Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

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

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:46 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:You want to force simulations to measure counterfactual terms by saving and restoring random number seeds so that you can proclaim that the CHSH was not violated.

No. You are *completely* missing the point.

What point exactly, I've explained the issues very clearly.


I believe that I have many times very patiently tried to explain what I see as the issues. You believe the same, vice versa. We are not a millimeter closer to understanding one another.

Too bad. So we'd better agree to differ for the time being.

Let's change the subject. How do you like my latest simulation model http://rpubs.com/gill1109/ChaoticUnsharpBall1

It has a number of features originally stolen from yours which have gone through various transformations -> to me -> to Chantal and Joy -> to me again.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:53 am

gill1109 wrote:Let's change the subject.

So all of a sudden, you don't like my abstract simulation? Why are you afraid to do it? Here it is again in case you missed it:

The question we are trying to answer is: "What happens if instead of substituting actual results from a different set of particles, we use counterfactual results from the same set of particles as was intended in the original CHSH?"

We will proceed as follows:
* Generate pairs of particles as done previously.
* Instead of measuring at just "alice" and "bob", we will add two more "ghost" stations called "cindy" and "dave". We will send an exact copy of Alice's particle to Cindy and an exact copy of Bob's particle to Dave. This way we will have counterfactual results for Alice's particle at Cindy, and the same for Bob at Dave.
* We will do the data analysis in two steps. In the first step, we will ignore Cindy and Dave and simply use Alice and Bob as we have been doing until now. This scenario is equivalent to substituting actual results on different sets of particles for counterfactual results on a single set.
* The next step of data analysis will involve using all 4 outcomes for calculating the correlations. So that we use Alice and Bob to calculate C(a,b), Cindy and Bob to calculate C(a',b), Alice and Dave to calculate C(a,b') and Cindy and Dave to calculate C(a',b'). This step is equivalent to using counter-factual correlations just as is intended in the CHSH.
* We will then compare the results between the two scenarios and be able to answer our main question.
Last edited by minkwe on Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:56 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Let's change the subject.

So all of a sudden, you don't like my abstract simulation? Why are you afraid to do it?


Sorry, I didn't see that one.

Will you please also bear in mind ordinary norms of politeness. It is insulting to me that you claim that I am afraid to do something. I am going to report your previous posting to the moderator.

Well, what's the point? What do you want to prove with it?

You ask "What happens if instead of substituting actual results from a different set of particles, we use counterfactual results from the same set of particles as was intended in the original CHSH"?

But the CHSH inequality is intended to be applied to four correlations computed on four different sets of particles.
Last edited by gill1109 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:03 am

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Let's change the subject.

So all of a sudden, you don't like my abstract simulation? Why are you afraid to do it?


Sorry, I didn't see that one.

Well, what's the point? What do you want to prove with it?

I thought it was very clearly stated the question we were answering.

Also you did not answer my question:

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:And tell me, what do you think: do you think it's possible to write a local realist computer simulation of a *clocked* experiment with no "non-detections", and which reliably reproduces the singlet correlations? (By reliably, I mean in the situation that the settings are not in your control but are delivered to you from outside; the number of runs is large; and that this computer program does this not just once in a blue moon, by luck, but most times it is run on different people's computers.)

Are you willing to claim that it is impossible?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:06 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Incidentally, that might be true for photons, but it is false for the colourful exploding balls in Christian's proposed experiment. In fact he asks the experimenters to measure the spins of both hemispheres in all directions all at once!


Not true! Where did you get such an absurd idea from? Please read my papers carefully: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/.

I got this idea by reading your paper carefully. But it doesn't matter, we are planning the definitive experiment, right?


No, it does matter. If you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my proposed experiment, then it very much does matter, considering what is at stake in our bet.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:10 am

minkwe wrote:I thought it was very clearly stated the question we were answering.

We have learnt from experience that I often cannot make head or tail of what you are saying. This case was no exception. Sorry.


minkwe wrote:Also you did not answer my question:
gill1109 wrote:And tell me, what do you think: do you think it's possible to write a local realist computer simulation of a *clocked* experiment with no "non-detections", and which reliably reproduces the singlet correlations? (By reliably, I mean in the situation that the settings are not in your control but are delivered to you from outside; the number of runs is large; and that this computer program does this not just once in a blue moon, by luck, but most times it is run on different people's computers.)

Are you willing to claim that it is impossible?

I have claimed many times now and in the past that it's impossible.

It was the whole point of the paper by me which we were talking about earlier. (And this has been the whole point of many other people's earlier work. It was the whole point of Steve Gull's little contribution. The whole point of Bell's work, in fact.) You said you knew all about my bet with Luigi Accardi, etc.

Do you want to bet on this, too?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:13 am

Joy Christian wrote:No, it does matter. If you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my proposed experiment, then it very much does matter, considering what is at stake in our bet.

We are going to be discussing carefully together what are the parameters of the experiment, the side conditions. We will carry out this discussion with our board of adjudicators listening. Maybe we will uncover some serious misunderstandings and then no doubt one or other of us will withdraw, no harm done. But maybe we only encounter unimportant differences and are able to ignore them or agree on them.

Once we have agreed on all parameters which we both find crucial, then: the bet is on! We shake hands, say "may the best man win". The experiment then goes ahead and we are both bound by the rules - our rules. If we disagree over interpretation of our rules the adjudicators will rule.

So sure: fundamental misunderstandings do matter but no doubt they will be cleared up long before we are committed to a particular bet.

At least, that's how I see it. OK?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:18 am

What do you mean by side conditions, you already clearly stated that:

And tell me, what do you think: do you think it's possible


My understanding of this is the following. Richard Gill claims it is impossible to write a local realist computer simulation of a *clocked* experiment with no "non-detections", and which reliably reproduces the singlet correlations? (By reliably, I mean in the situation that the settings are not in your control but are delivered to you from outside; the number of runs is large; and that this computer program does this not just once in a blue moon, by luck, but most times it is run on different people's computers.)

Do you mean by side conditions that you want to take-back your claim?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:24 am

gill1109 wrote:Do you want to bet on this, too?

I won't want to deprive your family of your hard earned money just to prove a point. You claim something is impossible, and I do it. That proves you were wrong and you learn from it. No need for bets.

Now what about the abstract simulation I suggested earlier. Are you going to do it or not. It is just a slight modification of your R-innovations.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:10 pm

minkwe wrote:We will proceed as follows:
* Generate pairs of particles as done previously.
* Instead of measuring at just "alice" and "bob", we will add two more "ghost" stations called "cindy" and "dave". We will send an exact copy of Alice's particle to Cindy and an exact copy of Bob's particle to Dave. This way we will have counterfactual results for Alice's particle at Cindy, and the same for Bob at Dave.
* We will do the data analysis in two steps. In the first step, we will ignore Cindy and Dave and simply use Alice and Bob as we have been doing until now. This scenario is equivalent to substituting actual results on different sets of particles for counterfactual results on a single set.
* The next step of data analysis will involve using all 4 outcomes for calculating the correlations. So that we use Alice and Bob to calculate C(a,b), Cindy and Bob to calculate C(a',b), Alice and Dave to calculate C(a,b') and Cindy and Dave to calculate C(a',b'). This step is equivalent to using counter-factual correlations just as is intended in the CHSH.
* We will then compare the results between the two scenarios and be able to answer our main question.


So here are quick results I've done using my python version for the above:

===== Using only the ('alice', 'bob') data pair ===
E( 0.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 0.0, 67.5), AB=-0.40, QM=-0.38
E( 45.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 45.0, 67.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
CHSH: < 2.0, Sim: 2.391, QM: 2.389

===== Using only the ('alice', 'dave') data pair ===
E( 0.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 0.0, 67.5), AB=-0.40, QM=-0.38
E( 45.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 45.0, 67.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
CHSH: < 2.0, Sim: 2.390, QM: 2.389

===== Using only the ('cindy', 'bob') data pair ===
E( 0.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 0.0, 67.5), AB=-0.40, QM=-0.38
E( 45.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 45.0, 67.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
CHSH: < 2.0, Sim: 2.389, QM: 2.389

===== Using only the ('cindy', 'dave') data pair ===
E( 0.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 0.0, 67.5), AB=-0.41, QM=-0.38
E( 45.0, 22.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
E( 45.0, 67.5), AB=-0.93, QM=-0.92
CHSH: < 2.0, Sim: 2.386, QM: 2.389

==== USING ALL FOUR COUNTERFACTUAL ===
E(0, 22.5), AB=-0.90, QM=-0.92
E(0, 67.5), AB=-0.69, QM=-0.38
E(45, 22.5), AB=-0.90, QM=-0.92
E(45, 67.5), AB=-0.90, QM=-0.92
CHSH: < 2.0, Sim: 2.00, QM: 2.39

Notice anything?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:29 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Do you want to bet on this, too?

I won't want to deprive your family of your hard earned money just to prove a point. You claim something is impossible, and I do it. That proves you were wrong and you learn from it. No need for bets.

Now what about the abstract simulation I suggested earlier. Are you going to do it or not. It is just a slight modification of your R-innovations.

No you still haven't done what I said was impossible. Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough, exactly what it is you have to do.

By the way I earn cash from time to time by doing statistical consulations for lawyers. I put the money into science (I have a day job to feed my family). So you needed worry about my wife and kids going hungry.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:12 am

I'm awaiting your response to my abstract thought experiment I asked yesterday. Here it is again in case you missed it:

minkwe wrote:The question we are trying to answer is: "What happens if instead of substituting actual results from a different set of particles, we use counterfactual results from the same set of particles as was intended in the original CHSH?"

We will proceed as follows:
* Generate pairs of particles as done previously.
* Instead of measuring at just "alice" and "bob", we will add two more "ghost" stations called "cindy" and "dave". We will send an exact copy of Alice's particle to Cindy and an exact copy of Bob's particle to Dave. This way we will have counterfactual results for Alice's particle at Cindy, and the same for Bob at Dave.
* We will do the data analysis in two steps. In the first step, we will ignore Cindy and Dave and simply use Alice and Bob as we have been doing until now. This scenario is equivalent to substituting actual results on different sets of particles for counterfactual results on a single set.
* The next step of data analysis will involve using all 4 outcomes for calculating the correlations. So that we use Alice and Bob to calculate C(a,b), Cindy and Bob to calculate C(a',b), Alice and Dave to calculate C(a,b') and Cindy and Dave to calculate C(a',b'). This step is equivalent to using counter-factual correlations just as is intended in the CHSH.
* We will then compare the results between the two scenarios and be able to answer our main question.


You can see my own results of this abstract simulation experiment in my previous post. Note this endeavour is quite separate from your claim that it is impossible to simulate a clocked experiment ....
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:06 am

I don't have anything to say about this particular thought experiment of yours, Minkwe. (So far, I don't think the experiment interesting. Also, I don't know where you are going. I don't know what you are trying to prove. I'm waiting to hear a punch-line or a question.)

I *am* interested in a slightly different thought experiment. It runs like this:

There are only Alice and Bob, no Cindy and Dave, but instead we are going to clone Alice's computer and Bob's computer. We're going to compare the normal situation in which they each have one computer, and an artificial situation in which they each have two.

In my experiment, like in a real CHSH experiment, Alice and Bob each choose settings at random. Alice chooses in each run (each pair of particles) between a and a', Bob between b and b'. I suppose they do this with fair coin tosses. All this is exactly the same in both situations. In fact, they do their coin tosses at their homes in advance (in secret) and use the same coin tosses whether, when they come to work the next morning, they find one computer or two on their desk.

So in the "normal situation" (= the original situation = no clones ...) Alice has *one* computer, and per run, chooses a or a' and gets one *outcome*. Similarly for Bob. In the "situation with the cloned computers" I let Alice's computer 1 always use setting a, and Alice's computer 2 always use setting a'. She just uses her coin toss, per run, to decide which setting to take "for real" and hence which outcome to write down in the laboratory log-book. However, she did get to see both, and could just as well have written down both.

I'm assuming that the computer program is not using the memory loophole. It doesn't need to take account of past settings and outcomes when doing the work for the n'th run. I'm assuming the usual kind of pseudo random number generators, a fixed number of new random numbers per run, so that the intial state of the pseudo RNG at the start of the n'th run doesn't depend on what happened in earlier runs).

I state that there is no difference between the basic situation and the situation with the cloned computers. For the same coin tosses, and the same initial random seeds of all the computers concerned, the final data and the final value of CHSH is precisely the same.

Note: I do not claim that it is impossible to simulate a clocked experiment.

I do claim that if you simulate a clocked experiment in a local realistic way, where each run always results in a binary outcome, one on each side of the experiment, and you do a lot of runs, while the settings are being chosen at random by fair coin tosses, then the chance is only very very small that the final CHSH result will be far above 2. I have proven theorems which state just how small the chance is, of any given deviation above 2. The bigger the deviation, the smaller the chance. The bigger N (the number of runs), the smaller the chance.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:51 am

gill1109 wrote:I don't have anything to say about this particular thought experiment of yours, Minkwe. (So far, I don't think the experiment interesting. Also, I don't know where you are going. I don't know what you are trying to prove. I'm waiting to hear a punch-line or a question.)


Interesting. You are either not reading what I'm writing or you know very well what I'm talking about but for some reason don't want to engage. This despite the fact that you wrote a whole paper about a similar issue, in response to Accardi. Now for the umpteenth time I will state the claim which the above abstract thought experiment proves.

I claim that:

1) The CHSH can not be violated by anything if you are doing a correct mathematical calculation. Not even QM can violate the CHSH. The reason is because the terms in the CHSH represent a relationship between joint properties which can not be simultaneously measured (factual & counterfactual).

2) The claimed QM violation of the standard CHSH is not a valid calculation as far as QM is concerned since the full expression implies combining separate observations of non-commuting observables to obtain the joint measurement result. This is not allowed in QM. Classically, it is equivalent to the nonsensical calculation of performing algebra on functions with different domains.

3) Bell's inequalities (and the CHSH) are valid mathematical constructs. Unfortunately, they have little if any relationship to experiments because they use terms in the derivation which are unmeasurable (counterfactual outcomes).

4) The error which makes *Bell's theorem* false is the mistaken assumption that we can substitute measurement outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes on a single set of particles. It is this assumption that is false. In other words, Bell's inequalities (and the CHSH) are violated because we of the error of substituting actual outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes of a single set of particles.


The abstract thought experiment provides clear proof that for a locally realistic simulation, substituting measurement outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes on a single set of particles leads to violation even though using the counterfactual outcomes directly does not.

It also proves that you were wrong to assume that properties from disjoint samples can be used to make meaningful estimates about joint properties in a single sample. No doubt you do not want to do the simple modification (probably you have but don't want to share the results). Nor have you presented any counter arguments to any of the above points. In fact you have not even stated if you agree or disagree with any of them. You've simply ignored them. But they are all devastating to the point of view you are trying to propagate, so I would have expected that you would be interested in it.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:02 am

gill1109 wrote:I'm assuming that the computer program is not using the memory loophole. It doesn't need to take account of past settings and outcomes when doing the work for the n'th run.


Just another "loophole" fantasy. Your statement above is equivalent to the assumption that: "Nature is not allowed to have detectors whose state at time t, influences their state at time t+1". Do you have any experimental evidence to back such a ridiculous assumption?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby gill1109 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:52 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I'm assuming that the computer program is not using the memory loophole. It doesn't need to take account of past settings and outcomes when doing the work for the n'th run.


Just another "loophole" fantasy. Your statement above is equivalent to the assumption that: "Nature is not allowed to have detectors whose state at time t, influences their state at time t+1". Do you have any experimental evidence to back such a ridiculous assumption?


Dear Minkwe

Please do not be so rude. Think before you write.

I am talking about a thought experiment pertaining to a particular class of simulation models. Your very own simulation model falls in this category. You are telling me that you think that the stuff you wrote in Python is totally ridiculous? That's funny.

Richard
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:35 am

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I'm assuming that the computer program is not using the memory loophole. It doesn't need to take account of past settings and outcomes when doing the work for the n'th run.


Just another "loophole" fantasy. Your statement above is equivalent to the assumption that: "Nature is not allowed to have detectors whose state at time t, influences their state at time t+1". Do you have any experimental evidence to back such a ridiculous assumption?


Dear Minkwe

Please do not be so rude. Think before you write.

I am talking about a thought experiment pertaining to a particular class of simulation models. Your very own simulation model falls in this category. You are telling me that you think that the stuff you wrote in Python is totally ridiculous? That's funny.

Richard

There is nothing rude in my post. You tell me, does it make any sense whatsoever to assume that "Nature is not allowed to have detectors whose state at time t, influences their state at time t+1". ???

My simulation makes no such assumption. I do not use such time influences in my simulation. That does not mean anybody else can not write one that uses it. You were stating a requirement that should apply to all simulations, which means you were making a statement about the way nature is not allowed to behave. I'm simply stating to you that it makes no sense.

BTW, forceful irrefutable arguments by your opponents are not personal attacks against you. Rather they are fatal attacks against your point of view. Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish the two because they may feel the same, especially if you hold our points of view very personally.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:44 am

gill1109 wrote:but the CHSH inequality is intended to be applied to four correlations computed on four different sets of particles.

This is blatantly false! If you start from 4 different sets of particles, you will not obtain the CHSH inequality. You will obtain 4 on the RHS. The CHSH can not be derived starting from 4 different sets of particles.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:29 pm

Yes, that is right. CHSH is for angle settings of the polarizers. a, a', b, b'. So two pairs of particles not 4 "sets" which I think would mean 4 pairs.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Recommendations for EPR-type simulations

Postby minkwe » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:48 pm

The proof can be found in this paper by Accardi http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0007005v2.pdf

Consider a single pair of particles. Assume that the pair of particles have outcomes at 4 angles a, b, a', b' and that those outcomes are definite even if we do not measure them. And those outcomes can only be one of (+1, -1). Then it follows that
ab + ab′ + a′b′ − a′b ≤ 2

We can verify by factorization:
a(b + b′) + a′(b′ − b) ≤ 2
As concerns the values (b′, b). There are 4 possibilities. We may have (+1, -1), (-1, +1), (-1, -1) or (+1, +1). For the first two cases, the first of the terms (b + b′), (b′ − b) will be 0 and the second will be 2 or -2. For the other two cases, the first of the terms (b + b′), (b′ − b) will be 2 or -2 and the second will be 0. Which means that the maximum or minimum of the expression will be determined by 2a' XOR -2a. However, a and a' can only have values (+1, -1) which proves that the expression ab + ab′ + a′b′ − a′b ≤ 2 as a valid inequality for any four values (a, b, a', b') from a single particle pair. This inequality can be extended from the individual cases to averages over multiple particles because the extrema of each term will not be affected by averaging over multiple sets of values with the same extrema, on the condition that all averages of paired-product terms are calculated from the exact same set of particles.

If different sets of particles are used to calculate averages, it is equivalent to using a different particle pair to calculate each paired product for the individual case. For this we would have a situation similar to

a1b1 + a2b2′ + a3′b3′ − a4′b4

Where the numbers represent the particle pair used. In this case we now have 8 different variables each that can have a value of (+1, -1). Let us verify what the upper bound is for this expression.

Each term, being independent from any other term is free to have it's own upper and lower bound. Since the values are each +1 and -1, those will be the upper and lower bound for each paired product. We will have a maximum of 4 if a1b1 = 1, a2b2' = 1, a3b3' = 1 and a4b4' = -1. This violates the original expression for a single set, and proves that the correct inequality is

a1b1 + a2b2′ + a3′b3′ − a4′b4 ≤ 4

This can be extended to averages similarly to the previous case.
Clearly the former expression and not this one is the CHSH. Clearly, the correct upper bound for using 4 different sets of particles for measuring the individual terms is 4 not 2.

Therefore Richard Gill is wrong. The reason for the violation as I have claimed already is:

The error which makes *Bell's theorem* false is the mistaken assumption that we can substitute measurement outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes on a single set of particles. It is this assumption that is false. In other words, Bell's inequalities (and the CHSH) are violated because of the error of substituting actual outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes of a single set of particles. (aka, using 4 different sets of particles when the inequality asks for just one)

The abstract thought experiment provides clear proof that for a locally realistic simulation, using 4 different sets of particles for counterfactual outcomes (as is done in EPR experiments) violates the inequality even though using the counterfactual outcomes directly (a single set of particles, as was assumed in the derivation of the CHSH) does not, using exactly the same simulation, not even a repeat.

Therefore the assumption that we can substitute measurement outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes on a single set of particles is False! And the claim that the CHSH is based on 4 different sets of particles is false! QED.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library