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 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:45 am

Heinera wrote:It is you who doesn't understand calculus. One does not integrate over a function, one integrates over a variable. If you want the distribution of that variable to depend on anything, this dependence must be made explicit in the distribution. If you do that, you can figure out yourself that the bounds are -4, 4.

And by that I have finished with this thread. Don't expect any further replies.

I certainly don't expect any admission of a mistake from a Bell-believer. Nobody is integrating over a function. But it is now clear that you have no ability to see that.

For all other readers, let me point to my original post where they can see that what is being integrated over is lambda: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=292&p=7209#p7167.

***
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 Heinera » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:37 am

Joy Christian wrote:The distribution rho(lambda) evidently takes the settings {a, b} as well as the results {A, B} as arguments via lambda(a, b, A, B).


Joy Christian wrote:Nobody is integrating over a function. But it is now clear that you have no ability to see that.

For all other readers, let me point to my original post where they can see that what is being integrated over is lambda.
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 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:54 am

Joy Christian wrote:
I certainly don't expect any admission of a mistake from a Bell-believer. Nobody is integrating over a function. But it is now clear that [Heinera has] no ability to see that.

For all other readers, let me point to my original post where they can see that what is being integrated over is lambda: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=292&p=7209#p7167.

***
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 Dec 05, 2016 3:57 am

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 minkwe » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:01 am

The end is near. I can feel it. :D
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:40 am

minkwe wrote:The end is near. I can feel it. :D

Sadly, we still have some sociological and political hurdles to overcome: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cos ... -weirdness.

***
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 thray » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:40 am

Gill: "Without a definition of 'element of reality' it is impossible to agree or disagree."

Without a measure space -- a framework -- it is impossible to agree or disagree. It is possible to agree, however, that any purported measurement without a framework, begs nonlocality.

Then define nonlocality. Something outside the measurement framework. What framework? Reminds me of the old (Abbott & Costello?) routine:

"You know that man."
"What man?"
"The man with the power."
"What power?"
"The power of the hoodoo."
"Hoodoo?"
"You do."
"Do what?"
"Know that man."
"What man?"
"The man with the power."
"What power?"
"Power of the hoodoo."
"Hoodoo?"
"You do."
"Do what?"
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

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

Postby minkwe » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:58 pm

thray wrote:Gill: "Without a definition of 'element of reality' it is impossible to agree or disagree."

Without a measure space -- a framework -- it is impossible to agree or disagree. It is possible to agree, however, that any purported measurement without a framework, begs nonlocality.

Then define nonlocality. Something outside the measurement framework. What framework? Reminds me of the old (Abbott & Costello?) routine:

"You know that man."
"What man?"
"The man with the power."
"What power?"
"The power of the hoodoo."
"Hoodoo?"
"You do."
"Do what?"
"Know that man."
"What man?"
"The man with the power."
"What power?"
"Power of the hoodoo."
"Hoodoo?"
"You do."
"Do what?"

:lol: :lol:
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby minkwe » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:04 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
minkwe wrote:The end is near. I can feel it. :D

Sadly, we still have some sociological and political hurdles to overcome: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cos ... -weirdness.

***

Yep, there is still a lot of work to do, unfortunately.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby minkwe » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:54 pm

I just posted the following response to LJ on RW

Position and Momentum are pontryagin duals which means there is a basis transformation involved between them with a fourier transform relationship between the basis. As established many years ago (Benedicks’s theorem, Hardy’s uncertainty principle, etc), a nonzero function and its fourier transform cannot both be sharply localized. It therefore makes no sense to talk of position and momentum as being simultaneous elements of reality for the same particle.

In fact, it is well known that it is impossible to make a device that can measure both position and momentum at the same time. In other words, momentum is not well defined at a given position for a given particle, and vice versa.

Lord Jestocost
Read my comment “Lord Jestocost December 5, 2016 at 5:07 pm”
A physical quantity is a physical property/feature of a physical system that can be quantified by measurements, you get a value.

The physical system can and does include the measurement apparatus.

Lord Jestocost
A “element of reality” is a physical property which can be quantified – following Einstein’s operational measurement procedure – “without in any way disturbing the system”.

No! According to EPR, if you can predict the value of a physical quantity “without in any way disturbing the system”, then that *physical quantity* CORRESPONDS to an *element of reality*. Nowhere do they say the *physical quantity* itself is an *element of reality*.

Lord Jestocost
Physical events or measurements have nothing to do with the notation “element of reality”.
Measurements just reveal the values of “elements of reality”.

This is false. Many physical events and measurements *create* elements of reality. Most often, the physical quality is a result of an interaction between the measurement equipment and the “system”. EPR only say the *prediction* has to be done without disturbing the system, NOT that the physical quantity be obtained without disturbing the system.

Lord Jestocost
#1) In case you have proved once that the velocity of a moving electron is an “element of reality”, you have proved it for all moving electrons. An electron is an electron! And velocity remains an “element of reality” for all moving electrons, no matter what you are planning to do or what you are really doing with the electron.

According to EPR, the velocity of a moving electron CORRESPONDS to an “element of reality”. But not all elements of reality are independent of the measurement process. For some measured physical quantities, the element of reality to which it CORRESPONDS is in fact created as a result of the interaction with the measurement apparatus. It will be terribly wrong then to argue that unmeasured electrons possess such elements of reality. At best, they can possess the potential to produce these elements of reality on measurement. Your statement above is therefore generally false.

Lord Jestocost
#2) In case you have proved once that the position of a moving electron is an “element of reality”, you have proved it for all moving electrons. And position remains an “element of reality” for all moving electrons, no matter what you are planning to do or what you are really doing with the electron.

See previous point for a refutation of this.

Lord Jestocost
#3) As an electron is an electron, you can conclude from #1 and #2, that both velocity and position are simultaneous “elements of reality” for all moving electrons. That’s the classical definition. Both are “elements of reality” and measurements or physical events play no role.
A Measurement on one “element of reality” does not “retroact” or does not affect the past in this sense that the “before measurement feature” of being an “element of reality” is erased for the other “element of reality”.


Therefore your conclusion is completely false. If the act of measure creates an element of reality due to interaction with a measurement device, while at the same time destroying the original “system”, rendering the second mutually exclusive measurement impossible. It will be impossible for both “elements of reality” which were *possibilities* before measurement, to become actualized. It is therefore false to conclude that both can ever be simultaneous *actualities*. Contrary to your claim, measurement on one element of reality does not retroactively falsify the previous *possibility* that wasn’t measured, it simply renders it *counterfactual* and impossible to actualize. No element of reality is erased in the process. Before measurement, you had two *possibilities*. After measurement, it is still true that you had two *possibilities* before you measured. But in addition, you now have one *actuality* corresponding to one of the possibilities, and another counterfactual possibility.

Note the fact that the measurement can’t be done anymore does not amount to erasure of the possibility. For example, the *possibility*

If I measure at (a) I will obtain A.

expresses the truth of relationship between “I measure at (a)”, and “I obtain A”. It absolutely does not express any truth about “I measure at (a)” alone, or “I obtain A” alone. Measuring at (b) does nothing to negate that truth, nor does obtaining B negate that truth unless you also measured at (a). The part that is rendered impossible after measurement is the antecedent (“I measure at (a)”). Thus even though it is no longer possible to measure at (a), it is still true that “had I measured at (a), I would have obtained A”. This is a counterfactual statement.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:54 pm

***
Jay has now embarked on a wild goose chase following Gill's diversionary suggestion. He is now trying to formulate a "necessary criterion of reality." Good luck to him:

Joy Christian wrote:
The sufficient criterion of reality provided by EPR is quite sufficient for my main argument. It tells us that the quantities B + B’ and B – B’ do not satisfy EVEN the sufficient criterion of reality. EPR were very wise to stay well clear of forming a “necessary criterion of reality.”


Joy Christian wrote:
If B + B’ is an element of reality, then it shouldn’t be difficult to prove that. I asked Gill for a precise criterion — analogous to that by EPR — which dictates that B is real, and B’ is real; and then, using the same criterion, prove that B + B’ is real. But we have yet to see the proof.

***
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 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:12 am

Posted in response to Lord Jestocost's nonsense on RW,

A thought experiment is not much help if it doesn’t correspond to reality. And the reality is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to “violate” a Bell inequality. Please demonstrate exactly how QM or the experiments actually do this supposed violation. It is pretty easy to show that they use a different inequality with a higher bound than |2|.
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 Dec 11, 2016 4:41 pm

***
More fun at Retraction Watch:

LJ wrote:
Provide a list of the probability distribution for the occurrence of {A(a, h), B(b, h), A(a’, h), B(b’, h)}-combinations in many like systems; produced on base of your S^3-spacetime model for two entangled spin1/2 particles in the singlet state by using the purely local and realistic functions A(a, h) and B(b, h) (the pre-programmed instructions).

Joy Christian wrote:
LJ,

If you provide a data set (or just a reference to a data set) generated by anything at all --- by quantum mechanics, by experiments, by a local hidden variables theory, by a non-local hidden variables theory, or by whatever you prefer --- that violates the Bell-CHSH inequality

⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ ≤ 2 ,

then I will immediately provide you the list of probability distributions you are asking for.

Heads I win, tails you lose!

***
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 14, 2016 7:34 am

***
From http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1222004.

Image

How hard can it be to answer Yes or No to my question? Judging from the non-response from Bell believers, it appears that it is extremely hard to answer this question.

***
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 minkwe » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:49 pm

The last time I asked Heinera the question, he went silent. He couldn't answer if the CHSH can ever be violated by anything.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=288&start=60#p7146
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:27 am

minkwe wrote:The last time I asked Heinera the question, he went silent. He couldn't answer if the CHSH can ever be violated by anything.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=288&start=60#p7146

All I am asking from the Bell-believers is this: Their endgame is Jay's eq. (5):

|⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩| ≤ 2√2 for large N ............... (5)

I don’t care how they got this equation. Whichever statistical trick they used to produce eq. (5), it involves only Nx4 matrix of data points. So I am willing to forget and forgive everything else if they can produce that Nx4 matrix (no questions will be asked) and demonstrate that those Nx4 data points violate the bounds of +/-2.

***
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 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:37 am

***
More of the same from me on Retraction Watch, and still being completely ignored by the Bell-believers:

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 15, 2016 10:07 am

Yep... a complete exercise in futility. :-)
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 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:46 pm

***
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.


***
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 4:06 pm

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

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library