Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:02 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
The following is my latest response to L.J. at Retraction Watch:

All any local-realistic model of the singlet state is required to produce are the correlations

E(a, b) = (1/N) Sum_k { A(a; h_k) B(b; h_k) } = -cosine(a, b)

using the local functions A(a; h_k) and B(b; h_k) defined in eq. (1) of Bell’s 1964 paper.

Nothing else is either required by the known experimental facts or demanded by realism.


***


Thanks Joy,

I like this (very much) and would be happy to learn of any objections or improvements ...

… though I prefer the notation E(AB) since the expectation is over the conjunction of the outcomes A and B.

PS: The respective detector-settings (a, b -- 'reasonable' unit-vectors in 3-space) are already included in the respective definitions of A and B (each of which -- per Bell -- can take only ±1 as values).

Gordon

The singlet correlations are not functions of A, B, or AB. They are functions only of a and b. Therefore the notation E(AB) is incorrect. The correct notation is E(a, b).

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:23 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
The following is my latest response to L.J. at Retraction Watch:

All any local-realistic model of the singlet state is required to produce are the correlations

E(a, b) = (1/N) Sum_k { A(a; h_k) B(b; h_k) } = -cosine(a, b)

using the local functions A(a; h_k) and B(b; h_k) defined in eq. (1) of Bell’s 1964 paper.

Nothing else is either required by the known experimental facts or demanded by realism.


***


Thanks Joy,

I like this (very much) and would be happy to learn of any objections or improvements ...

… though I prefer the notation E(AB) since the expectation is over the conjunction of the outcomes A and B.

PS: The respective detector-settings (a, b -- 'reasonable' unit-vectors in 3-space) are already included in the respective definitions of A and B (each of which -- per Bell -- can take only ±1 as values).

Gordon

The singlet correlations are not functions of A, B, or AB. They are functions only of a and b. Therefore the notation E(AB) is incorrect. The correct notation is E(a, b).

***


OK; so herewith suggested improvement to your original wording:

Bell (1964) defines P(a,b) as the expectation of the product AB (A and B being discrete RVs).

Modern usage defines E(AB) = (1/N) Sum_k { A(a; h_k) B(b; h_k) } as the expectation of the product AB when A and B are discrete RVs.

So can we agree to use the modern ρ(ΑΒ) for their correlation and define it accordingly?

NB: ρ(ΑΒ) will still be written in terms of A and B without any reference to a and b.

Reference: Rosen (2000), "Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics".

.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:33 am

***
Gordon,

I reject your suggested notation. Recall that singlet correlations are E(a, b) = -a.b, which is a function only of (a, b). Therefore, let me reiterate what I wrote above:

The singlet correlations are not functions of A, B, or AB. They are functions only of a and b. Therefore the notation E(AB) is incorrect. The correct notation is E(a, b).

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:58 am

***
The following image is from the last page of my very first paper on Bell's theorem, written way back in 2007: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179.

Image

Here the standard scores A(a), A(a'), B(b) and B(b') in eq. (22) are all bivectors, so they are non-commuting numbers. In fact, their commutators in eq. (23) are + or -2 in value, with the product of the two commutators being 2 x 2 = 4. The non-vanishing of the commutator [A(a), A(a')] means that in practice A(a) and A(a') cannot be measured simultaneously. They are only counterfactually possible standardized measurement outcomes along a and a'. And likewise for the commutator [B(b), B(b')].

More precisely, Alice's results A(a) and A(a’) commute with the space-like separated results B(b) and B(b’) of Bob, but A(a) does not commute with A(a’), nor does B(b) with B(b’). Which shows that measurements by the same detector along different vectors such as a and a' are only counterfactually possible. If the standard scores did commute and the commutators did vanish, then the function F in eq. (23) would reduce to |2|, giving the upper bounds of |2| on the CHSH correlator. But since they do not commute, the value of F is 2\/2, giving the quantum mechanical bounds on the CHSH correlator (quantum mechanics without quantum mechanics, if you like).

But now compare the above eqs. (22) and (23) with the eqs. (A.4) and (A.5) below from the Appendix of my latest paper. The difference is that now A(a), A(a'), B(b) and B(b') are all scalar numbers, +/-1, and therefore they all commute with each other. In that case my argument below shows that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming locality, if we continue to take into account the fact that Alice cannot measure A(a) and A(a') simultaneously, and nor can Bob measure B(b) and B(b') simultaneously. But of course they can measure any of the space-like separated results A(a) and B(b), or B(b') simultaneously.

Image
Image

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:24 am

This is probably the best argument against Bell's theory (it is now just a theory since as a theorem it has been disproven). And it also highlights the false claim that QM "violates" Bell-CHSH when in fact that it can't.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Dec 27, 2016 5:48 am

FrediFizzx wrote:This is probably the best argument against Bell's theory (it is now just a theory since as a theorem it has been disproven). And it also highlights the false claim that QM "violates" Bell-CHSH when in fact that it can't.

I have posted my paper linked above with the following comments in a closed quantum information forum full of Bell fanatics (almost all members of the forum are):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/qinfo.s ... 234060338/

There were usual keen-jerk reactions. People are completely brainwashed and immediately resort to insults, and jump to defend Bell and his grossly flawed argument.

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:27 pm

***
I have now published the paper on the physics arXiv. It refutes the often made claim (for example, by the editors of Annals of Physics) that “violation of local realism has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments…”:

The Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876 .

Its Abstract: “Bell inequalities are usually derived by assuming locality and realism, and therefore violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality are usually taken to imply violations of either locality or realism, or both. But, after reviewing an oversight by Bell, in the Corollary below we derive the Bell-CHSH inequality by assuming only that Bob can measure along vectors b and b’ simultaneously while Alice measures along either a or a’, and likewise Alice can measure along vectors a and a’ simultaneously while Bob measures along either b or b’, without assuming locality. The violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality therefore only mean impossibility of measuring along b and b’ (or along a and a’) simultaneously.”

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:59 pm

***

The bottom line: "violations" of the Bell-CHSH inequality simply confirm the obvious. They simply confirm the impossibility of measuring along directions b and b′ (or along directions a and a′ ) simultaneously; nothing else.

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:19 pm

***
The following is my response to someone who sent me an email about this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

Joy Christian wrote:
Thank you for your message and for the list of references. Yes, I am aware of the fact that many people in the past have derived Bell inequalities from different assumptions. But I do not believe anyone has derived them before using the assumption I have used in the last part of my paper. The focus in my paper is not so much on not having to assume locality etc., but on bringing out the unphysical nature of the assumptions that any possible derivation of Bell inequalities must use. My argument is that if we assume something unphysical (as we must) to derive the inequalities, then no wonder they are not respected in experiments. My claim is that violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality only confirm the obvious. They simply confirm the impossibility of measuring along directions b and b’ (or along directions a and a’) simultaneously. In my opinion Bell inequalities are worthless as far as the future course of physics is concerned. I have explained this point of view in greater detail in some of the references in my paper. I recommend especially this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:22 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
The following is my response to someone who sent me an email about this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

Joy Christian wrote:
Thank you for your message and for the list of references. Yes, I am aware of the fact that many people in the past have derived Bell inequalities from different assumptions. But I do not believe anyone has derived them before using the assumption I have used in the last part of my paper. The focus in my paper is not so much on not having to assume locality etc., but on bringing out the unphysical nature of the assumptions that any possible derivation of Bell inequalities must use. My argument is that if we assume something unphysical (as we must) to derive the inequalities, then no wonder they are not respected in experiments. My claim is that violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality only confirm the obvious. They simply confirm the impossibility of measuring along directions b and b’ (or along directions a and a’) simultaneously. In my opinion Bell inequalities are worthless as far as the future course of physics is concerned. I have explained this point of view in greater detail in some of the references in my paper. I recommend especially this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

***

Of course the Bell fanatics will argue until you are blue in the face that it doesn't matter if they are unphysical since in principle a realistic theory should be able to predict the outcomes from those quantities even if they aren't measured. They don't seem to care that it is impossible to experimentally test. The real bottom line is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the Bell inequalities. QM and the experiments simply shift to a different inequality (with a higher bound) other than Bell's. It is quite amazing that so many people are tricked by that.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:07 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Of course the Bell fanatics will argue until you are blue in the face that it doesn't matter if they are unphysical since in principle a realistic theory should be able to predict the outcomes from those quantities even if they aren't measured. They don't seem to care that it is impossible to experimentally test. The real bottom line is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the Bell inequalities. QM and the experiments simply shift to a different inequality (with a higher bound) other than Bell's. It is quite amazing that so many people are tricked by that.

Bell and his followers claim that, since they derive the inequality as a part of a "proof by contradiction", their unphysical assumption (i.e., "the results with various analyzer settings are real at the same time, even though those analyzer settings are mutually exclusive") does not invalidate their result.

My response to this is that if they put garbage in, then they are only going to get garbage out. To put it mildly, their criterion of reality is much stronger compared to that of EPR. Bell and his followers unwittingly smuggle-in a much stronger and unphysical rendition of the criterion of reality, and then wrongly blame EPR for it. This disingenuous strategy is reminiscent of how some incompetent Bell fanatics have been surreptitiously introducing a sign error in my local model and blaming me for it.

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:49 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Of course the Bell fanatics will argue until you are blue in the face that it doesn't matter if they are unphysical since in principle a realistic theory should be able to predict the outcomes from those quantities even if they aren't measured. They don't seem to care that it is impossible to experimentally test. The real bottom line is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the Bell inequalities. QM and the experiments simply shift to a different inequality (with a higher bound) other than Bell's. It is quite amazing that so many people are tricked by that.

Bell and his followers claim that, since they derive the inequality as a part of a "proof by contradiction", their unphysical assumption (i.e., "the results with various analyzer settings are real at the same time, even though those analyzer settings are mutually exclusive") does not invalidate their result.

My response to this is that if they put garbage in, then they are only going to get garbage out. To put it mildly, their criterion of reality is much stronger compared to that of EPR. Bell and his followers unwittingly smuggle-in a much stronger and unphysical rendition of the criterion of reality, and then wrongly blame EPR for it. This disingenuous strategy is reminiscent of how some incompetent Bell fanatics have been surreptitiously introducing a sign error in my local model and blaming me for it.

***

Your paper highlights the exact reason why QM and the experiments have to shift to an inequality with a higher bound. Because they can't do a and a' and b and b' at the same time. For sure it is just plain mathematical incompetence if they really believe Bell's junk physics theory is true. Just a bunch of cheaters if they don't believe it.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Heinera » Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:03 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Bell and his followers claim that, since they derive the inequality as a part of a "proof by contradiction", their unphysical assumption (i.e., "the results with various analyzer settings are real at the same time, even though those analyzer settings are mutually exclusive") does not invalidate their result.
***

So I guess there is no longer any point in performing your macroscopic experiment with the exploding balls then, since it is based on an unphysical assumption :lol:
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:31 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Your paper highlights the exact reason why QM and the experiments have to shift to an inequality with a higher bound. Because they can't do a and a' and b and b' at the same time. For sure it is just plain mathematical incompetence if they really believe Bell's junk physics theory is true. Just a bunch of cheaters if they don't believe it.

Indeed. That was the purpose of my paper. It is extraordinary how long this has been going on, with people as smart as Shimony and Wigner falling for Bell's cheat.

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

Re: Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:28 pm

***
A perfect illustration of Bell's no-go theorem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0elycSPe0ew.

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

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 73 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library