Bell's theorem & Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or me?

[FrediFizzx]

Correct Fred, re my lovely A and B; both true mathematical functions, as befits BT's premises (by my reading).

In eq. (2) you just state as a "Given" that A and B are +/-1. You should have actual functions for A and B that can produce the + or - one analytically. You really don't have any kind of good model until you can do that.

I trust my reply to Mikko helps to make better sense of my essay. It is answering a Bellian's question:' What is your problem with BT?' So I don't put the actual functions in the early text since the focus is initially on my problem with BT. I'll put mathematically-correct functions of (a, λ) and (b, λ') in the Appendix.

I didn't need your reply to Mikko to make better sense of it. It is good that you are going to work on more specifics of a model later. As I said previously, you don't need a LHV model to show that Bell was wrong anyways. And getting back to the main theme of this thread, the way I see it is that your argument is a variation on what Michel has presented extensively on this forum. Though your argument may be sort of an inverse of that so a bit new.

[Gordon Watson]

Fred, Can you point me to minkwe's stuff? Tks, G

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, Can you point me to minkwe's stuff? Tks, G

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39

Just do a search on minkwe on the forum for more recent comments from this year. Make that an advanced search with minkwe as the author. Perhaps discussions involving Schmelzer and Jochen.

[Gordon Watson]

Great. TKS!

[Mikko]

Bell's theorem and Bell's argument: Who is right, Fred or me?
A certain Fred likes to say: "It's mathematically impossible for anything to violate an inequality of Bell's type (BI)."

Although http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0035v1.pdf attempts to demonstrate that Fred is wrong, it fails. The primary target is Bell's proof, but even if Bell's proof were wrong, there are other proofs. And attempted demonstration of error fails, as a central step in the demonstration is invalid, as shown in the discussion of the referred page. The attempted demonstration of the invalidity of theorem is copied from an earlier article without correcting the error pointed out in the discussion on that articles discussion page. Therefore the claim that Fred be wrong is unjustified.

[Gordon Watson]

Are you, by chance, referring to your post that I answered within 32 minutes?

[Mikko]

Are you, by chance, referring to your post that I answered within 32 minutes?

Do you mean the one where your response was "??"? The error indicated there alone (or with my or Fred Diether's clarification) invalidates your refutation. But I didn't mean specifically that. Errors pointed out in the other comments do the same. So you have not refuted Fred's claim.

[FrediFizzx]

Are you, by chance, referring to your post that I answered within 32 minutes?

Do you mean the one where your response was "??"? The error indicated there alone (or with my or Fred Diether's clarification) invalidates your refutation. But I didn't mean specifically that. Errors pointed out in the other comments do the same. So you have not refuted Fred's claim.

Yes, it is pretty easy to show mathematically that Bell's eq. (14a) is equal to (14b) with the required binary outcomes of +/-1 for A and B as you did. And as Joy pointed out to me in an email, those binary outcomes are necessary to produce A = -B when a = b. However, what Bell did perhaps inadvertently is make the expectation terms dependent on each other for LHV models where that same dependency is not imposed for QM theory or the experiments. Easy to see the problem as I have stressed before. Bell's original inequality can be written,

E(a, c) - E(b, a) - E(b, c) =< 1

And since each expectation term can range from -1 to +1 then we could have for independent terms,

(+1) - (-1) - (-1) = 3

So we can see that for independent terms, the bound is 3 not 1. The same can be done for CHSH to show the bound for independent terms is 4 not 2 and for CH the bound is 1 not 0. Why are LHV models restricted to dependent expectation terms and QM theory and experiments not? Quite frankly, it is absurd.