Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

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

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:54 am

I think the thing Jay is working on at RW actually proves the bound on Bell-CHSH is |0|. Notice how Heine, Parrott, etc. were trying to get Jay to change it so that the averages would be something other than 0 for each of the four expectation terms. :lol:
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:46 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:I think the thing Jay is working on at RW actually proves the bound on Bell-CHSH is |0|. Notice how Heine, Parrott, etc. were trying to get Jay to change it so that the averages would be something other than 0 for each of the four expectation terms. :lol:

I am still not fully happy with Jay's latest version. But let us see what he ends up getting when he finishes his calculations.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby minkwe » Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:31 pm

In my humble opinion, the next step that needs to be taken based on my earlier datasets is to postulate “local realism.” Specifically, we postulate that all of the 4 values A, A’, B, B’ for any given slip in the “slip dataset” *actually do exist in reality*


Somebody should tell Jay that he is wasting his time, unmeasured values do not exist in reality. They are imaginary.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34

EDIT:

I see that Joy already thoroughly explained it in his last post
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:14 pm

minkwe wrote:
Jay Yablon wrote:In my humble opinion, the next step that needs to be taken based on my earlier datasets is to postulate “local realism.” Specifically, we postulate that all of the 4 values A, A’, B, B’ for any given slip in the “slip dataset” *actually do exist in reality*


Somebody should tell Jay that he is wasting his time, unmeasured values do not exist in reality. They are imaginary.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34

EDIT:

I see that Joy already thoroughly explained it in his last post

Thank you, Michel. Let me reproduce my post on Retraction Watch you mention (it is self-explanatory even without knowing anything about Jay's analysis):

Joy Christian wrote:
I have had some time to reflect on Jay’s latest installment and now I know what is wrong with it. The definition of realism he has implicitly used — which is essentially the one assumed by the followers of Bell — is unjustifiably more restrictive than the one envisaged by Einstein.

Let me try to bring out what is wrong with it as transparently as I can. To this end, let me write the CHSH string of expectation values in the following form:

Int_K A B rho(k) dk + Int_K A B’ rho(k) dk + Int_K A’ B rho(k) dk – Int_K A’ B’ rho(k) dk . … (1)

This expression is both mathematically and physically equivalent to the expression

Int_K { A( B + B’ ) + A'( B – B’ ) } rho(k) dk , …………………. (2)

where Int_K stands for an integration over the space K of the hidden variables k.

Since the above two integral expressions are identical to each other, there is no loss of generality if we use the second expression to bring out the unjustified assumption in Jay’s definition of realism (which, as I have stressed, is essentially that of the followers of Bell).

To begin with, the second expression, equation (2), involves an integration over fictitious quantities like A( B + B’ ) and A'( B – B’ ). These quantities are not parts of the space of all possible measurement outcomes A, A’, B, B’, etc., because that space is not closed under addition. This is analogous to the fact that the set D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} of all possible outcomes of a die throw is not closed under addition. 3+6, for example, is not a part of D.

But there is also a much more serious physical problem with the definition of realism assumed by Jay. As I have stressed before, the quantity A( B + B’ ) does not represent any meaningful element of any possible physical world, classical or quantum. This is because B and B’ can coexist with A only counterfactually. If B coexists with A, then B’ cannot coexist with A, and vice versa. But in his analysis Jay implicitly assumes that B and B’ can both coexist with A simultaneously. This would be analogous to my being in New York and Miami at exactly the same time. But no reasonable definition of realism can justify such an unphysical demand. The notion of realism envisaged by Einstein most certainly does not demand any such thing.

Finally, note that Jay does not have to actually use expression (2) in his analysis for it to be wrong. He can restrict his analysis to expression (1) only and it would still be wrong, because, as noted, (1) and (2) are both mathematically and physically identical.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Dirkman » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:16 pm

The topic on retractionwatch seems to have almost 500 comments, I wonder if it is the most discussed topic ever on retractionwatch.
Dirkman
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:39 pm

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:37 am

Dirkman wrote:The topic on retractionwatch seems to have almost 500 comments, I wonder if it is the most discussed topic ever on retractionwatch.

I bet it is!

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby minkwe » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Dirkman wrote:The topic on retractionwatch seems to have almost 500 comments, I wonder if it is the most discussed topic ever on retractionwatch.

I bet it is!

***

Hopefully, after your excellent explanation, it is becoming obvious to a few of the participants that there is a difference between doing mathematics, and doing physics. They think because they can measure <AB>, <AB'>, <A'B> and <A'B'> independently in physically meaningfully ways, they assume it is okay to add them up and ascribe any kind of physical meaning to the sum.

50+ years lost because of such trivial errors.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:06 pm

minkwe wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Dirkman wrote:The topic on retractionwatch seems to have almost 500 comments, I wonder if it is the most discussed topic ever on retractionwatch.

I bet it is!

***

Hopefully, after your excellent explanation, it is becoming obvious to a few of the participants that there is a difference between doing mathematics, and doing physics. They think because they can measure <AB>, <AB'>, <A'B> and <A'B'> independently in physically meaningfully ways, they assume it is okay to add them up and ascribe any kind of physical meaning to the sum.

50+ years lost because of such trivial errors.

Yes, one can hope but you know that the hard core Bell fanatics will never accept any rational explanation of why Bell was wrong. The only real way to change their minds would be to do the mechanical singlet experiment and have it be successful.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby minkwe » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:08 pm

Fred, I'm reminded of Bell's own attack of Von Neumann:

http://www.mugur-schachter.net/docsuplo ... s_doc2.pdf

Consider now the proof of von Neumann that dispersion free states, and so hidden variables, are impossible. His essential assumption is: Any real linear combination of any two Hermitian operators represents an observable, and the same linear combination of expectation values is the expectation value of the combination. This is true for quantum mechanical states; it is required by von Neumann of the hypothetical dispersion free states also. In the two-dimensional example of Sec. 11, the expectation value must then be a linear function of α and β. But for a dispersion free state (which has no statistical character) the expectation value of an observable must equal one of its eigenvalues. The eigenvalues (2) are certainly not linear in β. Therefore, dispersion free states are impossible. If the state space has more dimensions, we can always consider a two-dimensional subspace; therefore, the demonstration is quite general.

The essential assumption can be criticized as follows. At first sight the required additivity of expectation values seems very reasonable, and it is rather the nonadditivity of allowed values (eigenvalues) which requires explanation. Of course the explanation is well known: A measurement of a sum of noncommuting observables cannot be made by combining trivially the results of separate observations on the two terms -- it requires a quite distinct experiment. For example the measurement of σx, for a magnetic particle might be made with a suitably oriented Stern Gerlach magnet. The measurement of σy, would require a different orientation, and of (σx+σy) a third and different orientation. But this explanation of the nonadditivity of allowed values also establishes the nontriviality of the additivity of expectation values. The latter is a quite peculiar property of quantum mechanical states, not to be expected a priori. There is no reason to demand it individually of the hypothetical dispersion free states, whose function it is to reproduce the measurable peculiarities of quantum mechanics when averaged over. Thus the formal proof of von Neumann does not justify his informal conclusion: "...". It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made. ... The danger in fact was not in the explicit but in the implicit assumptions. It was tacitly assumed that measurement of an observable must yield the same value independently of what other measurements may be made simultaneously. Thus as well as P(ϕ3) say, one might measure either P(ϕ2) or P(ψ2), where and ϕ2 and ψ2 are orthogonal to ϕ3 but not to one another. These different possibilities require different experimental arrangements; there is no a priori reason to believe that the results for P(ϕ3) should be the same. The result of an observation may reasonably depend not only on the state of the system (including hidden variables) but also on the complete disposition of the apparatus;



Bell interview in Omni magazine wrote:Bell:Then in 1932 [mathematician] John von Neumann gave a “rigorous” mathematical proof stating that you couldn’t find a nonstatistical theory that would give the same predictions as quantum
mechanics. That von Neumann proof in itself is one that must someday be the subject of a Ph.D. thesis for a history student. Its reception was quite remarkable. The literature is full of respectable
references to “the brilliant proof of von Neumann;” but I do not believe it could have been read at that time by more than two or three people.
Omni: Why is that?
Bell: The physicists didn’t want to be bothered with the idea that maybe quantum theory is only provisional. A horn of plenty had been spilled before them, and every physicist could find something to apply quantum mechanics to. They were pleased to think that this great mathematician had shown it was so. Yet the Von Neumann proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish.


Bell dug a grave for von Neumann, then turned around and burried himself in it, and you have a long like of sheeple lining up to join him in the grave. (Note the distinction Bell makes between mathematical and physical arguments).
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:28 am

minkwe wrote:
Bell: The physicists didn’t want to be bothered with the idea that maybe quantum theory is only provisional. A horn of plenty had been spilled before them, and every physicist could find something to apply quantum mechanics to. They were pleased to think that this great mathematician had shown it was so. Yet the von Neumann proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of von Neumann is not merely false but foolish.

Bell dug a grave for von Neumann, then turned around and buried himself in it, and you have a long line of sheeple lining up to join him in the grave. (Note the distinction Bell makes between mathematical and physical arguments).

We are in a far worse situation than in the case of von Neumann's theorem. Let alone mathematicians, in the case of Bell's theorem physicists have allowed themselves to be misguided by an aggressive and persistent statistician who is willing to stoop to any level of academic thuggery to maintain his fanatic beliefs in the "theorem.":

Richard Gill wrote:
Einstein’s local realism demands that A(a), A(a’), B(b) and B(b’) simultaneously exist as elements of reality. Hence A(a)*{ B(b) + B(b’ ) } + A(a’ )*{ B(b) – B(b’ ) } exists.

But by no means, as Bell would say. A(a)*{ B(b) + B(b’ ) } + A(a’ )*{ B(b) – B(b’ ) } simply does not exist even if A(a), A(a’), B(b) and B(b’) exist as elements of reality.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:56 pm

Joy Christian wrote:We are in a far worse situation than in the case of von Neumann's theorem. Let alone mathematicians, in the case of Bell's theorem physicists have allowed themselves to be misguided by an aggressive and persistent statistician who is willing to stoop to any level of academic thuggery to maintain his fanatic beliefs in the "theorem.":

Richard Gill wrote:
Einstein’s local realism demands that A(a), A(a’), B(b) and B(b’) simultaneously exist as elements of reality. Hence A(a)*{ B(b) + B(b’ ) } + A(a’ )*{ B(b) – B(b’ ) } exists.

But by no means, as Bell would say. A(a)*{ B(b) + B(b’ ) } + A(a’ )*{ B(b) – B(b’ ) } simply does not exist even if A(a), A(a’), B(b) and B(b’) exist as elements of reality.

***

I think Jay finally "gets it" over at RW. As far as the realism part goes. The key was "certain elements" as opposed to "probabilistic elements". The inequalities have nothing to say about realism because the postulate has been abandoned. And that is exactly true due to the very nature of the EPR-Bohm scenario. It can't test for realism at all. Now as for the locality postulate, one could argue that since the factorization has nothing to do with reality then the inequalities can't really say anything about locality either. But perhaps that argument might be a bit weak. It is easiest to shoot down Bell's theory totally by showing that neither the experiments nor QM have ever violated any of the inequalities. I challenge anyone and everyone to prove that Jay's eq. (6) in,

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... gument.pdf

could ever be true. It is the same big mistake that Gill made in his paper. It is complete mathematical nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:04 am

I can imagine there will be a flurry of objections to what Jay has posted on RW tomorrow. Time to shift gears... get them to try to prove that Jay's eq. (6) could be true. LOL!
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby minkwe » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:25 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:I can imagine there will be a flurry of objections to what Jay has posted on RW tomorrow. Time to shift gears... get them to try to prove that Jay's eq. (6) could be true. LOL!


That's always the thing with expressions like equation (6). At least Jay added the wrong subscripts, most people leave them out. That is the single most fatal obstacle to unraveling the error.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby minkwe » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:07 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:I can imagine there will be a flurry of objections to what Jay has posted on RW tomorrow. Time to shift gears... get them to try to prove that Jay's eq. (6) could be true. LOL!



Fred/Joy,
I was thinking about the expression E(a,b) + E(a,b') + E(a',b) - E(a',b')

Is E(a,b) a function? Then what is its domain?

Get my drift?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:22 pm

***
I have revised my "Reply to Gill" paper, adding the following three paragraphs on the last page: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393:

Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:40 pm

***
I have produced a self-contained 3-page document that summarizes my argument against Bell’s theorem, quite independently of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlations. The first two pages of this document (linked below) are the same as Appendix D mentioned above. The last page is new, and it summarizes what I have been arguing in recent posts --- but its content too is quite similar to what is reproduced above.

The upshot of my argument in this paper is that Bell badly blundered in implementing the EPR criterion of reality while attempting to prove his theorem against local realism. The sad consequence of his blunder is the fact that the much discussed bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator are simply mathematical curiosities. They have no relevance for the question of local realism: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby ajw » Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:23 pm

The CSHS derivation might be wrong (I am not arguing that) but there are many simulations that tried to beat the 2 limit, and only succeeded when leaving a part of the data out of the result set. How does this relate to this discussion, am I missing something?
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:04 pm

ajw wrote:The CSHS derivation might be wrong (I am not arguing that) but there are many simulations that tried to beat the 2 limit, and only succeeded when leaving a part of the data out of the result set. How does this relate to this discussion, am I missing something?

The simulations don't try to beat the CHSH limits. They try to get the negative cosine curve. Even if they get the negative cosine curve by excluding data, they still don't ever beat the CHSH bound of |2|. That is because there is dependency between the 4 expectation terms of CHSH. If the four expectation terms are completely independent, then the bound is |4| trivially. As exposed by the long discussion at Retraction Watch, Bell messed up when he did his factorization to prove the inequality and then tried to claim it had something to do with realism when it abandons realism. Just goes to show you that you have to be careful when applying math to physical reality.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby ajw » Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:00 am

They do try to get the negative cos, but then they often give the CSHS as a measure of their success. Like in Adenier https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306045v6.pdf or De Raedt http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/pdf/COMPHY3339.pdf. My original reference simulation was based on the latter.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Bell Imposed -0 and +0 Bounds on the CHSH Correlator

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:14 am

ajw wrote:They do try to get the negative cos, but then they often give the CSHS as a measure of their success. Like in Adenier https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306045v6.pdf or De Raedt http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/pdf/COMPHY3339.pdf. My original reference simulation was based on the latter.

Sure, if you can get the negative cosine curve then you have reproduced the predictions of QM and "seems" that you have violated CHSH. But the point is that no such thing has ever happened because you have switched to a different inequality with a bound of |4| instead of |2| for the "supposed" violation.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 92 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library