On the Fatal Mistake Made by John S. Bell in his theorem

[Joy Christian]

Isn't there a contradiction between (1.) "it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of Bell's inequalities" and (2.) "it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated even in such a manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as they are in the microscopic domain"? Isn't that eating your cake and having it too?

I'm not exactly sure what you are quoting for (2) since no links. Unfortunately the language is inappropriate in (2). It is just part of the 50 years of brainwashing. Bell inequalities are never violated as shown why previously in this thread. IOW, exceeding the Bell-CHSH bound of 2 is not really a "violation" since a different inequality other than a Bell inequality is really being used. But saying it is a violation just means in the same way that say QM exceeds the 2 bound.

Fred, "parnassos2001" is quoting for (2) from the abstract of my paper I have just linked above. The language is indeed inappropriate in (2), but it is now the accepted language for the past 50 years, so it is inevitable to use it in any formal paper. It is like saying "gauge transformation" when we all know that what one means by that is "phase transformation." As you say, the correct wording should have been "apparently violated", or better still "exceeds the bound of 2."

***

[parnassos2001]

Actually a violation would be one of mathematical logic, not merely of mathematics per se: my understanding has long been that Bell's inequalities are a repurposing (knowingly or not) of George Boole's "Conditions of Possible Experience". And as such they must must be inviolable in our own experiential world, otherwise quondam existence would resemble that of the microworld as portrayed by proponents of nonlocal action and antirealism: you measure A, then measure B, then re-measure A and find it to be changed by the act of measuring B, for example.

One concludes that Bell must have deviated somehow from Boole, and that his inequalities are not true derivations (intentional or not) from COPE as Pitowsky and others have maintained they are. It'd relieve mental stress to know exactly where the fork in that road lies.

[Gordon Watson]

Re: Impossibility of Bell Violations

Couldn't gedanken experiments employing macroscopic isomorphisms count as violations? I'm thinking specifically of Diederik Aerts' series of those ... e.g., the twin vessels connected by a tube on pp 4-5, which might be seen as obviating the orthodox quantum-classical distinction:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007044 ("The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld")

To answer your question; no. When they say "macroscopic violation" they mean it in the same sense that everyone says that QM "violates" the Bell inequality. When in reality, no such thing has ever happened. I will say it again; it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of the Bell inequalities! People like in the paper you linked just continue to propagate the myth that violation is possible when it isn't. I suspect it is just due to years of being subject to what like guest1202 keeps proposing. Totally brainwashed without truly realizing what is actually going on.

Proposed Macroscopic Test of the Physical Relevance of Bell’s Theorem
Joy Christian∗Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, 15 Thackley End, Oxford OX2 6LB, United Kingdom
A macroscopic experiment capable of detecting a signature of spinorial sign changes is discussed. If realized, it would determine whether Bell inequalities are satisfied for a manifestly local, classical system. By providing an explicitly local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm type spin correlations, it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated even in such a manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as strongly as they are [VIOLATED] in the microscopic domain. The proposed experiment has the potential to transform our understanding of the relationship between classical and quantum physics. [My emphasis and edit.]

Fred, Joy,

I thank parnassos2001 and rest my case. It being understood that "VIOLATED"* means "exceeds the bound of 2".

• CP violation in particle physics: a violation of the postulated CP-symmetry
• Lorentz violation: a violation of Lorentz symmetry
• +++

Gordon

[Joy Christian]

I thank parnassos2001 and rest my case.

Gordon,

I am not sure what your case was.

***

[FrediFizzx]

I thank parnassos2001 and rest my case.

Gordon,

I am not sure what your case was.

***

Sheesh Joy, don't get him started again.

Gordon, you should read the whole thread. You will see that it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any Bell inequality. It is sloppy language to use the term "violated" for anything that exceeds the bounds of a Bell inequality for the simple reason that they are not using that Bell inequality.

[FrediFizzx]

Now there is another mistake Bell made that Joy has stressed before. However it is a bit more subtle than the one exposed in this thread concerning the derivation of the inequalities. And Bell, to his credit, probably didn't realize the consequence of how he set up his "rules" for local hidden variable models. His resulting model is locked into . In other words, if you have an LHV model like Joy's that behavior is a postulate of the model, there is no way to get that into Bell's model because is not a hidden variable so to speak. So Bell basically locked out a whole range of LHV models for consideration by his particular formulation. A pretty big mistake. Fortunately, Joy found a way around that problem.

[Joy Christian]

Now there is another mistake Bell made that Joy has stressed before. However it is a bit more subtle than the one exposed in this thread concerning the derivation of the inequalities. And Bell, to his credit, probably didn't realize the consequence of how he set up his "rules" for local hidden variable models. His resulting model is locked into . In other words, if you have an LHV model like Joy's that behavior is a postulate of the model, there is no way to get that into Bell's model because is not a hidden variable so to speak. So Bell basically locked out a whole range of LHV models for consideration by his particular formulation. A pretty big mistake. Fortunately, Joy found a way around that problem.

Indeed, Fred.

Bell's so-called theorem is based on at least two major mistakes. One of them I have discussed here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf

This surprising mistake of Bell, a quite simple one to understand, is already discussed by us above in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

A more subtle mistake by Bell has to do with the wrong choice he made for the co-domain of his measurement functions, as explained on this page of my blog:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/d ... orem-book/ (cf. the issue of S^3 versus R^3).

Despite these blatant mistakes, and despite the existence of explicit local-realistic models for the quantum correlations (such as this one), some Bell devotees continue to believe in his by now comprehensively debunked "theorem."

Now I see that you, Fred, are engaged in a fruitless discussion with Richard D. Gill and the host Ilja Schmelzer about Bell's mistakes elsewhere on the Internet.

But if I were you I would watch the following hilarious video instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwyXV6zv7CU

[FrediFizzx]

Now I see that you, Fred, are engaged in a fruitless discussion with Richard D. Gill and the host Ilja Schmelzer about Bell's mistakes elsewhere on the Internet.

For the video. Well... it keeps my chops up for further debating so not entirely fruitless.

[luca valeri]

Hi guest1202

I appreciated your posts. Basically you are saying, that if p(A,B), p(A',B) etc. are true marginals, then Bell inequality holds.
Joy is arguing, that for non-compatible measurements a and a', the underlying probability distribution does not exists (Mickey Mouse),
since incompatible properties can never be measured or observed. That brings him away of what traditionally is seen as a realist position and brings him nearer to a positivist or instrumentalists or if you wish Copenhagen interpretation . I don't think he is inclined to go down that road.
Anyhow thanks for your posts.

Luca

PS: Personally I am recently inclined to go down that road to see, where it brings me.

PS2: Aerts has nice example of what De Ronde calls epistemic incompatibility: a piece of wood has the properties of being burnable or floatable.
Both properties cannot be measured simultaneously, but clearly they exist simultaneously and are not ontic incompatible. If we would break it in half and bring it into to different places and do the 4 different measurements (assuming that there is also wood that is not burnable and not floatable - to have the possibility for having different outcomes), Bell inequality would hold.

PS3: I also spent far to much time on this forum (topic) and will stop to post for a while and will go down that road for a while ...

[FrediFizzx]

Hi guest1202

I appreciated your posts. Basically you are saying, that if p(A,B), p(A',B) etc. are true marginals, then Bell inequality holds.
Joy is arguing, that for non-compatible measurements a and a', the underlying probability distribution does not exists (Mickey Mouse),
since incompatible properties can never be measured or observed. That brings him away of what traditionally is seen as a realist position and brings him nearer to a positivist or instrumentalists or if you wish Copenhagen interpretation

What is not realistic about a and a' never being able to be measured at the same time? Sure, a deterministic theory can in principle predict the outcomes for a and a' but that does nothing to alleviate the fact that the outcomes can't ever be measured at the same time. So CHSH is just plain nonsense since it depends on them being measured at the same time.

[Joy Christian]

Joy is arguing, that for non-compatible measurements a and a', the underlying probability distribution does not exists (Mickey Mouse), since incompatible properties can never be measured or observed. That brings him away of what traditionally is seen as a realist position and brings him nearer to a positivist or instrumentalists or if you wish Copenhagen interpretation.

What a complete load of nonsense! Where on earth does one see "non-reality" in this explicit, event-by-event, local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation.



The main point of my comments in this post is the following:

The four possible experiments that have anything to do with physics are described by

E(a, b) = << A(t)B(t) >> ,

E(a, b') = << A(t)B'(t) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A'(t)B(t) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A'(t)B'(t) >> .

But the Bell believers derive their inequalities by discarding the above four possible experiments altogether and replacing them by a completely different, physically entirely fictitious experiment described by

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>.

How dumb does one have to be to fall for such a blatant con?

***

[luca valeri]

Joy,

Ok I give it one last shot. Did you try to understand, what I was saying? Trying gives the bases for a real discussion.
I think you are right with:

The main point of my comments in this post is the following:

The four possible experiments that have anything to do with physics are described by

E(a, b) = << A(t)B(t) >> ,

E(a, b') = << A(t)B'(t) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A'(t)B(t) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A'(t)B'(t) >> .

But the Bell believers derive their inequalities by discarding the above four possible experiments altogether and replacing them by a completely different, physically entirely fictitious experiment described by

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>.

And with

He or she replaces the sum of four separate averages

E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b' )

with a single average of an un-observable, and hence un-physical quantity (a Mickey Mouse)

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>.

I really belief this is true. Only observable quantities are physical. I believe that since momentum and location are not jointly measurable, that there is no physical sense to say, that a particle has momentum and location as joint attributes. But I am not a realist!
But here the work/trouble starts. We need to be able to convince realistic physicists like Einstein and Bell(!) that we can build from observations meaningful concepts, that we can explain what observations/measurement are and how they happen. We have to explain how the big unity in physics is possible from concepts derived from observation. This hasn't been convincingly done yet by anyone.

Ciao
Luca

[Joy Christian]

But I am not a realist!

I am not interested in your philosophical position.

You made a completely nonsensical claim about my position, which is exactly the same as that of Einstein.

There already exists a manifestly local-realistic derivation of all conceivable quantum correlations in the form of a comprehensive theorem.

Therefore I do not need to convince Einstein of anything, let alone of some incoherent anti-realist nonsense you are promoting.

To fully understand our local-realistic research program you are welcome to visit the Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Bell's theorem |Mickey Mouse| 2 :

The mistake made by Bell and his followers is so absurd and so elementary that I want to bring it out once again, if only to reiterate what I have already said before:

The comments made by Luca Valeri above concern Realism, so let me concentrate on his claim that somehow I have moved closer to compromising Realism.

Let me explain my objection to Bell's absurd argument with the following homely example so that everyone can see the stupidity (yes, stupidity) of the Bell believers:

Let me first define some objects and possible events that I hope everyone will agree are manifestly real (i.e., they do not compromise Local Realism in anyway):

(1) New York City a manifestly Real place.

(2) Los Angeles a manifestly Real place.

(3) Me (Joy Christian) a manifestly Real person [although some may doubt this claim, we will ignore their cynicism].

(4) I can be in the New York City on Friday the 1st of July 2016, at 1:00 PM a manifestly possible, Real event.

(5) I can be in Los Angeles on Monday the 4th of July 2016, at 1:00 PM a manifestly possible, Real event.

(6) I can be in the New York City AND in Los Angeles on Friday the 1st of July 2016, at 1:00 PM an impossibility, in any possible world (a Mickey Mouse).

But the last impossibility is precisely what is being considered by Bell and his followers when they consider the average of impossible events such as

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>

to prove their absurd inequalities. These events simply cannot occur in any possible, or even conceivable world. They are absurdities, like the item (6) above.

Consequently, anything derived from considering such absurdities, such as the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH-type inequality, is also equally absurd. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of Realism, or locality, or causality, or physics in general. Only exceedingly stupid individuals would claim otherwise.

On the other hand, note that it is perfectly legitimate to make a counterfactual statement like:

(7) I can be in the New York City OR in Los Angeles on Friday the 1st of July 2016, at 1:00 PM a manifestly possible, Real event.

But if the Bell believers replace AND with OR in this manner, then the upper bound on their Bell-CHSH inequality is 4, not 2, defeating them in their own game!

They obviously do not want you to recognise this, so they lie, cheat, obfuscate, and resort to other academic thuggeries: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&p=5995#p5995.

***