Graft's arXiv:1404.4329 paper

[FrediFizzx]

Donald Graft's arXiv:1404.4329 paper certainly deserves its own thread for discussion. From Gordon's thread,

Thank you for the warm welcome, guys.

1. Which inequalities? If you are speaking of Bell inequalities, of course QM doesn't predict that as they are mathematically impossible to violate. For EPR-Bohm, QM predicts -a.b and that is all it predicts. Joy's model for EPR-Bohm also predicts -a.b so I believe Joy holds the view that his classical local-realistic model does in fact explain the strong correlation.

I refer specifically to the CH inequality. If you read my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4329, you will see that your position that CH is impossible to violate is not correct. CH is not a tautology. Regarding the quantum prediction, -a.b is the quantum joint prediction. It cannot be recovered in an experiment with separated measurements, and reduced density matrices must be used instead of the joint distribution. Refer to http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1153 and the Conclusion of http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5158 for a full account of this important distinction.

You cannot consider all the inequalities as equivalent, and you cannot dismiss them as impossible to violate. This is an incorrect and naive view of the true situation, and you do yourself no good by espousing it. If you want to take your case beyond mere bald assertion, then please respond to the content of my papers (http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Gr ... /0/all/0/1), rather than asking me to reproduce all my arguments here, or give me some links to your own papers. Thank you.

2. Again... of course the experiments do not violate Bell inequalities as they are impossible to violate. I believe that Joy accepts that his model matches the prediction of QM and ineed explains it in a classical local-realistic way. All the experiments do is validate that the prediction of QM is correct. Bell's theory has been dead for a long time now so really has nothing to do with this any more. Loopholes are totally gone and don't matter. Bell "tests" are a complete joke and hoax on the physics community.

As I said, I do not agree with most of this. I do agree that the Bell test program is misguided, but not for the reasons you cite. Please read my papers for the justification.

1. It is mathematically insane to think that it is possible to violate an inequality of Bell's type. If that is true then the inequality was false to start with. The CH inequality is no different and this argument by minkwe (Michel) applies equally to the CH inequality. I have read your paper that is the topic of this thread and referring to your eq. (11) we can say that the paired terms in the inequality can range from 0 to +1 and the single terms can range from 0 to +1/2. So for independent terms we could have,

+1 - 1 +1 +1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = +1 not 0.

So the actual absolute bound on the CH inequality is 1 not 0 with independent terms. If you look carefully, you will find the experiments shift to an inequality with this bound of 1 and they don't violate it.

2. It is a proven fact that Joy Christian's local-realistic model is a valid counter example to Bell's so-called "theorem". Therefore all of Bell's arguments are invalid. It is junk physics now. Yes, we know what your position is regarding the Bell "tests" and we believe it is misguided and hope to change your mind about that. And of course you are free to try to change our minds about our position. Perhaps we will all learn something new.

[Joy Christian]

2. It is a proven fact that Joy Christian's local-realistic model is a valid counter example to Bell's so-called "theorem". Therefore all of Bell's arguments are invalid.

Perhaps a couple of links to my local-realist model for the EPR-Bohm correlation may be useful here:

(1) A succinct version: https://www.academia.edu/16328957/A_sim ... orrelation

(2) A detailed version: https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macro ... fied_Proof

***

[FrediFizzx]

I have read your paper that is the topic of this thread and referring to your eq. (11) we can say that the paired terms in the inequality can range from 0 to +1 and the single terms can range from 0 to +1/2. So for independent terms we could have,

+1 - 1 +1 +1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = +1 not 0.

So the actual absolute bound on the CH inequality is 1 not 0 with independent terms. If you look carefully, you will find the experiments shift to an inequality with this bound of 1 and they don't violate it.

Oops, let me fix this as Don pointed out on pubpeer.com. It should be that we could have for the CH inequality with independent terms,

+1 -0 + 1 +1 - 1 -1 = +1 and not 0.

Or we could have,

+1 -0 + 1 + 1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = +2

Or,

+1 - 1/2 + 1 + 1 - 1/2 -1/2 = 1.5

It is well know that the probability average for single counts is 1/2 so we could have an absolute bound on the CH inequality of +2 and not +1 or 0. Some might think we could have,

+1 -0 +1 + 1 - 0 -0 = 3

but I don't think so. Comments?

[FrediFizzx]

I have read your paper that is the topic of this thread and referring to your eq. (11) we can say that the paired terms in the inequality can range from 0 to +1 and the single terms can range from 0 to +1/2. So for independent terms we could have,

+1 - 1 +1 +1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = +1 not 0.

So the actual absolute bound on the CH inequality is 1 not 0 with independent terms. If you look carefully, you will find the experiments shift to an inequality with this bound of 1 and they don't violate it.

Oops, let me fix this as Don pointed out on pubpeer.com. It should be that we could have for the CH inequality with independent terms,

+1 -0 + 1 +1 - 1 -1 = +1 and not 0.

Or we could have,

+1 -0 + 1 + 1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = +2

Or,

+1 - 1/2 + 1 + 1 - 1/2 -1/2 = 1.5

It is well know that the probability average for single counts is 1/2 so we could have an absolute bound on the CH inequality of +2 and not +1 or 0. Some might think we could have,

+1 -0 +1 + 1 - 0 -0 = 3

but I don't think so. Comments?

After some more research about this, I think the absolute bound for the CH inequality is +1.

+ 1 - (+1) + 1 + 1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = + 1 not 0

It seems like the QM prediction never gets close to +1 so I am suspecting that is the actual absolute bound for independent terms. Comparing to the absolute bound for CHSH against the QM bound for CHSH, I would expect the QM bound for CH to be sqrt 2/2.

[FrediFizzx]

Anyways, continuing on with an analysis of Graft's paper, an important objection was left out of Sect. 2. Which is summarized above. I would like to know why no one objected to this mathematical insanity that an inequality could be violated in the very beginning when Bell first put out his argument. So far all we have gotten is some very hand wavy arguments that try to justify it but fail. For that reason, this paper has to be rejected as Graft continues to follow the path than an inequality of Bell's type can actually be violated. Though Graft does make some other comments in the paper that are true so it is still worth reading. I would hope that Graft would like to defend his position here by showing us once and for all time exactly how an inequality can be violated. Without shifting to a different inequality with a higher upper bound.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is an interesting paper that confirms what I have been saying about the mathematical insanity of violating an inequality.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/433857/files/0004037.pdf
"Violating" Clauser-Horne Inequalities Within Classical Mechanics

Note that "violating" is in quotes. It also has a thought experiment somewhat like Joy's bomb experiment.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, it seems Graft doesn't want to participate here to try to defend his erroreous position but certainly is continuing his rude behavior here.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/208D05 ... 75#fb42954

Here is how I responded to his comment on pubpeer; since their moderation is so slow I will give it here.

Here is a paper that confirms what I am saying.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/433857/files/0004037.pdf
"Violating" Clauser-Horne Inequalities Within Classical Mechanics

Note eq. (3.6) and what they say in the paragraph before that equation. It is easy to see the dependency between the terms in the original CH74 paper Appendix A. And notice that in the linked paper when they adher to the dependency, the inequality is not violated.

Graft should retract his paper as he doesn't violate the CH inequality.

Fred Diether

[FrediFizzx]

Graft seems to be having trouble seeing the dependency of the terms in the CH inequality so we will try to help him out. We will show the step before eq. (4) in the CH74 paper that doesn't have an equation number. CH claims that eqs. (3) along with the theorem in Appendix A produces,

-1 ≤ p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b) - p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b') + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b) + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b') - p1(λ, a') - p2(λ, b) ≤ 0

Now, it is pretty easy to see that the first term and the second term both depend on p1(λ, a), etc. Of course when the terms are dependent like that, it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the 0 bound. And we have shown earlier by simple inspection that the independent bound is 1 not 0.

****

[Joy Christian]

Graft seems to be having trouble seeing the dependency of the terms in the CH inequality so we will try to help him out. We will show the step before eq. (4) in the CH74 paper that doesn't have an equation number. CH claims that eqs. (3) along with the theorem in Appendix A produces,

-1 ≤ p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b) - p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b') + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b) + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b') - p1(λ, a') - p2(λ, b) ≤ 0

Now, it is pretty easy to see that the first term and the second term both depend on p1(λ, a), etc. Of course when the terms are dependent like that, it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the 0 bound. And we have shown earlier by simple inspection that the independent bound is 1 not 0.

****

This paper may be of interest here: http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/1/95.abstract

It is accessible from this website: http://www.jstor.org/stable/687963?seq= ... b_contents

[FrediFizzx]

Graft seems to be having trouble seeing the dependency of the terms in the CH inequality so we will try to help him out. We will show the step before eq. (4) in the CH74 paper that doesn't have an equation number. CH claims that eqs. (3) along with the theorem in Appendix A produces,

-1 ≤ p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b) - p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b') + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b) + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b') - p1(λ, a') - p2(λ, b) ≤ 0

Now, it is pretty easy to see that the first term and the second term both depend on p1(λ, a), etc. Of course when the terms are dependent like that, it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the 0 bound. And we have shown earlier by simple inspection that the independent bound is 1 not 0.

****

This paper may be of interest here: http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/1/95.abstract

It is accessible from this website: http://www.jstor.org/stable/687963?seq= ... b_contents

Well, that paper is behind a pay wall. Please email it to me if you have it.

A big mystery here is how someone can look at the above CH equation and not logically see the dependency built into it. Then turn around and say they can violate it by using independent terms with an upper bound of 1 instead of adherring to the dependent terms with a bound of 0. When will this freakin' mathematical insanity stop?

[FrediFizzx]

Graft seems to be having trouble seeing the dependency of the terms in the CH inequality so we will try to help him out. We will show the step before eq. (4) in the CH74 paper that doesn't have an equation number. CH claims that eqs. (3) along with the theorem in Appendix A produces,

-1 ≤ p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b) - p1(λ, a)p2(λ, b') + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b) + p1(λ, a')p2(λ, b') - p1(λ, a') - p2(λ, b) ≤ 0

Now, it is pretty easy to see that the first term and the second term both depend on p1(λ, a), etc. Of course when the terms are dependent like that, it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the 0 bound. And we have shown earlier by simple inspection that the independent bound is 1 not 0.

And Graft's response to this on pubpeer is, "I'll pass over your argument as I cannot find any signal in the noise. Thanks for sharing it with me, however."

A typical Bell fan response. He doesn't see the dependency in the terms most likely because he has Bell blinders on and it will destroy his misguided program.

[FrediFizzx]

1. It is mathematically insane to think that it is possible to violate an inequality of Bell's type. If that is true then the inequality was false to start with. The CH inequality is no different and this argument by minkwe (Michel) applies equally to the CH inequality. I have read your paper that is the topic of this thread and referring to your eq. (11) we can say that the paired terms in the inequality can range from 0 to +1 and the single terms can range from 0 to +1/2. So for independent terms we could have,

+1 - 1 +1 +1 - 1/2 - 1/2 = +1 not 0.

So the actual absolute bound on the CH inequality is 1 not 0 with independent terms. If you look carefully, you will find the experiments shift to an inequality with this bound of 1 and they don't violate it.

So we need to fix this based on a new development from the CH Inequality thread. Since the CH inequality only deals with + and ++ counts, the range for all probability terms is 0 to 1/2. Plus the maximum result of the CH string for QM is about 0.207. So I believe the absolute upper bound of CH74 for independent terms is 1/2. We could have,

1/2 - 0 + 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/2 - 1/2 = 1/2

*****

[Guest]

1/2 - 0 + 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/2 - 1/2 = 1/2

Sorry to burst your bubble, but applying these constraints of 1/2 requires assuming quantum mechanics. Since the point of the inequality is to test QM, it is pointless to try to apply these constsraints. But more seriously, even under QM, the 1/2 constraint is not valid. Nonmaximal singlets can produce values below and above 1/2.

[FrediFizzx]

1/2 - 0 + 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/2 - 1/2 = 1/2

Sorry to burst your bubble, but applying these constraints of 1/2 requires assuming quantum mechanics. Since the point of the inequality is to test QM, it is pointless to try to apply these constsraints. But more seriously, even under QM, the 1/2 constraint is not valid. Nonmaximal singlets can produce values below and above 1/2.

As usual, you missed the point entirely. Take your pick. Either the absolute upper bound for independent terms is 1/2 or 1. From what you are saying it would be 1. I believe that 1/2 is the correct one.

[Guest]

I believe that 1/2 is the correct one.

And I believe that invisible pink fairies live on my left shoulder. So what?

Do you even know what a nonmaximal state is?

[FrediFizzx]

I believe that 1/2 is the correct one.

And I believe that invisible pink fairies live on my left shoulder. So what?

Do you even know what a nonmaximal state is?

Non-responsive and of course I know what a nonmaximal state is.

So what is it going to be? 1/2 or 1 for the upper bound for independent terms?

[Guest]

I agree with Clauser and Horne, as well as the entire quantum foundations community, that the bound for the CH inequality is 0.

Why don't you write up your analysis and submit it to a journal? There are many skeptical journals, so don't try to hand me the old conspiracy argument. Even arXiv or viXra would be good. Get on record with your nonsense.

[FrediFizzx]

I agree with Clauser and Horne, as well as the entire quantum foundations community, that the bound for the CH inequality is 0.

Why don't you write up your analysis and submit it to a journal? There are many skeptical journals, so don't try to hand me the old conspiracy argument. Even arXiv or viXra would be good. Get on record with your nonsense.

Oh for heaven's sake! It is 5th grade math to see what is going on with independent terms by simple inspection. Are you smarter than a 5th grader? :- ) Pretty simple to see that upper bound for independent terms is either 1/2 or 1. I choose 1/2.

Why would I need to write a paper about this? It is so freakin' simple. Wake up! Your program is misguided.

[Guest]

LOL

You're a coward, Fred. A "researcher" who is too cowardly to write a paper. If your thoughts were correct, it would revolutionize physics, but instead of trying to convince people in a rational way, you resort to ad hominems, silly childish insults, and bullying. Why do you think you are getting no traction for your views? Because they are nonsense. But your narcissism prevents you from seeing it.

Bring on the rage and insults, Fred, I expect no less.

[FrediFizzx]

Double LOL!

Again, non-responsive. Hmm... I guess Don is not smarter than a 5th grader so I speak the truth. I always try to speak the truth.