minkwe wrote:It turns out there is an even simpler way to illustrate the point. A method that can even be applied to existing experimental data, without repeating any experiments. You will note that the 3 statistically independent 2xN sets sets of outcomes are overdetermined. All you need is to measure on two sets . This is how we do it. Measure just , that will give you 2 terms , then carry out the row permutations such that . Then use the rearranged together with to calculate the last term . If the QM predictions for the separate independent sets of outcomes should be the same as those for the single set of outcomes, then it follows that . But if you do this procedure, you will find that and the resulting value for will not violate Bell's inequality. Therefore, there is no justification to conclude that QM or experiments violate Bell's inequalities. Nothing can.
Guest wrote:So QM and LHV are incompatible.
Guest wrote:minkwe wrote:It turns out there is an even simpler way to illustrate the point. A method that can even be applied to existing experimental data, without repeating any experiments. You will note that the 3 statistically independent 2xN sets sets of outcomes are overdetermined. All you need is to measure on two sets . This is how we do it. Measure just , that will give you 2 terms , then carry out the row permutations such that . Then use the rearranged together with to calculate the last term . If the QM predictions for the separate independent sets of outcomes should be the same as those for the single set of outcomes, then it follows that . But if you do this procedure, you will find that and the resulting value for will not violate Bell's inequality. Therefore, there is no justification to conclude that QM or experiments violate Bell's inequalities. Nothing can.
You are right that the rearranged data won't violate Bell's inequalities. But what you are doing here, is actually confirming Bell's theorem.
Guest wrote:Your argument actually is a rather neat proof of Bell's theorem. Very neat indeed!
Guest wrote:Bell says that QM says that the observed pairs can't be thought of as part of completed triples. If a local hidden variables model were true, it would be possible to complement each pair, e.g, A_i, B_i, with a third element, in that case C_i, without changing the correlations (in the limit of N goes to infinity).
minkwe wrote:given 3 statistically independent sets of N outcome pairs, it is not possible to do such rearrangement in order to demonstrate the above equivalences. To summarize why, note that we could perform row permutations of the set of outcomes so that the column matches the column of the set. Then we could do row permutations of the set of outcomes so that the column matches the column of the set. One more rearrangement and we are home, since only the and pairs have not been matched. But, since only row permutations are allowed, any rearrangements to make match will undo the match between and . Therefore, it is not possible for 3 statistically independent sets of outcome pairs to satisfy simultaneously.
minkwe wrote:Here is the question: Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality . In other words, please provide the QM predictions for the terms . As you will notice once you start producing the QM predictions for those terms, you will have to make a hidden assumption in order to answer those questions. It turns out it is that hidden assumption which is wrong. If you haven't figured it out yet from the other threads and my earlier post, I'll wait until you answer those questions before telling you. You will note that the assumption has nothing to do with LHV theories, since the question is about QM predictions.
minkwe wrote:It does not matter what the source of the sets of outcomes is. This is an impossibility proof, which essentially highlights the statistical tautology: 3 statistically independent sets are not statistically dependent. This is true for LHV just as well as QM and experimental data. This would have been obvious for those who understand statistics but it has been carefully obscured for decades simply because Bell left out indices from his terms, giving the false impression that . And even to this day, many do not see it.
Guest wrote:I am not aware of any proof of Bell's theorem which relies on such an obviously wrong claim. Of course statistically independent sets of data are statistically independent of one another.
minkwe wrote:Here is the question: Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality
by providing , the QM predictions for the terms
minkwe wrote:Here is the question: Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality
by providing , the QM predictions for the terms
FrediFizzx wrote:minkwe wrote:Here is the question: Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality
by providing , the QM predictions for the terms
I predict that all you will get as an answer is more subterfuge.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:minkwe wrote:Here is the question: Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality
by providing , the QM predictions for the terms
I predict that all you will get as an answer is more subterfuge.
I am not sure that they are even aware of the fact that they are being evasive. They are a victim of over 50 years of brainwashing and political control by the elite.
Only if you assume that your 'identical' coins don't in fact have the same probability distribution. In which case, yes, you could violate the inequality, by say having two types of coins, one for which P(H) is approximately one (and hence, P(T) is approximately 0), and the other for which P(T) is approximately one, and P(H) approximately zero. But you'd have to make sure only to throw the first kind of coin into the H-reading device, and the second kind of coin into the T-reading device; in a Bell test, however, the nature of the device will only be decided once the coin is already in the air, and it's not hard to see that in this case, always P(T) + P(H) = 1(at least up to statistical error)
FrediFizzx wrote:It is pretty mind boggling that Bell's theorem has been mainstream for over 50 years and that people didn't see that nothing can violate the inequalites. Mathematically impossible.
FrediFizzx wrote:It is pretty mind boggling that Bell's theorem has been mainstream for over 50 years and that people didn't see that nothing can violate the inequalites. Mathematically impossible.
Joy wrote:For example Clauser --- the "C" of the CHSH inequality --- was absolutely convinced (so I was told by my former PhD advisor, Abner Shimony --- the "S" of the CHSH inequality) before his very first experiment with Freedman that theirs will be a truly revolutionary experiment and will prove that quantum mechanics is actually wrong by not exhibiting the strong correlations.
Joy wrote:Shimony, however, was convinced that the experiment will exhibit the strong correlations, thus exhibiting a refutation of local realism rather than quantum mechanics. Clauser was genuinely surprised (so I was told by Shimony) when he witnessed the strong correlations in his 1970's experiment with Freedman.
Butterfield wrote:What Bell objects to in both von Neumann's and Kochen and Specker's no-go theorems is arbitrary assumptions about how the results of measurements undertaken with incompatible experimental arrangements would turn out. For von Neumann, it is the assumption that if an observable C is actually measured, where and , then had A instead been measured, or B, their results would have been such as to sum to the value actually obtained for C. For Kochen and Specker, who adopt von Neumann's linearity requirement only when , it is the assumption that the results of measuring C would be the same independent of whether C is measured along with A and B or in the context of measuring some other pair of compatible observables A' and B' such that C = A' + B'. What makes these assumptions arbitrary, for Bell, is that the results of measuring observables A,B,C, ... might not reveal separate pre-existing values for them, but rather realize mere dispositions of the system to produce those results in the context of specific experimental arrangements they are obtained in. In other words, the 'observables' at issue need not all be beables in the hidden-variables interpretations the no-go theorems seek to rule out.
Dear Joy,
Thanks for pointing out your paper.
If I understand correctly, your paper contradicts the Clauser-Horne inequality for hidden variables, whose proof is rather simple.
I would advise you to go over the proof of the theorem with your model in order to find where the mistake is, either in the
theorem or (more likely, in my mind) in your counter example.
Regards,
[Name]
Joy Christian wrote:Good question, Fred. Perhaps Michel will have a look at Lucien's paper to pinpoint the error.
Let me also mention that I received the following email a few days ago from an extremely well known and talented string theorist. You can narrow down the name to a handful of people, but I am not revealing his identity publicly because this was a private correspondence.Dear Joy,
Thanks for pointing out your paper.
If I understand correctly, your paper contradicts the Clauser-Horne inequality for hidden variables, whose proof is rather simple.
I would advise you to go over the proof of the theorem with your model in order to find where the mistake is, either in the
theorem or (more likely, in my mind) in your counter example.
Regards,
[Name]
This is the usual response from nearly everyone who has ever looked at my work. Despite the explicit and simple counterexample I have presented over the past eight years, the usual attitude of people is that my model "must be wrong" because the proofs of Bell-type inequalities are so simple. And the disingenuous criticism of my model by non-physicists like Gill hasn't helped. What the critics don't seem to realize is that these inequalities are logically correct and simple, but they have nothing to do with physics. It is therefore not at all surprising that they are routinely "violated" in the actual experiments. The same is true of Lucien's "logical Bell inequality."
FrediFizzx wrote:But after reading this paper, I am really curious about how he gets eq. (1) with no dependency between the terms. And in Sect. B. "A Curious Observation", he seems to contradict himself in note [17]. Since p_i can be 1, then for sure the sum can be N. Not N -1. ???
There is no way that eq. (1) can be true without dependency between the terms. There is really nothing "curious" at all.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:But after reading this paper, I am really curious about how he gets eq. (1) with no dependency between the terms. And in Sect. B. "A Curious Observation", he seems to contradict himself in note [17]. Since p_i can be 1, then for sure the sum can be N. Not N -1. ???
There is no way that eq. (1) can be true without dependency between the terms. There is really nothing "curious" at all.
Their argument certainly looks very confusing. They do seem to acknowledge the "puzzle", however, on the top of page 3. You seem to have it right as far as I can see.
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:But after reading this paper, I am really curious about how he gets eq. (1) with no dependency between the terms. And in Sect. B. "A Curious Observation", he seems to contradict himself in note [17]. Since p_i can be 1, then for sure the sum can be N. Not N -1. ???
There is no way that eq. (1) can be true without dependency between the terms. There is really nothing "curious" at all.
Their argument certainly looks very confusing. They do seem to acknowledge the "puzzle", however, on the top of page 3. You seem to have it right as far as I can see.
If you get a chance, you should ask Dr. Hardy about this. Anyways, back to the topic of this thread, this is an example of how the myth that QM can "violate" the inequalities gets further spread thoughout the mainstream.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 7 guests