Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Heinera » Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:49 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:LOL! Here we go again... The fact remains that Bell was wrong. LHV models can have independent expectation terms.

No, they can't. If you guys are so sure that Bell was wrong, come up with a counter example. Construct a loophole-free LHV-model (event based simulation) that reproduces the QM correlations. Then I'll shut up (and you get a Nobel prize).

PS: Constructing a simulation that exploits the detection loophole, and then arguing that (the obviously existing) non-detected events simply does not exist because Santa Claus removed them, doesn't count.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:57 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:LOL! Here we go again... The fact remains that Bell was wrong. LHV models can have independent expectation terms.

No, they can't. If you guys are so sure that Bell was wrong, come up with a counter example. Construct a loophole-free LHV-model (event based simulation) that reproduces the QM correlations. Then I'll shut up (and you get a Nobel prize).

PS: Constructing a simulation that exploits the detection loophole, and then arguing that (the obviously existing) non-detected events simply does not exist because Santa Claus removed them, doesn't count.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879
http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... f-joy.html
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:07 pm


To these, I would also add the following paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 ,

and the corresponding simulation of the manifestly local-realistic model presented in the paper:

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 .

There is a catch here, however. These papers and simulations are not written for bubbleheads. :D
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:20 pm

Joy Christian wrote:

To these, I would also add the following paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 ,

and the corresponding simulation of the manifestly local-realistic model presented in the paper:

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 .

There is a catch here, however. These papers and simulations are not written for bubbleheads. :D

And... of course Heine left out the catch that is impossible to get around. Nothing can violate the inequalities since it is mathematically impossible to do so.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:00 pm

Heinera wrote:Your "clear arguments" was thoroughly debunked by Jochen.

In your alternate universe maybe. Provide a link to the nonexistent "debunking" which you dreamed up. If copying and pasting is too hard for you. Unless it is just another bold-faced untruth.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:41 pm

Mikko wrote:
minkwe wrote:Now where is the evidence that experiments violate Bell's inequality???

It is in the reports of those experiments. The reports tell what was done and what happened.

Are you afraid to post it because you will then have to defend it? It is quite clear what the difficulty is for Bell's worshipers in order to proclaim violation, they assume the expression
,
is exactly the same as the expression
,

When asked for values of the terms in the first expression, they immediately jump to provide terms from the second one. You need to read post #1 on this thread to understand the difference.

Mikko wrote:However, the topic of this discussion is not experiments. It is quantum mechanics instead.

The topic is about the QM predictions for the expectation values to be observed in a specific experiment.

Mikko wrote:More specifically, whether quantum mechanics predicts violation of Bell's inequalities. Apparently none of those who might know is motivated to reveal it here.


:lol: Reminds me of what Donald Trump said, that he knows exactly how to defeat ISIS but he won't tell to anyone.

Mikko wrote:Elsewhere we may read that it does. Easy to check with a simulation.

Elsewhere we may also read that the earth is flat.

Care to share the simulation which demonstrates violation? I suppose you don't feel motivated to share either. Perhaps you could send a copy instead to your friend Dr Bob N. Weaver (aka Heine) who is now convinced that QM can not make predictions about the terms in Bell's inequalities.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:47 am

minkwe wrote:Bell's inequality is the following:
,
which makes use of the three terms all defined for the same set of outcomes .

And is not uniquely determined for non-local theories like QM. For non-local models in general, the value of can take on different values depending on the setting or in the other wing, even for the same . This is not the case for a local model.

SInce this expression makes no sense in QM, and can't be computed, the rest of your argument goes down the drain.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:45 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:Bell's inequality is the following:
,
which makes use of the three terms all defined for the same set of outcomes .

And is not uniquely determined for non-local theories like QM. For non-local models in general, the value of can take on different values depending on the setting or in the other wing, even for the same . This is not the case for a local model.

SInce this expression makes no sense in QM, and can't be computed, the rest of your argument goes down the drain.

According to Bell the expectation terms are not independent. But that is the whole point. Bell was wrong.

They are independent for a LHV model also just like for QM!
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby minkwe » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:43 pm

Heinera wrote:And is not uniquely determined for non-local theories like QM. For non-local models in general, the value of can take on different values depending on the setting or in the other wing, even for the same . This is not the case for a local model.

SInce this expression makes no sense in QM, and can't be computed, the rest of your argument goes down the drain.


Gobbledygook! QM makes predictions for , experiments measure empirical expectations for LHV models of the QM and experimental expectations also calculate expectations for .

All those terms are statistically independent This is the part that passes through one of your ears and straight out the other, so pay careful attention. The statistical independence in those terms has absolutely nothing to do with locality or hidden variables, or any other physical concept. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Bell's inequality uses the terms . These terms are statistically dependent, all defined for exactly the same set of particle pairs. If the number of degrees of freedom for a single particle is , then for particle pairs Bell's inequality involves degrees of freedom. However, the experiments have three times more degrees of freedom , and even up to 4 times more for the CHSH variant. That is why the row-permutations presented in post #1 can not be completed. And that is why you can't back up the claim that QM violates the inequality, nor can you back up the claim that experiments violate the inequality. This is all clearly explained in post #1.

In any case, we now have you on record stating that Bell's inequality makes no sense in QM and can't be computed
Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:Bell's inequality is the following:
,

SInce this expression makes no sense in QM, and can't be computed, the rest of your argument goes down the drain.

Perhaps what has gone down the drain is the gray matter of whoever thinks such a pronouncement is counter to my argument, because it is Bell's argument you just illustrated to be completely bogus not mine. The question I asked to elicit this interesting admission is a lose-lose scenario for Bell worshipers, it is a virtual line in the sand:

minkwe wrote:Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality


In other words, please provide the QM predictions for the terms




Either a Bell worshiper decides to follow their prophet and provide the terms the same way he did and then suffer the fate of the statistical independence wack-a-mole, or they try to claim that the inequality makes no sense in QM, contrary to what the prophet himself preached and other faithfuls continue to preach and practice ardently. At some point, they may even attempt to sneak in a different inequality for which they are able to provide terms, except they hope others will be fooled by the similar notation into thinking it was the same inequality as Bell's inequality. Perhaps they've themselves been fooled by careless use of notation.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:30 am

Heinera wrote: ... if you take a reasonably sized random subset of a population, the average of that subset will be very close to the average of the population...

That is exactly what all the pollsters did in the last general election in the United Kingdom. They all unanimously predicted a very close tie between the Labour party and the Conservatives, based on a "reasonably sized random subsets of a population" of voters. The Conservatives won the election by a whopping majority. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:They are all expectations of disjoint subsets drawn randomly from a common population ...

A complete and utter hogwash.

Because?

Because there is no subset drawn from a common population. To claim there is, is to fail to understand what "counterfactually possible" means in the present context.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Mikko » Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:50 am

minkwe wrote:
Mikko wrote:Elsewhere we may read that it does. Easy to check with a simulation.

Care to share the simulation which demonstrates violation?

Seems that I wasn't clear enough. When I said "Easy to check with a simulation" I meant that the author of the simulation shall know the result, not that anyone else would believe it. And that it would be easy to someone who already knows how to make simulations.
Mikko
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Heinera » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:15 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote: ... if you take a reasonably sized random subset of a population, the average of that subset will be very close to the average of the population...

That is exactly what all the pollsters did in the last general election in the United Kingdom. They all unanimously predicted a very close tie between the Labour party and the Conservatives, based on a "reasonably sized random subsets of a population" of voters. The Conservatives won the election by a whopping majority. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Then either the sample was to small, or more likely, something happened close to the election that made a lot of voters change their mind. Either way it was obviously not caused by some law of nature, so the example is completely irrelevant to this discussion. A detection event can't "change it's mind" after it has been polled.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:42 am

Heinera wrote:A detection event can't "change its mind" after it has been polled.

Evidently, Bell belivers think that detection event can "change its mind" after it has been polled,

otherwise how on earth can it "violate" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Heinera » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:09 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:A detection event can't "change its mind" after it has been polled.

Evidently, Bell belivers think that detection event can "change its mind" after it has been polled,

otherwise how on earth can it "violate" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. :lol: :lol: :lol:


It is obviously trivial for a non-local model to violate the inequality:. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Doesn't even rely on any "zero" outcomes.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:48 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:A detection event can't "change its mind" after it has been polled.

Evidently, Bell belivers think that detection event can "change its mind" after it has been polled,

otherwise how on earth can it "violate" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. :lol: :lol: :lol:


It is obviously trivial for a non-local model to violate the inequality:. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727.

With voodoo one can "violate" anything and everything, even the big bubbles in the brains of the Bell believers.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:12 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:A detection event can't "change its mind" after it has been polled.

Evidently, Bell belivers think that detection event can "change its mind" after it has been polled,

otherwise how on earth can it "violate" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. :lol: :lol: :lol:


It is obviously trivial for a non-local model to violate the inequality:. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Doesn't even rely on any "zero" outcomes.

It has already been shown to you in this thread that you don't violate Bell-CHSH since your expectation terms are independent. Your A in <AB> is not necessarily the same as the A in <AB'>, etc. You now need to show that in your simulation that A in <AB> (E11) is the same as the A in <AB'> (E12). But you can't.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Heinera » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:51 am

FrediFizzx wrote:It has already been shown to you in this thread that you don't violate Bell-CHSH since your expectation terms are independent. Your A in <AB> is not necessarily the same as the A in <AB'>, etc. You now need to show that in your simulation that A in <AB> (E11) is the same as the A in <AB'> (E12). But you can't.

Exactly. In my model the A in <AB> (E11) is not the same as the A in <AB'> (E12), because the model is non-local. You are now very close to understanding Bell's theroem.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:10 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It has already been shown to you in this thread that you don't violate Bell-CHSH since your expectation terms are independent. Your A in <AB> is not necessarily the same as the A in <AB'>, etc. You now need to show that in your simulation that A in <AB> (E11) is the same as the A in <AB'> (E12). But you can't.

Exactly. In my model the A in <AB> (E11) is not the same as the A in <AB'> (E12), because the model is non-local. You are now very close to understanding Bell's theroem.

Ah, you just admitted that you don't violate CHSH since if the terms are independent then the bound is 4 not 2.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby minkwe » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:17 pm

Heinera wrote:It is obviously trivial for a non-local model to violate the inequality:. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

As shown in post #1, you are calculating the independent terms which are definitely not the terms in Bell's inequality. So you haven't violated any inequality, you've just confirmed that you can't calculate the statistically dependent terms in the CHSH. The upper bound for the terms you are calculating is 4 not 2. So no violation. Just another failed bait-and-switch attempt.

If you think you can violate the CHSH with any model whatsoever, provide the values for the terms in the CHSH, that is, . Note the crucial subscript, because Bell worshippers like to leave it out when performing their magic trick.

Why is it that when we ask you for from your "non-local" model, you produce instead, trying to deceive by omitting the subscripts. The terms in the CHSH are the former, not the latter, demonstrate that your so-called "non-local" model can violate the CHSH by providing the values for the terms.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Evidence that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities

Postby Heinera » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:44 pm

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:It is obviously trivial for a non-local model to violate the inequality:. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

As shown in post #1, you are calculating the independent terms which are definitely not the terms in Bell's inequality. So you haven't violated any inequality, you've just confirmed that you can't calculate the statistically dependent terms in the CHSH. The upper bound for the terms you are calculating is 4 not 2. So no violation. Just another failed bait-and-switch attempt.

If you think you can violate the CHSH with any model whatsoever, provide the values for the terms in the CHSH, that is, . Note the crucial subscript, because Bell worshippers like to leave it out when performing their magic trick.

Why is it that when we ask you for from your "non-local" model, you produce instead, trying to deceive by omitting the subscripts. The terms in the CHSH are the former, not the latter, demonstrate that your so-called "non-local" model can violate the CHSH by providing the values for the terms.

My model does indeed produce . Read the code again.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library