Joy Christian's colourful exploding balls experiment

[Joy Christian]

I am reproducing here what Michel Fodje wrote elsewhere, because (1) his observations are relevant for all realizable physical experiments, and (2) they beautifully spell out elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics that the vast majority of the Bell-believers among us seem to be incapable of understanding:

1 - If you measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on a different particle pair, the A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.
2 - If you measure the same particle at a (A,B), and exactly the same particle again at (A,B'), then A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.
3 - The only way to measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on the same particle, and make sure the A in (A,B) and the A in (A,B') are the same (and each outcome is the same in each pair), is to measure the same particle pair, simultaneously at (A, A', B, B'), an impossibility. Therefore a genuine experiment testing S <= 2 is impossible.
4 - If the probability of obtaining H for a coin is 0.75, the probability of the counter-factual H outcome for the same coin cannot be 0.75 too. It must be 0.25.
5 - No 4xN spreadsheet can violate the S <= 2. It doesn't matter where you get your data to put in the spreadsheet, from LHV/QM/non-local model/non-real model/statistical error etc.
6 - The correct inequality for 4 different 2XN spreadsheets is S<= 4, it doesn't matter where you get your data to put in the spreadsheet, from LHV/QM/non-local model/non-real model/statistical error etc. 4 *different* 2xN spreadsheets can easily violate S <= 2, because that inequality does not apply to such data. It is a mathematical error to even compare them.
7 - It is utter nonsense to compare an inequality derived from a 4xN spreadsheet, with data in the form of 4 different 2xN spreadsheets, even if your 4 *different* 2xN spreadsheets are randomly sampled from a single 4xN spreadsheet. What determines the upper bound is the degrees of freedom in the data, not the degrees of freedom in the original spreadsheet you randomly sampled from.
8 - These inequalities have nothing to do with physics, they are mathematical tautologies about real numbers and degrees of freedom. Please read the Rosinger paper carefully. Their violation points to a mathematical error in their application. Nothing can violate them.
9 - No EPRB experiment will ever be done which produces a 4xN spreadsheet, as it must if it purports to *test* the S <= 2 relationship. As long as they keep producing 4 *different* 2XN spreadsheets, the appropriate inequality is S <= 4, and it will never be violated.

[gill1109]

Exactly the same message has been posted on three different topics. I have already responded on another. The one about the still open bet. What I said there is extremely relevant to the experiment bet, as well as to the simulation challenge.

Finally JJC realizes that the experiment is flawed, the bet unwinnable, and the challenge unbeatable. Perhaps he will now revise his experimental paper which contains (at least) one howler of a mistake because JJC is apparently not aware of relevant elementary facts of logic and arithmetic.

[Joy Christian]

Finally JJC realizes that the experiment is flawed, the bet unwinnable, and the challenge unbeatable. Perhaps he will now revise his experimental paper which contains (at least) one howler of a mistake because JJC is apparently not aware of relevant elementary facts of logic and arithmetic.

Your statement actually proves what I wrote above: "... Michel Fodje ... beautifully spells out elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics that the vast majority of the Bell-believers among us seem to be incapable of understanding:"

[Ben6993]

Hi

Just a request for more clarity in point 1.

"Minkwe wrote:
1 - If you measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on a different particle pair, the A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.

I suggest replacing the wording "on a different particle pair", by "each on a different particle pair, making eight measurements on eight different particles". As it currently stands I think I could read it as eight measurements on two particle pairs.

[gill1109]

Unfortunately Bell-deniers tend to be unaware of elementary facts of probability theory and statistics. As well as being ignorant of the relevant literature (Bell, "Speakable and Unspeakable", chapters 13 and 16).

[Joy Christian]

Unfortunately Bell-deniers tend to be unaware of elementary facts of probability theory and statistics. As well as being ignorant of the relevant literature (Bell, "Speakable and Unspeakable", chapters 13 and 16).

Unfortunately Bell-believers tend to be unaware of elementary facts of geometry, topology, and algebra. As well as being ignorant of the relevant literature (Bell, "Speakable and Unspeakable", Second Edition, chapters 24).

[minkwe]

Hi

Just a request for more clarity in point 1.

"Minkwe wrote:
1 - If you measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on a different particle pair, the A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.

I suggest replacing the wording "on a different particle pair", by "each on a different particle pair, making eight measurements on eight different particles". As it currently stands I think I could read it as eight measurements on two particle pairs.

Thanks Ben, though I really intended to write:

1 - If you measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') , each on a different particle pair...

So, there are 4 pairs not 8.

[gill1109]

Chapter 24 is one of my favourites. Michel should study it carefully. As well as 13, 14 and 16.

[minkwe]

Chapter 24 is one of my favourites. Michel should study it carefully. As well as 13, 14 and 16.

Yes everybody else should study every chapter of every article, and every book they've already studied, since Richard doesn't understand it enough to clearly enunciate what concept in them is relevant for any discussion.

[Joy Christian]

In the light of some persistent but entirely unjustified scepticism about my proposed experiment, let me make a list of evidence here in support of the experiment:

The readers of this forum have two options: (1) they can either believe the propaganda produced by Richard Gill against the experiment, or (2) they can evaluate the evidence after evidence, and explanation after explanation, I have presented in support of my discovery that EPR-Bohm correlations are correlations among the points of a parallelized 3-sphere (which is one of the solutions of Einstein's field equations, namely the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solution). The choice is theirs.

Let me present my evidence once again:

(1) A simple explanation of my proposed experiment, with links to relevant papers.

(2) The proof that there indeed exist N vectors, s_k and -s_k, appearing in equation (16) of my first experimental paper: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531.

(3) Detailed explanation of my local-realistic framework for the quantum correlations, presented in 15 papers and one of my books on the subject.

(4) A spectacular 2D simulation of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlation.

(5) The most accurate simulation of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlation.

And finally, a nice summary by Michel Fodje of how Richard Gill operates---it is quite revealing.

His present tactic is to avoid paying up the 10,000 Euros he owes me for producing the N vectors in the item (2) above.

[gill1109]

I'm afraid that now the logical errors in Christian's experimental papers are exposed the experiment certainly never is going to happen. We can close this topic.

[Joy Christian]

I'm afraid that now the logical errors in Christian's experimental papers are exposed the experiment certainly never is going to happen. We can close this topic.

Certainly. As soon as you pay up the 10,000 Euros you owe me for producing the "impossible" N vectors, s_k and -s_k, appearing in equation (16) of my first
experimental paper: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531. It is all too evident that your current cheap tactic is to avoid paying up the 10,000 Euros you owe me.