SciPhysicsForums.com

Joy Christian wrote:
While Richard Gill seems to have recognized his mistake after my reply to him on “November 14, 2016 at 12:36 pm”, I see that HR and Stephen Parrott are still resisting the inevitable conclusion I have presented in http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf .

Let me try to explain my conclusion in a different way. Consider the following hypothesis:

“We live in a world where it is possible — at least momentarily — to be in two places as once — for example, in New York and Miami — at exactly the same time.”

From this hypothesis it follows that in such a world it is possible for Bob to detect a spin along both directions b and b’ at exactly the same time as Alice detects her spin along the direction a, or a’. If we denote the measurement functions of Alice and Bob as A(a, h) and B(b, h), respectively, then we can say that in this world it is possible for the measurement event such as A(a, h) of Alice to simultaneously coexist with both the measurement events B(b, h) and B(b’, h) observed by Bob, where h is the initial state (or hidden variable) of the singlet spin system. Consequently, we can write the “coincidence click” (a single click) observed by both Alice and Bob as

A(a, h) { B(b, h) + B(b’, h) }

(notwithstanding the fact that there are only two particles available to Alice and Bob for each run of the EPR-Bohm type experiment). It is also worth stressing here that in our familiar macroscopic world ( after all a and b are macroscopic directions ) such a bizarre spacetime event is never observed. Because the measurement directions a and b freely chosen by Alice and Bob are mutually exclusive macroscopic measurement directions in the physical 3-space.

Similarly, nothing prevents Alice and Bob in such a bizarre world to simultaneously observe the following event:

A(a’, h) { B(b, h) – B(b’, h) } .

And — yes, you guessed it — nothing prevents Alice and Bob in such a bizarre world to simultaneously observe the sum of the above two events as a single event

A(a, h) { B(b, h) + B(b’, h) } + A(a’, h) { B(b, h) – B(b’, h) }.

Consider now a very large (effectively infinite) number of the initial states (or hidden variables) h and the corresponding simultaneous events like the last one above. We can then calculate the expected value of such an event, occurring in this bizarre world, by means of the following integral (naturally respecting the “large N limit”):

Int_H [ A(a, h) { B(b, h) + B(b’, h) } + A(a’, h) { B(b, h) – B(b’, h) } ] rho(h) dh ,

where Int_H represents an integral over the space H of all possible hidden variables h, and rho(h) is the corresponding normalized probability distribution of h.

Note that I am assuming nothing about the hidden variables h. They may be functions of a and b, h = h(a, b), in which case we could be dealing with a highly non-local model.

Next we ask: What are the upper and lower bounds on the above expected value? You will find the answer to this question fully worked out in the paper linked above; which is:

-2 < Int_H [ A(a, h) { B(b, h) + B(b', h) } + A(a', h) { B(b, h) – B(b', h) } ] rho(h) dh < +2 .

Now it is a trivial mathematical fact that the above expected value, together with its bounds of -2 and +2, can be written as a sum of four expected values as follows:

-2 < Int_H [ A(a, h) B(b, h) ] rho(h) dh + Int_H [ A(a, h) B(b', h) ] rho(h) dh + Int_H [ A(a', h) B(b, h) ] rho(h) dh – Int_H [ A(a', h) B(b', h) ] rho(h) dh < +2 .

This can be rewritten in a more recognizable form as

-2 < E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) – E(a', b' ) < +2 .

Now we conduct the EPR-Bohm experiments and interpret their results as exceeding the bounds of -2 and +2 on the above sum of four independent expected values:

-2\/2 < E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) – E(a', b' ) < +2\/2 .

Consequently, we conclude that the hypothesis we started out with must be false. In other words, we do not actually live in a bizarre world in which it is possible, even momentarily, to be in New York and Miami at exactly the same time. This is what Bell proved. He proved that we do not live in such a bizarre world. But EPR never demanded, or hoped that we do.

Note that the ONLY hypothesis used to derive the bounds of |2| on the CHSH correlator is the one stated above: "It is possible, at least momentarily, to be at two places at once!" Locality was never assumed, nor was realism of Einstein and EPR ever compromised in any way.

Joy Christian wrote:
The last remaining defense of Bell’s theorem by Richard Gill concerns only semantics. He prefers to call the fictitious quantity A*( B + B’ ) involved in the derivation of the Bell-CHSH inequality a “random variable.” But what’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. Therefore I have obliged, and using the name “random variable” for the quantity A*( B + B’ ) I have added a short appendix to my 3-page paper linked above:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf .

In the above paper I have derived the Bell-CHSH inequality from a hypothesis that “one can be in two places at once”, without assuming local causality. Since the Bell-CHSH bounds are exceeded in actual experiments, it follows from Bell’s logic that we cannot be in two places at once.

Joy Christian wrote:

minkwe wrote:

If the RHS is impossible, so is the LHS. You are absolutely right Joy.

It is as simple as that. LHS = RHS is a mathematical identity, which they themselves stress. So they can't claim sanity on the LHS when there is insanity on the RHS.

***

FrediFizzx wrote:I posted the following on RW in response to Jay but the moderators didn't let it thru.

"There is no such thing as 'the QM CHSH bound of 2 sqrt(2)'. If you think there is then you need to prove MF’s eq. (3). But it has already been proven that the bound is |2| so good luck with that. This fact enhances Joy’s argument."

Your argument by itself is too philosophical for the Bell fanatics (and apparently Jay) but coupled with Michel's argument it is definitely fatal for Bell's junk physics theory.

Joy Christian wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:I posted the following on RW in response to Jay but the moderators didn't let it thru.

"There is no such thing as 'the QM CHSH bound of 2 sqrt(2)'. If you think there is then you need to prove MF’s eq. (3). But it has already been proven that the bound is |2| so good luck with that. This fact enhances Joy’s argument."

Your argument by itself is too philosophical for the Bell fanatics (and apparently Jay) but coupled with Michel's argument it is definitely fatal for Bell's junk physics theory.

You may be right. Michel, however, instantly understood my argument, as you can see from his comment above.

The moderators at RW seem to have strange criteria about what they let through. Some of my posts are being blocked too, for no understandable reasons.

***

Joy Christian wrote:

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Richard emailed me offline and in response to my question if B + B’ is an element of reality, his answer was “who cares?”

Anyone who claims to have ruled out the viability of local realism must care whether or not B + B’ is an element of the physical reality. This is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of logical necessity for any would-be eliminators of the viability of Einstein’s local realism.

The CHSH sum of expected values written in its traditional form, namely

Int_H AB rho(h) dh + Int_H AB’ rho(h) dh + Int_H A’B rho(h) dh – Int_H A’B’ rho(h) dh , …. (1)

is both mathematically and physically identical to the expression

Int_H A( B + B’ ) rho(h) dh + Int_H A'( B – B’ ) rho(h) dh , …. (2)

where Int_H stands for an integration over the space H of the hidden variables h.

Since the above two integral expressions are absolutely identical to each other, (1) = (2), it would be highly irresponsible to evade the question whether or not the quantities B + B’ and B – B ‘ appearing in (2) ( in respective products with A and A’ ) are elements of reality.

To appreciate the question, note that the second expression 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., — i.e., the space of all possible elements of reality — 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. For example the impossible “outcome” 3+6 is not a part of the set D.

But more importantly, the quantities such as A( B + B’ ) do not represent any meaningful physical element of any possible 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 their hypothesis (2) Bell and CHSH implicitly assume that both B and B’ can coexist with A simultaneously. This would be analogous to my being in New York and Miami at exactly the same time. But no definition of realism can justify such an unphysical demand. The notion of realism envisaged by Einstein most certainly does not demand any such thing.

In my opinion the answer “who cares?” by Richard Gill is an admission that B + B’ is not an element of reality, and moreover both B and B’ cannot possibly coexist with A, and therefore the claim by Bell and his followers of having ruled out Einstein’s local realism is simply false.

thray wrote:I've no reason to believe that RW moderators will let any of my posts through. They haven't so far. So:

Jay: "Thus: quantum mechanics (the external knowledge which provided the contradiction) cannot be explained using local realism. Can we all agree that this is a fair characterization of Bell?"

Of course. It's what many of us have been saying for years. Bell's theorem proves no more than what it assumed in the first place. That quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model. Nonlocality in -- nonlocality out. That the world appears probabilistic, because it is probabilistic.

We need a constructive proof, and it isn't going to be offered by Bell believers.

FrediFizzx wrote:

thray wrote:I've no reason to believe that RW moderators will let any of my posts through. They haven't so far. So:

Jay: "Thus: quantum mechanics (the external knowledge which provided the contradiction) cannot be explained using local realism. Can we all agree that this is a fair characterization of Bell?"

Of course. It's what many of us have been saying for years. Bell's theorem proves no more than what it assumed in the first place. That quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model. Nonlocality in -- nonlocality out. That the world appears probabilistic, because it is probabilistic.

We need a constructive proof, and it isn't going to be offered by Bell believers.

Yeah, I have given up on posting to RW. Only half my posts make it and the issue has already been settled by Michel's post there which Jay seems to be totally ignoring. It shows that Joy is 100 percent correct and Bell's theory is ludicrous. It is a very constructive proof that Bell was wrong. One more time... it is mathematically impossible for anything to "violate" the Bell inequalities. The big question now is why has this mathematical error gone on for over 50 years?
.

Joy Christian wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:

thray wrote:I've no reason to believe that RW moderators will let any of my posts through. They haven't so far. So:

Jay: "Thus: quantum mechanics (the external knowledge which provided the contradiction) cannot be explained using local realism. Can we all agree that this is a fair characterization of Bell?"

Of course. It's what many of us have been saying for years. Bell's theorem proves no more than what it assumed in the first place. That quantum configuration space cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model. Nonlocality in -- nonlocality out. That the world appears probabilistic, because it is probabilistic.

We need a constructive proof, and it isn't going to be offered by Bell believers.

Yeah, I have given up on posting to RW. Only half my posts make it and the issue has already been settled by Michel's post there which Jay seems to be totally ignoring. It shows that Joy is 100 percent correct and Bell's theory is ludicrous. It is a very constructive proof that Bell was wrong. One more time... it is mathematically impossible for anything to "violate" the Bell inequalities. The big question now is why has this mathematical error gone on for over 50 years?
.

But they are happy to publish incredibly silly comments by that incompetent fool Rick Lockyer. He seems to have developed some kind of unhealthy obsession with me.

***

minkwe wrote:I think Jay has finally gotten it.

Joy Christian wrote:
The error made by Bell and his followers is now very clearly brought out. The bottom line is that the quantity B(b) + B(b’) appearing in the CHSH sum is not an element of physical reality, because there is no way of predicting its value with certainty without disturbing the system.

But it has to be an element of reality for the claim of Bell and his followers (and of the editors of Annals of Physics) of having ruled out local realism to be valid. There should not be any difficulty in understanding the significance of this elementary point. But let me explain:

To begin with, the CHSH sum of expected values written in its traditional form, namely

Int_H AB rho(h) dh + Int_H AB’ rho(h) dh + Int_H A’B rho(h) dh – Int_H A’B’ rho(h) dh , …. (1)

is both mathematically and physically identical to the expression

Int_H A( B + B’ ) rho(h) dh + Int_H A'( B – B’ ) rho(h) dh , …. (2)

where Int_H stands for an integration over the space H of the hidden variables h. Since the above two integral expressions are identical to each other, it is vital that the quantity B + B’ appearing in (2) is an element of reality for the CHSH sum to have any relevance at all for the question of local realism. There is no point in denying or evading this simple observation.

Now the first requirement for anything to be an element of reality is that it is a physically meaningful quantity. But B(b) + B(b’) is not even that. Physically it is an impossibility — an absurdity, let alone being an element of reality. If we allow such a meaningless quantity in (2), then any consequences derived from (2), such as the bounds of -2 and +2, are equally meaningless, and therefore cannot possibly have any relevance for physics, or local realism.

It is not difficult to see that B + B’ is a physically meaningless quantity. For example, it is no different from an impossible “outcome” like 3+6 of a die throw with only possible outcomes being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Nothing more sophisticated is needed to see that B + B’ too is an impossible outcome. What is more, B and B’ in (2) can coexist with A only counterfactually. If B coexists with A, then B’ cannot coexist with A, and vice versa. But in (2) both B and B’ are assumed to coexist with A simultaneously. Since both B and B’ cannot coexist with A, the claim by Bell et al. of having ruled out Einstein’s local realism is clearly in gross error.

What does it mean for a.coin to be biased? Is it a property of the coin, or is it a property of the toss? Say you have a coin reading machine into which you toss your coin. You set it in advance which side you want it to read, every time the coin comes up with the chosen side, the bell rings. You now perform the experiment with the machine set to H. After 50 tosses, you get 40 rings. P(H)i = 0.8,. You set it to T and after 50 tosses, you get 35 rings. P(T)j = 0.7. But P(T)j + P(H)i = 1.5 =/= 1. Our machine is always biased towards the side we pick to measure.

Because we necessarily performed the experiment in two passes(I,j), because it was impossible for the machine to do both measurements simultaneously we arrived at a sum that is absurd. But due to symmetry, we could have inferred the counterfactual probability in each experiment as P(H)i = 1 – P(T)i. In that case, the sum of the observed and counterfactual probability, P(H)i + P(T)i= 1 same for (j).

Now you see that both P(H)i + P(T)i= 1, and P(H)i + P(T)j = 1.5 are correct, for the same experiment. The former is unmeasurable since it is a sum of actual and counterfactual. The latter is the actual result. The former sum is not an element of reality, in the world of the specific experimental situation.

That is why you can’t ignore the subscripts.

minkwe wrote:I just posted the following on RW:

What does it mean for a.coin to be biased? Is it a property of the coin, or is it a property of the toss? Say you have a coin reading machine into which you toss your coin. You set it in advance which side you want it to read, every time the coin comes up with the chosen side, the bell rings. You now perform the experiment with the machine set to H. After 50 tosses, you get 40 rings. P(H)i = 0.8,. You set it to T and after 50 tosses, you get 35 rings. P(T)j = 0.7. But P(T)j + P(H)i = 1.5 =/= 1. Our machine is always biased towards the side we pick to measure.

Because we necessarily performed the experiment in two passes(I,j), because it was impossible for the machine to do both measurements simultaneously we arrived at a sum that is absurd. But due to symmetry, we could have inferred the counterfactual probability in each experiment as P(H)i = 1 – P(T)i. In that case, the sum of the observed and counterfactual probability, P(H)i + P(T)i= 1 same for (j).

Now you see that both P(H)i + P(T)i= 1, and P(H)i + P(T)j = 1.5 are correct, for the same experiment. The former is unmeasurable since it is a sum of actual and counterfactual. The latter is the actual result. The former sum is not an element of reality, in the world of the specific experimental situation.

That is why you can’t ignore the subscripts.