fact that I can pick up a polaroid glass and look through it myself without finding 4pi periodicity is hardly a key fact for the answer. It ignores the implication that the experiment is treating part of one electron (passed through a rotated magnet) differently from the other part (left untreated at the other slit) of the same electron. And my picking up a polaroid glass and looking through it would not anchor down half of each electron [and the 4pi effect does not apply to light].

The Bell experiment deals with whole particles but the spin states of pairs of particles are entangled by QM. Each particle pair has to be treated as a single unit wrt spin state. So, wrt spin, if Alice had a constant angle for the whole experiment, that would correspond to the untreated slit 1 of Susskind's experiment. Bob's magnet would carry out the role corresponding to the treatment at slit 2. Susskind is treating different halves of an electron differently while Bell's experiment is treating different halves of a 'single entity wrt spin state' differently. 4pi periodicity should apply in both cases.

[harry]

Q-reeus wrote on Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:54 am

Please supply relevant link(s)! [and assuming YouTube, the relevant time(s) into lecture(s)]

Leonard Susskind's autumn 2012 lecture 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nBOCF0s ... 5MmILu1nBo on Supersymmetry & Grand Unification. He starts with the topic of 4pi rotations. Dirac's belt for the first 9 minutes. The next five minutes covers magnetic field rotations in a double slit experiment, and the following five minutes cover relevant questions from the audience. He did not say he had done the experiment himself (so I remembered that incorrectly), but that he and Aharonov suggested the experiment in 1967, and that the experiment has been done.

Fascinating lecture - thanks

[harry]

If Bell's first equation is experimentally valid, then so are his following equations if we accept his arguments. However, I still suspect that at least one of his arguments is wrong, as his final inequality leads to an extremely unlikely conclusion.

What is unlikely about his conclusion?

Do you mean that you believe in LHV and QM hence cannot accept that Bell finds some kind of contradiction? [..]

Apart of your exaggeration yes indeed.
And of course, in the context of this thread I refer to Bell's conclusion (his "theorem") as based on his derivation. As this is off-topic, I'll keep it at a single clarification.
From experience (our "priors" for estimating probability) we can be very sure that there is a reality out there but no "spooky action at a distance", and that QM gives correct predictions for the kind of tests that are discussed. Let's guestimate that prior certainty as 10'000:1, to reflect the extreme unlikeliness (before Bell) of it being wrong, as historically expressed by Einstein end others. On the other hand, we can be also be very sure of a derivation like Bell's, which has been scrutinized by many experts who with few exceptions accept its correctness (a major exception was Jaynes). Let's guestimate its prior certainty as 1000:1 (that is, ignoring experience). Combining the two guesses I still find it more likely than not that there is an error in his conclusion.

Some people believe that QM itself makes it impossible that an experiment can be done which does *not* have an LHV explanation. This is what I call "Bell's fifth position". [..]

That is also a possibility that I came up with myself; note that that possibility is lacking in Bell's 1964 conclusion (his original "theorem"[1],[2]), as well as in his later "Bertlmann's socks".

I am amazed that people keep suggesting that Bell's work leads to some kind of more or less impossible conclusion. It doesn't lead to a conclusion at all.

According to "people's opinion" [1], Bell concluded that: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics". Bell's 1964 paper [2] that is under discussion here has an even stronger conclusion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
[2] http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

[gill1109]

According to "people's opinion" [1], Bell concluded that: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics". Bell's 1964 paper [2] that is under discussion here has an even stronger conclusion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
[2] http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

Bell was talking about predictions of quantum mechanics which have not yet been observed in experiment. The experiment described in Bertlman's socks has not been done (or if it has been done, it did not have the hoped for outcomes).
So there are two more options:
(1) quantum mechanics is wrong
(2) quantum mechanics prevents us from realising the experiment
Bell listed (1) as one of his four logical solutions; he did not list (2) but agreed in correspondence with Santos that it was a logical possibility.