CHSH - the facts!

[Heinera]

"Clearly, your argument against Bell's theorem is incorrect (argument saying that it is impossible to fill in the 4xN table with experimental values), given the experiment that Joy Christian proposes, where this clearly is possible. So for the last time, will CHSH < 2 hold in Joy Christian's experiment, for which it is trivial to fill in the 4xN table?"

Is a simple yes/no answer to this question really so hard?

[FrediFizzx]

Folks, see the dishonesty we have to put up with constantly with Bell fanatics. Heine's question has already been answered but he is just going to keep asking it anyways over and over and over. I can't believe he is not really paying attention so it just has to be dishonesty.

[Joy Christian]

***
We have tired to explain in this forum many times the confusion the Bell-believers are having. Let me try to explain their confusion once again.

Let me stick to my proposed, classical, macroscopic experiment so hopefully there will be no confusion: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... opExp1.pdf

The four EPR-Bohm type classical experiments that are physically meaningful can be described by the four separate averages

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

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

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

and

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

where A and B are equal to +1 or -1.

The corresponding CHSH-correlator is then bounded by 4 (or 2\/2 if you do not neglect the crucial geometrical and topological properties of the physical space):

- 4 < E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) < + 4 ....................... (1)

But Bell-believers derive their inequalities (or the bound of 2) by discarding the above four actual experiments altogether and replacing them with a completely different, physically entirely meaningless experiment described by the single average

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(a)B(b) + A(a)B(b' ) + A(a' )B(b) - A(a' )B(b' ) >> ........................ (2)

Note that this single average has nothing whatsoever to do with the EPR-Bohm experiment. In fact, it does not pertain to any physically possible experiment at all.

Now it is easy to work out that the bound on the above single average is 2 (see, for example, this derivation http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf).

But as we have repeatedly stressed, the single average (2) has nothing to do with any physics or with experiment, even if it is mathematically possible to compute.

Now why is this so hard to understand? The single average E( a, b, a', b' ) is physically not the same thing as the sum of averages E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ).

***

[FrediFizzx]

***
We have tired to explain in this forum many times the confusion the Bell-believers are having. Let me try to explain their confusion once again.

Let me stick to my proposed, classical, macroscopic experiment so hopefully there will be no confusion: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... opExp1.pdf

The four EPR-Bohm type classical experiments that are physically meaningful can be described by the four separate averages

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

***

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> is the only thing we really have to be concerned about as Bell-CHSH with its bound of 2 is a rigged game. If that produces -a.b or close to it, then nothing else matters.

[Joy Christian]

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> is the only thing we really have to be concerned about as Bell-CHSH with its bound of 2 is a rigged game. If that produces -a.b or close to it, then nothing else matters.

Indeed. E(a, b) = -a.b is the only local-realistic physics that matters. The whole idea of inequalities and bounds is just smoke and mirrors, made up by Bell-believers.

The concepts of locality and realism are already rigorously encapsulated by Bell in his definitions of A(a, r) and B(b, r) themselves, where r is the shared randomness.

***