TLR: true local realism

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

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:55 am

Gordon Watson wrote:How do I correct an "error" when you don't show me where it is in my latest draft?

Maybe you should read what you have written.
For I have no clue what you are referring to now! Nor in your old arguments!

You would know if you had read my message where your equation number was identified. In your 2017 June article it is in the equation 33 and the next paragraph. In the discussion mentioned above I have proven that your claim was false and Fred Diether has confirmed my analysis, observing that a simpler proof exists, too.
Which are the "obviously equivalent" expressions? Also: The ones where I don't present "example values"?

As clearly identified in the discussion, they are the two last unnumbered equations before the equation 15 in Bell's paper.
Where do you prove Bell's inference PHYSICALLY correct?

There is nothing specifically physical in any inference. But experience has shown that nature obeys ordinary mathematics and traditional logic. In particular, no situation has been observed where all premisses of any inference rule of classical logic are true and the conclusion is false.
That is, you prove that his inference yields results that accord with experimental outcomes: not just a "correct representation" of an unphysical assumption.

Experiments are not relevant as the purpose of the equations is to compare two theories (quantum mechanics and any possible hidden variable theory).
PS: I personally do not regard your opinions as unimportant. But your approach -- not dealing with the latest draft; avoiding eqn numbers, etc -- makes them difficult to understand.

Opinions are unimportant. Prove what you claim and don't claim what you don't prove. Or if you need to say something you can't prove, clearly state that it is speculation.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:05 am

Thanks Mikko,
Having now seen your comments as they relate to specific equations, and having now checked them, I am now happy say that I stand by those equations and the related comments.
Thanks again; G
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:22 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Thanks Mikko,
Having now seen your comments as they relate to specific equations, and having now checked them, I am now happy say that I stand by those equations and the related comments.
Thanks again; G

So your plan is that you keep repeating without proof those claims that could be easily proven if they were true?
As you should understand, every article with a false claim is worthless.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:09 pm

To avoid any misunderstandings, what "claims without proof" are you referring to? Please identify them by eqn or by paragraph number. Tks.

PS: Some articles with false claims are not worthless; Bell's articles, for example.

G.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:39 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:To avoid any misunderstandings, what "claims without proof" are you referring to? Please identify them by eqn or by paragraph number. Tks.

PS: Some articles with false claims are not worthless; Bell's articles, for example.

G.

Whom you try to fool? If anyone happens to care, it is easy to see that I already have specified an equation number.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:53 pm

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:To avoid any misunderstandings, what "claims without proof" are you referring to? Please identify them by eqn or by paragraph number. Tks.

PS: Some articles with false claims are not worthless; Bell's articles, for example.

G.

Whom you try to fool? If anyone happens to care, it is easy to see that I already have specified an equation number.


I care: but you specified eqn (33). And the proof of (33) precedes (33) and follows (33); (33) is also, of course, experimentally validated!

PS: You'll find experimental validation to be a feature of many of my equations. I look forward to your next "claim without proof."
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:50 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:To avoid any misunderstandings, what "claims without proof" are you referring to? Please identify them by eqn or by paragraph number. Tks.

PS: Some articles with false claims are not worthless; Bell's articles, for example.

G.

Whom you try to fool? If anyone happens to care, it is easy to see that I already have specified an equation number.


I care: but you specified eqn (33). And the proof of (33) precedes (33) and follows (33); (33) is also, of course, experimentally validated!

PS: You'll find experimental validation to be a feature of many of my equations. I look forward to your next "claim without proof."
.

In your "proof" you use your equation 24, which does not follow from Bell's hypotheses. Although you do prove that there is an error, you do not prove that it is in Bell's equations instead of yours. As Bell's derivation is correct, as I have proven and Fred Diether confirmed, the error must be in your article.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:41 am

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:To avoid any misunderstandings, what "claims without proof" are you referring to? Please identify them by eqn or by paragraph number. Tks.

PS: Some articles with false claims are not worthless; Bell's articles, for example.

G.

Whom you try to fool? If anyone happens to care, it is easy to see that I already have specified an equation number.


I care: but you specified eqn (33). And the proof of (33) precedes (33) and follows (33); (33) is also, of course, experimentally validated!

PS: You'll find experimental validation to be a feature of many of my equations. I look forward to your next "claim without proof."
.

In your "proof" you use your equation 24, which does not follow from Bell's hypotheses. Although you do prove that there is an error, you do not prove that it is in Bell's equations instead of yours. As Bell's derivation is correct, as I have proven and Fred Diether confirmed, the error must be in your article.


Dear Mikko,

:?: You do know that if I used Bell's hypotheses I'd get Bell's results: right? :?:

:?: And you do know that all Bell's EPR-based results (and related others) have been repeatedly negated experimentally or via QM? And you do know that Bell was in a dilemma; puzzled and doubtful at the end of his life, etc? :?:

:?: So Bell's derivation is correct in what way Do you mean that he got a valid result from a false assumption; or what? :?:

:?: PS: You now say: "Although you [GW] do prove that there is an error, you do not prove that it is in Bell's equations instead of yours." So you are now saying that you don't know that Bell is wrong?? :?:

:!: But you surely know this: The test of any hypothesis is best done experimentally; or, failing that -- compare the predicted results with QM! (As I'm sure you know!) So: Whether TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY OR QUANTUM-THORETICALLY ALL MY RESULTS ARE CONFIRMED. ALL OF BELL'S ARE [oops, sorry; excuse caps; mis-hit] disconfirmed. And we are talking about: All of Aspect's experiments, EPRB, all variants of CHSH, GHZ, GHSZ, Gisin's + Brunner's +++ experiments; etc! :!:

Cheers; excuse haste; Gordon
x
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:14 am

Gordon Watson wrote::?: You do know that if I used Bell's hypotheses I'd get Bell's results: right? :?:

No, I don't know that. But you can't get any result that contradict Bell's if you only use sound logic.
:?: And you do know that all Bell's EPR-based results (and related others) have been repeatedly negated experimentally or via QM?

Irrelevant, as Bell didn't include those experiments in his assumptions (except the Stern–Gerlach experiment).
And you do know that Bell was in a dilemma; puzzled and doubtful at the end of his life, etc? :?:

Irrelevant to the 1964 paper. If I understood correctly his preference was to accept non-locality.
:?: So Bell's derivation is correct in what way Do you mean that he got a valid result from a false assumption; or what? :?:

It is a sound derivation that proves that Einstein's assumptions (as Bell interpreted them) imply a result that is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Consequently, an experiment could refute either Einsten's assumptions or quantum mechanics.
:?: PS: You now say: "Although you [GW] do prove that there is an error, you do not prove that it is in Bell's equations instead of yours." So you are now saying that you don't know that Bell is wrong?? :?:

No, I said I do know that you are wrong.
:!: But you surely know this: The test of any hypothesis is best done experimentally;

Yes, I see no reason to disagree with Bell about that.
or, failing that -- compare the predicted results with QM!

No, that is not a way to test a hypothesis. But that might be helpful to find out how to test experimentally. As quantum mechanics was already tested at the time, it was interesting to find so good reasons to suspect it anyway.
(As I'm sure you know!) So: Whether TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY OR QUANTUM-THORETICALLY ALL MY RESULTS ARE CONFIRMED.

But not your claims about Bell's 1964 article, whether you call them "results" or not.
ALL OF BELL'S ARE [oops, sorry; excuse caps; mis-hit] disconfirmed.

No, his reasoning is valid and his conclusions follow from his hypoteses. Whether his hypotheses are sufficiently general can still be debated but in his 1964 article he didn't claim greater generality than what his assumed. Though some of his assumptions were not stated very clearly. He just assumed that they were obvious when one discusses hidden variable theories. And I don't think he was wrong at that.
And we are talking about: All of Aspect's experiments, EPRB, all variants of CHSH, GHZ, GHSZ, Gisin's + Brunner's +++ experiments; etc! :!:

You may be talking about all those experiments but Bell wasn't.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:50 pm

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote::?: You do know that if I used Bell's hypotheses I'd get Bell's results: right? :?:

No, I don't know that. But you can't get any result that contradict Bell's if you only use sound logic.
:?: And you do know that all Bell's EPR-based results (and related others) have been repeatedly negated experimentally or via QM?

Irrelevant, as Bell didn't include those experiments in his assumptions (except the Stern–Gerlach experiment).
And you do know that Bell was in a dilemma; puzzled and doubtful at the end of his life, etc? :?:

Irrelevant to the 1964 paper. If I understood correctly his preference was to accept non-locality.
:?: So Bell's derivation is correct in what way Do you mean that he got a valid result from a false assumption; or what? :?:

It is a sound derivation that proves that Einstein's assumptions (as Bell interpreted them) imply a result that is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Consequently, an experiment could refute either Einsten's assumptions or quantum mechanics.
:?: PS: You now say: "Although you [GW] do prove that there is an error, you do not prove that it is in Bell's equations instead of yours." So you are now saying that you don't know that Bell is wrong?? :?:

No, I said I do know that you are wrong.
:!: But you surely know this: The test of any hypothesis is best done experimentally;

Yes, I see no reason to disagree with Bell about that.
or, failing that -- compare the predicted results with QM!

No, that is not a way to test a hypothesis. But that might be helpful to find out how to test experimentally. As quantum mechanics was already tested at the time, it was interesting to find so good reasons to suspect it anyway.
(As I'm sure you know!) So: Whether TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY OR QUANTUM-THORETICALLY ALL MY RESULTS ARE CONFIRMED.

But not your claims about Bell's 1964 article, whether you call them "results" or not.
ALL OF BELL'S ARE [oops, sorry; excuse caps; mis-hit] disconfirmed.

No, his reasoning is valid and his conclusions follow from his hypoteses. Whether his hypotheses are sufficiently general can still be debated but in his 1964 article he didn't claim greater generality than what his assumed. Though some of his assumptions were not stated very clearly. He just assumed that they were obvious when one discusses hidden variable theories. And I don't think he was wrong at that.
And we are talking about: All of Aspect's experiments, EPRB, all variants of CHSH, GHZ, GHSZ, Gisin's + Brunner's +++ experiments; etc! :!:

You may be talking about all those experiments but Bell wasn't.


1. I had hoped we might return to the place where you recognised: "You [GW] do prove that there is an error." But I'll leave you to explain which error you are going with! And Why? [I've made my experimentally validated, QM compatible, TLR (truly local and realistic) position clear enough.]

2. My primary critique of Bell (1964) goes to his conclusion -- the source of his late-life dilemma re AAD, etc, etc:

Bell (1964:199), approximately, “In a theory in which parameters are added [to QM] to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence [via an instantaneous signal] the reading of another instrument, however remote. .... not Lorentz invariant.”


Reason for my critique: I add local parameters to QM and get results that are consistent with special relativity and Lorentz invariance AND QM AND confirmed by Aspect (using photons), +++!

3. Bell does discuss Aspect! And CHSH. You need to read his (2004).

4. Since other comments by you are equally mistaken, I'll leave it at that for now. Tks.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:44 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:1. I had hoped we might return to the place where you recognised: "You [GW] do prove that there is an error."

You had "hoped"? You "might"? You can return there whenever you want and press the "quote" button and respond differently from the first time. Or even the same way if you expect to get a different result next time.
3. Bell does discuss Aspect! And CHSH. You need to read his (2004).

Your false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. In that article he does not discuss the Aspect experiment. What he later said elsewhere is irrelevant.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:30 am

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:1. I had hoped we might return to the place where you recognised: "You [GW] do prove that there is an error."

You had "hoped"? You "might"? You can return there whenever you want and press the "quote" button and respond differently from the first time. Or even the same way if you expect to get a different result next time.
3. Bell does discuss Aspect! And CHSH. You need to read his (2004).

Your false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. In that article he does not discuss the Aspect experiment. What he later said elsewhere is irrelevant.


My apologies! Since I address and correct most of Bell's unrealistic EPR-style theorising, going beyond his (1964), I misunderstood your focus on Bell (1964).

So here's a composite of your statements that I now trust is your claim:

Mikko wrote:Your [GW's] false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. It [Bell 1964] is a sound derivation that proves that Einstein's assumptions (as Bell interpreted them) imply a result that is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Consequently, an experiment could refute either Einsten's assumptions or quantum mechanics.


HERE'S MY RESPONSE:
The experiment that Bell (1964) favoured is given at his Reference #6.
I take Aspect's (2004) experiment to be such an experiment: it agrees with QM and with me.
Therefore Bell's assumptions (whatever their source), are unrealistic/unphysical. QED!

In case you missed it, here's what's in my draft (from my point of view) re Bell (1964) specifically:

1. Bell's key unrealistic assumption (whatever its source) is identified.
2. The true local realistic assumption is given.
3. The correct, QM-compatible, results are then derived.
4. Aspect's (2004) experiment is then conclusive: it agrees with QM and with me.
5. Hence my rejection of Bell's (1964) conclusion; a conclusion that affects his later work.
6. Note that I do not repeat the EPR error; I identify and correct it.
6a. And Bell did what? [See #9 below.]
Add to these:
7. Your apparent agreement that an error is correctly identified.
8. Your apparent inability to understand that it is Bell's error (from his unrealistic assumption; whether it comes from EPR, Einstein, ++) that is identified: see #1-3.
9. If Bell favours nonlocality, as you suggest: then he's sticking with the false assumption (whatever its source) and making it his own!
10. Your (still, to this day) apparent inability to decide which -- if any -- of two competing assumptions is more probable.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:32 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:1. I had hoped we might return to the place where you recognised: "You [GW] do prove that there is an error."

You had "hoped"? You "might"? You can return there whenever you want and press the "quote" button and respond differently from the first time. Or even the same way if you expect to get a different result next time.
3. Bell does discuss Aspect! And CHSH. You need to read his (2004).

Your false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. In that article he does not discuss the Aspect experiment. What he later said elsewhere is irrelevant.

My apologies! Since I address and correct most of Bell's unrealistic EPR-style theorising, going beyond his (1964), I misunderstood your focus on Bell (1964).
Apology accepted. However, I might be less merciful next time.
So here's a composite of your statements that I now trust is your claim:
Mikko wrote:Your [GW's] false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. It [Bell 1964] is a sound derivation that proves that Einstein's assumptions (as Bell interpreted them) imply a result that is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Consequently, an experiment could refute either Einsten's assumptions or quantum mechanics.

Looks good. Your response below is compatible with that. In particular, your false claim menioned above is not repeated.
HERE'S MY RESPONSE:
The experiment that Bell (1964) favoured is given at his Reference #6.
I take Aspect's (2004) experiment to be such an experiment: it agrees with QM and with me.
Therefore Bell's assumptions (whatever their source), are unrealistic/unphysical. QED!

In case you missed it, here's what's in my draft (from my point of view) re Bell (1964) specifically:

1. Bell's key unrealistic assumption (whatever its source) is identified.

Do you mean an assumption that Bell made or an assumption made be someone else that Bell discussess and perhaps attempts to confirm or refute?
Where exactly is that assumption identified?
2. The true local realistic assumption is given.
3. The correct, QM-compatible, results are then derived.

It is not really a derivation if it essentially depends on a theory that is neither presented nor identified.
4. Aspect's (2004) experiment is then conclusive: it agrees with QM and with me.
5. Hence my rejection of Bell's (1964) conclusion; a conclusion that affects his later work.
6. Note that I do not repeat the EPR error; I identify and correct it.
6a. And Bell did what? [See #9 below.]

Perhaps your presentation were clearer if you moved 1. to a later place, somewhere after 4. It is easier to compare your work to Bell's after you have presented your work and results. As your main disagreement is with Bell's conclusion, it might be clearest to start with that and follow his reasoning backwards until you find an invalid inference or assumption.
Add to these:
7. Your apparent agreement that an error is correctly identified.

I didn't say so. I said that you didn't identify it corretly.
8. Your apparent inability to understand that it is Bell's error (from his unrealistic assumption; whether it comes from EPR, Einstein, ++) that is identified: see #1-3.

I understand very well that you have tried and failed to identify an error in Bell's work.
9. If Bell favours nonlocality, as you suggest: then he's sticking with the false assumption (whatever its source) and making it his own!

It is well known that a non-local hidden variable theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics. Do you have any evidence that Bell favored something else?
10. Your (still, to this day) apparent inability to decide which -- if any -- of two competing assumptions is more probable.

Neither of them seems to offer anything important over plain quantum mechanics. The main open problem is quantum gravity, and neither seems to offer anything to that. Anyway, quantum gravity is far outside of your scope.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:22 pm

Dear Mikko,

Quick revised version now at http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0322. I'd welcome you making your point in its context: e.g., via its eqn and paragraph numbers.

If your point is that Bell's assumptions lead to Bell's theorem, then we agree. Is that the point that you think I should make explicit?

My point is that his assumptions are so clearly unphysical that it's no surprise that his theorem is repeatedly violated experimentally. Is that the point that you think I should make explicit?

Cheers; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:44 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Dear Mikko,

Quick revised version now at http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0322. I'd welcome you making your point in its context: e.g., via its eqn and paragraph numbers.

If your point is that Bell's assumptions lead to Bell's theorem, then we agree. Is that the point that you think I should make explicit?

My point is that his assumptions are so clearly unphysical that it's no surprise that his theorem is repeatedly violated experimentally. Is that the point that you think I should make explicit?

Cheers; Gordon

It is not Bell's theorem that is seemingly violated experimentally; it is the Bell inequalities that are seemingly violated when in actuality no such violation ever occurs. Bell's theory is junk physics because it compares apples to oranges via a simple mathematical trick. It is impossible to ever use the Bell inequalities in an actual quantum experiment.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:49 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:It is not Bell's theorem that is seemingly violated experimentally; it is the Bell inequalities that are seemingly violated when in actuality no such violation ever occurs. Bell's theory is junk physics because it compares apples to oranges via a simple mathematical trick. It is impossible to ever use the Bell inequalities in an actual quantum experiment.

Indeed, Fred. In fact it is impossible to "violate" the Bell inequalities in any physical experiment whatsoever: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

Nothing can violate a mathematical inequality.

On the other hand, Einstein's conceptions of locality and realism, as made mathematically precise by Bell, are perfectly fine: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13019/.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: TLR: true local realism

Postby Mikko » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:21 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Dear Mikko,
Quick revised version now at http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0322. I'd welcome you making your point in its context: e.g., via its eqn and paragraph numbers.

I don't think it is useful to repeat the same comment every time you repeat the same errors in a new article. If an equation or paragraph is erroneous in one article, its copy in another article is erroeous, too. If you think you have corrected something, you may ask a specific question about that.
If your point is that Bell's assumptions lead to Bell's theorem, then we agree. Is that the point that you think I should make explicit?

Yes, it would clarify your presentation if you would make it explicit in the introduction or in the analysis. A good place might be where you first mention Bell's conclusion.
Note that the term "Bell's assumption" is ambigous. It may mean an assumption made or used by Bell but also any assumption discussed by Bell. You should state clearly which you mean if you use that term.
My point is that his assumptions are so clearly unphysical that it's no surprise that his theorem is repeatedly violated experimentally. Is that the point that you think I should make explicit?

Yes, if you think it has any relevance to the main topic of your article. But then you should be clear what is so clearly unphysical other than being violated experimentally.
Mikko
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library