Bell's theorem is silly, false, misleading

[minkwe]

Mate! ??? Please slow down, you are confusing an already confused situation!

Not at all mate ,

WHY: Because it's a calculation NOT a measurement! A totally valid and inarguable calculation since highschool and no loophole;

So? All the experiments in the world will not give you a correlation if you do not calculate afterward. The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements while doing only joint analysis of the data. It would be delusion to claim that you measured P(AB|ab) separately, if your analysis of the measured data involves "proper-matching" in order to calculate N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-), the validity of the calculation notwithstanding. I would say in that case you surely measured P(AB|ab) jointly.

BTW, "proper-matching" is non-local, since you need information from both sides at the same time in order to do such matching. That by itself obliterates the Bell argument since the separability argument dies right there. It is forbidden to use "proper-matching" at the same time as the P(A|Bab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|b) assumption.

[Gordon Watson]

Mate! ??? Please slow down, you are confusing an already confused situation!

Not at all mate ,

WHY: Because it's a calculation NOT a measurement! A totally valid and inarguable calculation since highschool and no loophole;

So? All the experiments in the world will not give you a correlation if you do not calculate afterward. The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements while doing only joint analysis of the data. It would be delusion to claim that you measured P(AB|ab) separately, if your analysis of the measured data involves "proper-matching" in order to calculate N(A+B+), N(A+B-), N(A-B+), N(A-B-), the validity of the calculation notwithstanding. I would say in that case you surely measured P(AB|ab) jointly.

BTW, "proper-matching" is non-local, since you need information from both sides at the same time in order to do such matching. That by itself obliterates the Bell argument since the separability argument dies right there. It is forbidden to use "proper-matching" at the same time as the P(A|Bab) = P(A|a), and P(B|Aab) = P(B|b) assumption.

Mate! Mate? What are you on?

(i) Proper matching does not occur FTL. So absolutely NO nonlocality there! [Note to parents: Young minkwe really must try harder.]

(ii) "You need information from both sides [delete: 'at the same time' because it confuses many] in order to do such matching." ??? Please: Just send me your indexed data when you're ready. No time-pressure please: it tends to lead to mistakes!

(iii) Who "forbids the use of proper matching" at the same time as Bellians blunder under an erroneous understanding of PT?

(iv) I could go on [eg, re "The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements ..." ] and will, if provoked.

All the best to you and yours, and looking forward to learning more from you in 2016; Gordon

[minkwe]

(i) Proper matching does not occur FTL.

Who said anything about FTL? You think proper matching can happen at Alice independently of Bob, or you think the matching does not happen at the same time. You are getting confused by focusing on physical nonlocality and ignoring logical nonlocality.

I could use the same kind of argument to say no theory is nonlocal because the equations are written on the same sheet of paper "locally" that would be silly.

Please go on, but focus on the substance instead.


All the best to you too.

[Gordon Watson]

(i) Proper matching does not occur FTL.

Who said anything about FTL? You think proper matching can happen at Alice independently of Bob, or you think the matching does not happen at the same time. You are getting confused by focusing on physical nonlocality and ignoring logical nonlocality.

I could use the same kind of argument to say no theory is nonlocal because the equations are written on the same sheet of paper "locally" that would be silly.

Please go on, but focus on the substance instead.

All the best to you too.

(i) Proper matching can occur anywhere, even automatically, and certainly independent of both detector-operators.

(ii) "Logical nonlocality"? I won't be using that term any time soon. But (and not speaking of you) I know some confused people who do.

(iii) I need no argument to say that "no theory is nonlocal"!

(iv) Re this from you: "The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements ..." . Wrong? For me, I'd say: the better the separation the better.

(v) And we don't "only do joint analysis" of the data. The "marginals" may indicate set-up problems (like a lack of symmetry).

[minkwe]

(i) Proper matching can occur anywhere, even automatically, and certainly independent of both detector-operators.

Mate!? Think! Independent!? Independent of the data collected by both operators? Please tell me how you can match the data without using the data? The matching is certainly NOT independent of both operators.

(ii) "Logical nonlocality"? I won't be using that term any time soon. But (and not speaking of you) I know some confused people who do.

Perhaps you should start using it. Independent?! You swallowed the Bell hook. Dependence is not causation. Classical probability is nonlocal. It's an espsemic theory, not a physical one. P(A|B) does not mean B causes A, it means you need information from Bob in order to restrict the sample space over which to calculate the probability. P(A|B) is therefore, not a local quantity, it is global one -- aka nonlocal. Just because Alice(Bob) measured their outcomes locally does not mean P(A|B) is a local quantity. Matching is the same. You need information from both sides, in order to restrict the sample space.

(iii) I need no argument to say that "no theory is nonlocal"!

Sorry, you do. There are physical theories, there are epistemic theories and there are local and nonlocal variants of each. The problem, is that many have failed to appreciate the difference, and when they hear nonlocal, they think physical causation. QM is nonlocal in the same way as classical probability. But QM is not a physical theory. It's an epistemic theory just like PT.

You may be justified in claiming the world is not physically nonlocal, but you won't be forgiven for suggesting that there are no nonlocal theories. Bohmian Mechanics is proudly nonlocal. Path integral is proudly nonlocal. The problem I have is when people interpret epistemic nonlocality, or logical nonlocality as physical. You are making their jobs easier by confounding the two.
Perhaps that's why you thought I was advocating FTL earlier. FTL is strictly physical.

(iv) Re this from you: "The point being simply that it's wrong to talk of separated measurements ..." . Wrong? For me, I'd say: the better the separation the better.

With the lecture above, it should be clear now that spending millions to ensure separate measurements, only to destroy the data by nonlocal "proper matching" manipulation is utter stupidity. If the correlation was present in the in non-manipulated data, why should there be a need to match?

[Gordon Watson]

(i) Proper matching can occur anywhere, even automatically, and certainly independent of both detector-operators.

Mate!? Think! Independent!? Independent of the data collected by both operators? * Please tell me how you can match the data without using the data? ** The matching is certainly NOT independent of both operators. *** … [Asterisks inserted by GW!]

Dear minkwe,

As a mate, let me be responsible for bringing this exchange to an end by showing how non-productive it has become! The following fair-sampling relates to the asterisks above:

* I said "independent of the detector-operators"! Whether the detector-operators be your pals Alice and Bob, or my robots Al and Bo: proper data matching can be done quite independently via direct internet feeds from each detector to my robot Cy in Tidbinbilla.

** What on earth triggered this silly question! (Let me repeat what I said: Data matching can occur independent of the detector-operators Alice/Bob or Al/Bo.)

*** The matching certainly can be independent of any and all detector-operators. See * and ** immediately above.

Enough said. Sincerely, your mate in working to increase signal-to-noise ratios, here and beyond; Gordon
.

[minkwe]

Gordon, define "independent"

y = f(x),

Is x, independent of y?

[Gordon Watson]

Gordon, define "independent"

"Free from outside control and not depending on another's authority, I don't have to define anything!"
.

[minkwe]

Gordon, define "independent"

"Free from outside control and not depending on another's authority, I don't have to define anything!"
.

y = f(x)

Is x free from, and not under the control of y

I hope you get my point about the difference between logical and physical, and why the matching is certainly not independent of the activities carried out earlier by Alice and Bob, to generate the data that is being matched.

[Gordon Watson]

Gordon, define "independent"

"Free from outside control and not depending on another's authority, I don't have to define anything!"
.

y = f(x)

Is x free from, and not under the control of y

I hope you get my point about the difference between logical and physical, and why the matching is certainly not independent of the activities carried out earlier by Alice and Bob, to generate the data that is being matched.

Physical: x = Alice's input. y = orientation of Alice's detector in 3-space.

Logical: x = Alice's input. y = orientation of Alice's detector in 3-space.

SOS: I'm missing your point.

[minkwe]

y = f(x)
Is x free from, and not under the control of y

...
SOS: I'm missing your point.

Dependence is not just about being under the control of. If I use Alice's data AND Bob's data in order to generate a new properly matched paired data, it is not correct to say the matching, let alone the new matched data is independent of Alice's actions or Bob's actions. I guessed you were thinking that the matching is not under the control of Alice or Bob, which is true. But that is a different thing than saying it is independent from it.

x is free from and not under the control of y, yet x is not independent of y. That is the point.

Happy New Year!