A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

[Joy Christian]

***
I have added the following sentence in the commentary of the simulation with a hope that it might dispel the confusion, at least in the mind of any neutral observer:

Code: Select all

# Computing the same correlations with the standard Euclidean metric in R^3


In fact, anyone who has actually read through the commentary in the simulation should be able to see how misguided Jochen's entire presentation of his "question" is.

***

[minkwe]

If you want to see a classic example of goal-post shifting by Bell followers look no further than this example:

(2001)http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14224.abstract
For instance, Bell assumes that the hidden parameters do not depend on time and are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the exclusion of time has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis but is based on Bell's translation of the concept of Einstein locality into the language of probability theory. Our additional set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does not permit Bell-type proofs to go forward.
...
We conclude that setting- and time-dependent parameter random variables present a possible loophole in theorems à la Bell.

(2002) http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208187v1.pdf
Hess and Philipp have recently claimed that proofs of Bell's theorem have overlooked the possibility of time dependence in local hidden variables, hence the theorem has not been proven true. Moreover they present what is claimed to be a local realistic model of the EPR correlations. If this is true then Bell's theorem is not just unproven, but false. We refute both claims. Firstly we explain why time is not an issue in Bell's theorem
...
While Hess and Philipp correctly state that time was ignored in the original derivation of Bell’s theorem, we show here that this is irrelevant.
...
Time is not an issue in the proof of Bell’s theorem.

(2004) This paper analyzes effects of time-dependence in the Bell inequality
...
In fact, there is no problem in using the measurement time as a hidden variable in a truly local Bell setting. Nevertheless, while working through the details we found that timing issues may indeed play a role, even in a local model
...
In conclusion, we have shown that the coincidence loophole can be significantly more damaging than the well-studied detection problem.

This is from the same Richard Gill, who does not like hearing this. In fact, he has been deliberately trying to misrepresent my work, and despite multiple attempts to get him to be honest about my simulations, as already explained above and in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&start=20#p624, he continues to do so. Therefore, I have ceased all personal communication with him and told him to stop trying to contact me in any way. Yet he continues to send me e-mails. I have blocked all his e-mail addresses known to me. Yet for some reason the guy is obsessed with me, and continues his creepy online stalking activities, using anonymous e-mail address to attempt to send me his brain dumps. I will never accept or read anything that he sends to me so if he is reading this, as I'm sure he is, let him get this through his earwax:

I will never accept communication from you, ever! Stop sending me e-mails. Stop spamming my e-mail. Stop attempting to contact me through social media. Stop trying to contact me using anonymous e-mail addresses. Stop trying to contact me in anyway whatsoever. Stop it! Have some common decency and stop the harassment. Grow up!
This is not an isolated case, and perhaps points to mental issues:

However, I have had to ban Dr. Gill from my blog, and even so his proxies have taken it upon themselves to continue to post here. In addition, Dr. Gill is now e-mailing me directly ... Thanks to all of the participants, including Dr. Gill. But please stop e-mailing me

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=47&start=20#p1744
After Walter and I wrote the PNAS paper about the role of time, Gill wrote a number of counter-papers with Zeilinger and others stating repeatedly that time was irrelevant and that our papers were non-local because our probability density depended on the settings of both sides but was not a product density. Then after three years of harassing us (I had to block his e-mails), he had turned himself into a complete pretzel and had to admit that time plaid a role after all.

I suspect these are just the tip of the iceberg. To Gill's friends/family I suggest you get him some help. He badly needs it.

[FrediFizzx]

OK, let's get back on topic here. Thanks.

[Yablon]

My simulations are clearly counter-examples of Bell's theorem as outlined by Bell himself. If Bell's inequalities and theorem were full-proof, it won't be necessary to amend it with new inequalities. Feel free to post an amended Bell's theorem for which my simulations are not counter-examples.

I received an email from Richard Gill, whom as you may know, has not been allowed to post on this forum. Because it is straightforward and seemingly innocuous, I have passed that message along below. I have not reviewed Bell 1981 or how it affects this discussion, I am simply passing this along as a messenger without offering any personal views. And with that, I am bowing out of this discussion thread.

Jay

Please take a look at Bell (1981). You will find an amended (clarified / disambiguated) Bell's theorem there.

[Joy Christian]

In addition to what minkwe has posted above, I was also forced to write the following sentences last year as a part of a long letter to the Vicegerent of the Wolfson College of Oxford University, in response to a series of malicious letters Richard Gill had been writing about me to the President of my college at Oxford University:

I too had to block Richard Gill’s emails after several months of constant harassment, and had to threaten him with legal injunction if he continued to bombard me with provocative private messages. He did stop bombarding me with emails, but he has not stopped posting provocative messages on various private and public blogs about my work, and about me personally.

Someday I will publish the entire three-page letter and several other documents (some concerning Scott Aaronson) if such harassment from Gill et al. continues. I have already given the entire dossier to a few sociologists of science, but it is important that physicsts too know about what goes on behind the scenes in their community.

[minkwe]

I received an email from Richard Gill, whom as you may know, has not been allowed to post on this forum. Because it is straightforward and seemingly innocuous, I have passed that message along below. I have not reviewed Bell 1981 or how it affects this discussion, I am simply passing this along as a messenger without offering any personal views. And with that, I am bowing out of this discussion thread.

Hi Jay,
Since your post was responding to my post, it appears you are trying to help Gill to circumvent my wishes. Like I've explained above, I'm not accepting any communication from Gill through any means whatsoever, and that includes proxies. I have no problem to engage in such a discussion with you, so long as you believe what you are writing and not just acting as Gill's proxy. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you respect my wishes and not allow Gill to use you as a proxy to communicate with me. At least, now you understand what I'm talking about in my previous post. The guy is obsessed with me.

Sorry Fred, don't want to drag this off-topic any more. This is my last post in this thread.

[Jochen]

None of the links you give provides an answer to the question I'm asking in this thread, which is, again: How are the vectors w, the physical hidden variables, computed without using knowledge about the experimenters' measurement directions?

As I noted, answers to all of your flatland questions have already been provided to you many times over. The arguments I have presented speak for themselves:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (the detailed theoretical analysis which the original simulation implements),

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 (the actual simulation, which has been deliberately misrepresented by Jochen),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 (an experimental proposal to test the spinorial properties of the S^3 space),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 (see Eq. (B10) -- a reply to even bigger and politically more powerful troll),

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ (extensive discussion of my entire program transcending Bell's errors).

Please, this is silly. If you have an answer to my question, post it; if you don't, well, either fess up or, failing that, at least try to save some dignity and stop this childish behaviour. It's embarrassing.

This is BS, the quantum mechanical predictions are for practical measurements. QM is completely silent about what might exist apart from measurements.

Yes, but there is a difference between the QM expectation value and the experimental mean obtained by measuring O some finite number of times; the latter can only ever approximate the former, and to what degree depends on the quality of the experiment. So if you reduce that quality, then the bounds that can be put on the estimate of the QM prediction get worse; hence, one has to correct for this in some way, which is done using various Bell inequalities derived under the assumption of imperfect measurements, while Bell's original thinking was directed at the in principle predictions.

If you want to claim my simulations do things which are forbidden by QM, it should be up to you to show exactly what you are talking about and provide the experimental results to back it up.

That's not what I'm arguing; I'm merely saying that your simulations violate an inequality not applicable in the scenario you use, which is no great surprise.

If you want to talk about "loopholes", demonstrate that such loopholes are forbidden by QM, or that QM does not "exploit" those same "loopholes" as well. Unless you can do so, your efforts here are akin to goal-post shifting.

Nobody knows whether the Bell inequality violations are not due to some loophole; that's why there is such a great effort towards loophole-free tests. And in order to do that, the tools that are used, i.e. the Bell inequalities, have to be constructed with the experimental setup in mind. As I said, Bell was mainly concerned with the predictions made by QM itself, not by the approximations to those predictions obtainable by experiment.

My simulations are clearly counter-examples of Bell's theorem as outlined by Bell himself. If Bell's inequalities and theorem were full-proof, it won't be necessary to amend it with new inequalities. Feel free to post an amended Bell's theorem for which my simulations are not counter-examples.

Your simulations are not counter examples to the original Bell theorem, since again, you consider a scenario not covered by its derivation, which is well known and acknowledged.

Besides, Gill's comment is very much on point: in Bell's 1981 article, Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality, he shows that he was keenly aware that his inequalities apply only in an idealised experimental setting:

It is true that practical experiments fall far short of the ideal, because of counter inefficiencies, or analyzer inefficiencies, or geometrical imperfections, and so on. It is only with added assumptions, or conventional allowance for inefficiencies and extrapolation from the real to the ideal, that one can say the inequality is violated.

(However, could we please stop the Gill bash-fest, or at least move it somewhere else? You guys don't like him, I get it. Everybody gets it.)

In fact, anyone who has actually read through the commentary in the simulation should be able to see how misguided Jochen's entire presentation of his "question" is.

Again, if you want to accuse me of misrepresenting your simulation, please show where my presentation is wrong.

[FrediFizzx]

If you want to claim my simulations do things which are forbidden by QM, it should be up to you to show exactly what you are talking about and provide the experimental results to back it up.

That's not what I'm arguing; I'm merely saying that your simulations violate an inequality not applicable in the scenario you use, which is no great surprise.

Actually, his simulations do not violate any of the Bell inequalities as imposed on LHV models since nothing can violate those inequalities. Mathematically impossible. So what the heck are you talking about?

[Joy Christian]

If you have an answer to my question, post it.

I have already posted the answer to your question, in this very thread, and many times before in the thread you have migrated your already answered question from.

Again, if you want to accuse me of misrepresenting your simulation, please show where my presentation is wrong.

I have already showed you multiple times where your reading is wrong, in the previous thread as well as in this one. Read the simulation and my commentary therein.

[Jochen]

Actually, his simulations do not violate any of the Bell inequalities as imposed on LHV models since nothing can violate those inequalities. Mathematically impossible. So what the heck are you talking about?

So, I'll make you a deal: since to you, the S^3 model is so simple, you first answer the question the thread is about; then, I'll take your bait and ask you why you think it would be 'mathematically impossible' to violate Bell inequalities. OK?

[Jochen]

If you have an answer to my question, post it.

I have already posted the answer to your question, in this very thread, and many times before in the thread you have migrated your already answered question from.

If you mean to say that you actually posted a way to compute the w vectors without recourse to the experimenters' measurement directions, then this is simply false.

Again, if you want to accuse me of misrepresenting your simulation, please show where my presentation is wrong.

I have already showed you multiple times where your reading is wrong, in the previous thread as well as in this one. Read the simulation and my commentary therein.

[/quote]
Since everything I've posted here is directly derived from that simulation, to the best of my understanding and abilities, I'd still ask you to provide some concrete evidence for your accusations.

[FrediFizzx]

If you have an answer to my question, post it.

I have already posted the answer to your question, in this very thread, and many times before in the thread you have migrated your already answered question from.

If you mean to say that you actually posted a way to compute the w vectors without recourse to the experimenters' measurement directions, then this is simply false.

Again, if you want to accuse me of misrepresenting your simulation, please show where my presentation is wrong.

I have already showed you multiple times where your reading is wrong, in the previous thread as well as in this one. Read the simulation and my commentary therein.

Since everything I've posted here is directly derived from that simulation, to the best of my understanding and abilities, I'd still ask you to provide some concrete evidence for your accusations.

Your question has already been answered. Please stop spamming the thread.

[Heinera]

Your question has already been answered. Please stop spamming the thread.

And which post in particular do you think answered Jochen's question?

[FrediFizzx]

See above.

[Jochen]

See above.

Ah, I get it: you're saying that by the demonstrative lack of answer to my question, by either Joy or you or anyone else, it has effectively been answered in the negative---i.e. there is no way to derive the w vectors without knowledge of the measurement directions. OK, thanks then, I'll cease my spamming...

[Joy Christian]

Flatland, the saga continues...

[Admin]

Flatland, the saga continues...

Joy, whatever you say, Joy, how did you become so great and wise.

[Joy Christian]

Joy, how did you become so great and wise.

By standing on the shoulders of flatlanders.

[FrediFizzx]

Joy, how did you become so great and wise.

By standing on the shoulders of flatlanders.

LOL!

[Joy Christian]

Joy, how did you become so great and wise.

By standing on the shoulders of flatlanders.

LOL!

Seriously: what appears to be non-local to the flatlanders from their perspective from within R^3, is perfectly local and realistic from the perspective from within S^3.

That is what the S^3 model is all about. That is what my theoretical papers 1 and 2 show. And that is what the simulation demonstrates spectacularly. Sorry John Bell.