CHSH - the facts!

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:54 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:LOL, please describe the experiment that is supposed to produce those outcomes, and also present the table of QM predicted outcomes for the same experiment. Some people never learn. I doubt you understand what "probability" means.

Joy Christians exploding balls experiment is supposed to produce those outcomes. You can find a more detailed description in his papers on arXiv.

Complete nonsense.

Show me where in my paper do I make such a claim: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

Once again Heinera displays another classic characteristic of a typical Bell-believer --- that of blatantly lying without shame. Is he taking lessons from Richard D. Gill?

***
PS: Here is a simplified version of my proposed experiment: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... opExp1.pdf

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:11 pm

From your paper: "[The experiment] involves measurements of the actual spin angular momenta of two fragments of an exploding bomb rather than their normalized spin values, ±1. The latter are to be computed only after all runs of the experiment are completed, which can be executed either in the outer space or in a terrestrial laboratory."

Since the spin values are to be computed after the experiment is completed, it is of course trivial to compute values for all the A1 A2 B1 B2 in Boolean's table above. This was what minkwe requested.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby minkwe » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:15 pm

Heinera wrote:Joy Christians exploding balls experiment is supposed to produce those outcomes. You can find a more detailed description in his papers on arXiv.



Of course you are deflecting. I'm asking Boolean to describe the experiment which produces:
Code: Select all
  A1 A2 B1 B2  | P(A1,A2,B1,B2)
   +  +  +  +  |      p1
   +  +  +  -  |      p2
   +  +  -  +  |      p3
   +  +  -  -  |      p4
   +  -  +  +  |      p5
   +  -  +  -  |      p6
   +  -  -  +  |      p7
   +  -  -  -  |      p8
   -  +  +  +  |      p9
   -  +  +  -  |      p10
   -  +  -  +  |      p11
   -  +  -  -  |      p12
   -  -  +  +  |      p13
   -  -  +  -  |      p14
   -  -  -  +  |      p15
   -  -  -  -  |      p16


**And** provide the QM results table for the described experiment. That shouldn't be too hard should it, given it's been the basis of extraordinary claims for more than 50 years.
minkwe
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:35 pm

minkwe wrote:[...]

**And** provide the QM results table for the described experiment. That shouldn't be too hard should it, given it's been the basis of extraordinary claims for more than 50 years.

That is of course impossible, since only a local realist theory can fill in that table. Like Joy Christian's experiment. Problem is, he thinks that his results will also replicate the QM results at the same time.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:10 pm

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:[...]

**And** provide the QM results table for the described experiment. That shouldn't be too hard should it, given it's been the basis of extraordinary claims for more than 50 years.

That is of course impossible, since only a local realist theory can fill in that table. Like Joy Christian's experiment. Problem is, he thinks that his results will also replicate the QM results at the same time.

Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:22 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:42 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Nonsense. No one needs to reject the table for rejecting the Bell-delusion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:49 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Nonsense. No one needs to reject the table for rejecting the Bell-delusion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

***

I agree that there is no need to reject the table, but FrediFizzk seems to do so. Anyway, you can't have it both ways: You can't have an experiment that fills in the table, and at the same time expect it to replicate the QM predictions. Just ask minkwe. He understands that.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:02 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

Nonsense. No one needs to reject the table for rejecting the Bell-delusion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566

***

I agree that there is no need to reject the table, but FrediFizzk seems to do so. Anyway, you can't have it both ways: You can't have an experiment that fills in the table, and at the same time expect it to replicate the QM predictions. Just ask minkwe. He understands that.

Did you even read the thread I posted? Stop trolling and learn something for a change.

Here is another thread for you to digest: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:22 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Did you even read the thread I posted? Stop trolling and learn something for a change.

Here is another thread for you to digest: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

***

I read the thread you posted. Unfortunately, the argument provided there doesn't apply to your own experiment. In that thread you claim the impossibility of

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

but of course, in your proposed experiment it is unproblematic to compute the spins for severeal different angles for the same fragment of the ball, at the same time.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:25 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Why do you think that table is some kind of description of what is local-realistic? We reject that table since we assume that Nature is local-realistic so quantum experiments should be able to fill that table also. But they can't. So something is wrong with the table as a description of what is local and realistic.

There is no doubt that Joy Christian's experiment can fill out the table. So if you reject the table, you also reject his experiment.

NO!!!! Your logic is messed up as usual. Bell's argument is about comparing LHV models with QM models. But he fails with that. Now if Joy's mechanical singlet experiment is done and is successful, then we know for sure that table has to be rejected for all scenarios. But if the experiment is not successful, then that only tells us something about the macroscopic case and not the microscopic case. IOW, the experiment needs to be done to make sure.

But the bottom line is that if one assumes Nature to be local and realistic, then the table is to be rejected in the microscopic case since the quantum experiments thus prove that it is wrong. My bet is that it is wrong for all singlet scenarios.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:26 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Did you even read the thread I posted? Stop trolling and learn something for a change.

Here is another thread for you to digest: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&start=40#p6519

***

I read the thread you posted. Unfortunately, the argument provided there doesn't apply to your own experiment. In that thread you claim the impossibility of

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

but of course, in your proposed experiment it is unproblematic to compute the spins for severeal different angles for the same fragment of the ball, at the same time.

So what?

I think you are in need of a brain.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:47 pm

Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:13 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

For the last time but I doubt very much that it will sink in. It is impossible to compute in a quantum experiment!!!!
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:22 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

For the last time but I doubt very much that it will sink in. It is impossible to compute in a quantum experiment!!!!

But Joy Christian is not suggesting a quantum experiment. His experiment is one with exploding balls. Why bring quantum experiments into this?
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:40 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:So what?

Well, the spoon-feed version is this: The expression you claim is impossible to compute, is clearly possible to compute in your own experiment.

For the last time but I doubt very much that it will sink in. It is impossible to compute in a quantum experiment!!!!

But Joy Christian is not suggesting a quantum experiment. His experiment is one with exploding balls. Why bring quantum experiments into this?

I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:57 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with. My involvement in this thread was originally as a reply to minkwe; I register he has withdrawn from the discussion (i.e., he got the point). 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?
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:11 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with.

You are being unscientific by not even paying attention to what has been said. Go back and study the thread; you definitely need to. It is ridiculous to continue a debate when you (and others) constantly ignore what has be said previously.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:23 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with.

You are being unscientific by not even paying attention to what has been said. Go back and study the thread; you definitely need to.

For me it suffices to note that you didn't answer my question.
Heinera
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Re: CHSH - the facts!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:24 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I was right it didn't sink in at all! In one ear and out the other.

This, of course, is the unscientific reply one would expect from someone who has nothing else to come up with.

You are being unscientific by not even paying attention to what has been said. Go back and study the thread; you definitely need to.

For me it suffices to note that you didn't answer my question.

It is ridiculous to continue a debate when you (and others) constantly ignore what has be said previously.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library