Has further work been done building on J Christian's model?

[minkwe]

Pretty unambiguous. It's OK to do N runs. It's OK to calculate A_j and A'_j and B_j and B'j for each of the N runs. This provides us with 4N numbers +/-1.

No. E(a, b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') do not care about N. In fact N can can be different between the 4 and probably should be different just to eliminate the temptation to think about "Nx4" spreadsheets.

[gill1109]

Pretty unambiguous. It's OK to do N runs. It's OK to calculate A_j and A'_j and B_j and B'j for each of the N runs. This provides us with 4N numbers +/-1.

No. E(a, b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') do not care about N. In fact N can can be different between the 4 and probably should be different just to eliminate the temptation to think about "Nx4" spreadsheets.

Please read Joy's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078, or http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 (Section 4).

We collect data from N runs. The data consists of video films made by a battery of video cameras of two spinning hemispheres. We use them to compute the angular momentum of each hemisphere in each run.

We now pick settings a and b. We *calculate* A(a) and B(b) for each run, and correlate them. Now we repeat this for other pairs of settings. We are explicitly allowed to use the same runs.

I agree that it is rather unwise of him. It means that he will certainly lose the bet, instead of only lose the bet with large probability.

Unfortunately, whether we calculate all of them or only some of them in each run, they all could be calculated at the same time, and their values wouldn't change depending on whether or not we calculate some of them. And the average of products in a random sample of about one quarter of the runs will be close to the average of the products over all runs.

[Joy Christian]

I have added the statement reproduced at the bottom of this post on the welcome page of my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/. I have been forced to add this statement because of the continued false propaganda being made against my work by a couple of people with massive vested interest. I consider such propaganda to be a criminal act---a crime not only against me, but also against physics, against physics community, and above all against Nature. Making a false and unjustified claim against someone's perfectly sound work is to mislead the community for selfish reasosns. The community, in my opinion, should rise up against such a crime.

In any case, here is my statement:

It is important to note that I have systematically debunked all of the misguided claims made against my local realistic framework by certain uninformed and unqualified individuals.

More specifically, equations (1.22) to (1.26) on page 10 of my book, as well as similar set of equations in this paper, have been explicitly verified (in great detail) by Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, and several other high profile and exceptionally competent physicists and mathematicians around the world. In fact, any competent reader with only basic skills in mathematics should be able to reproduce equations (1.22) to (1.26) of my book rather effortlessly.

All of the so-called arguments against my disproof to date are based on an elementary logical fallacy—the Straw-man Fallacy. What the critics do is replace my model X with its grossly distorted misrepresentation Y, and then pretend—by refuting their own distortion Y (by resorting to deliberate dishonesty or out of sheer incompetence)—that they have undermined my actual model X. Such a dishonest strategy defies reason at its very core (for more details, see, for example, this paper).

Unlike Bell himself, some of the followers of Bell are naïve, uninformed, and dishonest.

Karl Hess has made similar statement as mine privately, but he is too nice a person to make his concerns public. I, on the other hand, have no inclination to be "nice."

It is well known that Caroline Thompson also made very similar remarks and fought against misrepresentation and injustice against her work until her untimely death.

[Joy Christian]

Pretty unambiguous. It's OK to do N runs. It's OK to calculate A_j and A'_j and B_j and B'j for each of the N runs. This provides us with 4N numbers +/-1.

No. E(a, b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') do not care about N. In fact N can can be different between the 4 and probably should be different just to eliminate the temptation to think about "Nx4" spreadsheets.

I agree with you, minkwe. Nowhere in my experimental paper do I mention that N has to be the same. In fact, I have only one correlation function in equation (16).

[gill1109]

Pretty unambiguous. It's OK to do N runs. It's OK to calculate A_j and A'_j and B_j and B'j for each of the N runs. This provides us with 4N numbers +/-1.

No. E(a, b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') do not care about N. In fact N can can be different between the 4 and probably should be different just to eliminate the temptation to think about "Nx4" spreadsheets.

I agree with you, minkwe. Nowhere in my experimental paper do I mention that N has to be the same. In fact, I have only one correlation function in equation (16).

No, but you make clear that it can be the same. Not only in those two experimental papers but also in numerous forum discussions. It was always a matter of complete indifference to you.

[gill1109]

Please tell us which are the equations corresponding to (1.22) to (1.26) from your book, in the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784v4.pdf

Making a false and unjustified claim against someone's perfectly sound work is to mislead the community for selfish reasons. The community, in my opinion, should rise up against such a crime.

This is obviously a true statement. It contains two hidden assumptions:

(1): the perpetrators of this heinous crime are aware that their claims are false and unjustified

(2): the work which is alleged to be perfectly sound, is indeed perfectly sound

So let the community think carefully about whether or not the work is indeed sound. Let them ponder on the the motivations of those who criticise it. Let them carefully study the works, the criticisms, the rebuttals.

Perhaps someone can convince Sir Michael Atiyah to take a look at it. Manfried Faber told me that he liked your basic idea but did not agree with your calculations and discussions. In particular, equation (44) in arXiv:1211.0784 is wrong, he believes. Lucien Hardy told me that he agreed with a few lines of heavy computation but did not check the derivation from the start of the paper to the starting point of the computation since he disagreed with your set-up anyway.

Are Lucien Hardy and Manfried Faber uninformed and unqualified individuals? As well as Abner Shimony, David Hestenes, Azhar Iqbal? Are they naive, dishonest and selfish?

[Joy Christian]

Please tell us which are the equations corresponding to (1.22) to (1.26) from your book, in the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784v4.pdf

Equation (112) on page 13.

Let me quote the statement made by Lucien Hardy to me privately last summer about the criticism of these equations: "...they [i.e., the critics] didn't understand that parity is the hidden variable in your model." This was also spotted at once by Bill Schnieder. Here is what Bill Schnieder wrote on Physics Forums long time ago:

"Richard Gill's refutation is not a new critique. It is essentially the same as one of the critiques advanced by a certain Florin Moldoveanu in the fall last year to which Joy Christian has already replied. It originates from a misunderstanding of Joy's framework which admittedly is not very easy to understand, especially for those who have blinders of one kind or another.

Gill thinks Joy is using a convoluted more difficult method to do a calculation and prefers a different method which ultimately leads him to a different result, not realizing/understanding that the calculation method Joy used is demanded by his framework. This is hardly a serious critique, not unlike his failed critique of Hess and Phillip. He should at least have read Joy's response to Moldoveanu which he apparently did not, since he does not cite or mention it. It's been available since October 2011, one-month after Moldoveanu posted his critique.

I remember Florin came here to boast about his critique and I pointed out his misunderstanding at the time in this thread:

"... you are missing the point because Joy Christian is not using handedness as a convention but as the hidden variable itself."

This is the same error Gill has made. See section (II) of Joy's response to Moldoveanu."

[Joy Christian]

Are Lucien Hardy and Manfried Faber uninformed and unqualified individuals? As well as Abner Shimony, David Hestenes, Azhar Iqbal? Are they naive, dishonest and selfish?

I didn't say these people are. I have no reason to. None of these people have criticised my work, or are spreading negative propaganda against my work. Only you are.

[gill1109]

Are Lucien Hardy and Manfried Faber uninformed and unqualified individuals? As well as Abner Shimony, David Hestenes, Azhar Iqbal? Are they naive, dishonest and selfish?

I didn't say these people are. I have no reason to. None of these people have criticised my work, or are spreading negative propaganda against my work. Only you are.

OK, but I do happen to know that Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, Abner Shimony, David Hestenes, Azhar Iqbal (as well as many others) all agree with me that your work is fatally flawed. As far as I know the persons I have named are honest, qualified, informed. Indeed, you have repeatedly mentioned your high regard for most of them. So does that make me dishonest, unqualified, uninformed? Since I am honestly certain you are badly mistaken, I think it is my scientific and personal duty to help you recognise your errors. I hate to see a great talent, in a nice guy, utterly wasted. So I persist in this adventure partly for your own sake, but perhaps more for the sake of other persons whom you may well be misleading.

And finally it turns out to be scientifically rewarding, too.

[Joy Christian]

Equation (44) in arXiv:1211.0784 is perfectly fine. Read the paragraph before it to understand what it is saying. And stop spreading false rumors about my work.

[FrediFizzx]

So it's not clear to me, Fred, whether you are against any kind of CHSH type experiment in principle, which seemed to be Han Geurdes' position, of if you simply have a different CHSH protocol in mind from what other people have used in the past.

I am not against CHSH for a Weihs, et al, type of experiment. That is what CHSH was designed for. And the exact protocol for CHSH is,

E(a, b) + E(a', b) + E(a, b') - E(a', b')

Where the minus sign can be transposed to any one of the other elements and it is usual practice to take the set that gives the highest absolute value. Now, you seem to have a hard time understanding exactly what that protocol means as it does not mean <AB> + <A'B> + <AB'> - <A'B'>. You are mixing up results with angle settings.

However, CHSH is totally un-necessary for Joy's experiment. All that Joy's experiment has to show is E(a, b) = -a.b as Han is saying.

[gill1109]

So it's not clear to me, Fred, whether you are against any kind of CHSH type experiment in principle, which seemed to be Han Geurdes' position, of if you simply have a different CHSH protocol in mind from what other people have used in the past.

I am not against CHSH for a Weihs, et al, type of experiment. That is what CHSH was designed for. And the exact protocol for CHSH is,

E(a, b) + E(a', b) + E(a, b') - E(a', b')

Where the minus sign can be transposed to any one of the other elements and it is usual practice to take the set that gives the highest absolute value. Now, you seem to have a hard time understanding exactly what that protocol means as it does not mean <AB> + <A'B> + <AB'> - <A'B'>. You are mixing up results with angle settings.

However, CHSH is totally un-necessary for Joy's experiment. All that Joy's experiment has to show is E(a, b) = -a.b as Han is saying.

Obviously if E(a, b) = -a.b then E(a, b) + E(a', b) + E(a, b') - E(a', b') exceeds 2 for skillfully chosen a, a', b, b'. Violating CHSH for particular a, a', b, b' is *weaker* than showing E(a, b) = -a.b for all a, b. If Joy does what Han wants then he even gets CHSH = 2 sqrt 2, where I will be defeated if CHSH is appreciably larger than 2.

I have no idea what you mean by the distinction between <AB> and E(a, b). If we perform, say, n runs with settings a, b on each side of the experiment, then we will compute the average of the products of the outcomes on each side of the experiment. I used the notation <AB>_obs to stand for this quantity. That's what experimenters talk about, that's what they make plots of. That's what Joy and my bet is about.

Joy writes in his theoretical papers about the limit for n to infinity of the same quantity, but n is not going to go to infinity in the experiment - we will have to make do with some finite, large, n. The bet has to be settled in finite time and with finite resources. Physicist's don't observe mean values. They observe averages and they know that they are close to means, because of the law of large numbers. They even draw error bars in the graphics in their experimental papers. Joy and I will choose n large enough that the error bars will be so small that it is clear who has won.

[gill1109]

And stop spreading false rumors about my work.

I report true facts which contradict false rumours about your work spread by you.

[minkwe]

I agree that it is rather unwise of him. It means that he will certainly lose the bet, instead of only lose the bet with large probability.

Unfortunately, whether we calculate all of them or only some of them in each run, they all could be calculated at the same time, and their values wouldn't change depending on whether or not we calculate some of them.

You did not say why it is not enough for a macroscopic local realistic experiment to reproduce the QM correlation. You did not say why you want N to be the same for each correlation.

Joy has repeatedly told you each correlation is calculated from a different set of particle pairs. You have said nothing about why you ignore that and keep insisting on measuring them all on the same set of particles.

[minkwe]

However, CHSH is totally un-necessary for Joy's experiment. All that Joy's experiment has to show is E(a, b) = -a.b as Han is saying.

Exactly! What I want to know from Richard is why this is not enough.

Richard, tell us why E(a, b) = -a.b is not enough for you? Repeatedly pointing to Joy's paper is not a substitute for your own opinion why it is not enough. If you agree that it is enough then it is clear how to proceed: each run a large number of particles pairs are generated (not necessarily the same number). Alice and Bob randomly pick a and b. Then calculate E(a,b). We repeat as many runs as you like and each time we compare the corresponding E(a,b) with QM. If they match within statististical error Joy wins. No need to mention CHSH. Do you have a problem with that?

[FrediFizzx]

Simple. Richard was trying to impose his phony CHSH on the experiment and of course nothing (including QM) can beat that.

[gill1109]

Richard, tell us why E(a, b) = -a.b is not enough for you? Repeatedly pointing to Joy's paper is not a substitute for your own opinion why it is not enough. If you agree that it is enough then it is clear how to proceed: each run a large number of particles pairs are generated (not necessarily the same number). Alice and Bob randomly pick a and b. Then calculate E(a,b). We repeat as many runs as you like and each time we compare the corresponding E(a,b) with QM. If they match within statististical error Joy wins. No need to mention CHSH. Do you have a problem with that?

It is enought for me. I have no problem with that at all, and I already told you so.

I told you that I want even less: I just want to see the values of E(a, b) at four particular pairs of values of a and of b.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

[gill1109]

Simple. Richard was trying to impose his phony CHSH on the experiment and of course nothing (including QM) can beat that.

This is nonsense, Fred. I am not imposing anything, and there is nothing phony about "my CHSH" which is just *the* CHSH of every famous experiment and every famous theoretical paper about CHSH. (You are confusing my new *proof* of the old CHSH, with CHSH itself).

There is something odd about Joy's experiment. We are going to collect N values s_k of the direction of spin of two hemispherical objects. We are then going to pick directions a and b, and compute 1/N sum_k sign(a . s_k) sign(b . -s_k). We'll do this for several pairs of directions and Joy has no objection at all that we use the same N spin directions s_k for each new pair of directions.

Have you actually read Joy's two experimental papers?

[gill1109]

Joy has repeatedly told you each correlation is calculated from a different set of particle pairs. You have said nothing about why you ignore that and keep insisting on measuring them all on the same set of particles.

Joy has repeatedly told us that each correlation *may* be computed from the same set of particle pairs. If you don't believe me, read his two papers. I am not responsible for what *he* wrote and posted on arXiv.

I read his papers carefully and made a logical deduction from his papers about what the results of his proposed experiment, as he wrote it down, many times, would be. Anyone can do the same.

Moreover I do not even *insist* that we measure them all on the same set of particles. Quite on the contrary: I have repeatedly said that I want a standard CHSH set-up where for each pair of particles, only one a and one b is measured! Joy has agreed to this.

[gill1109]

The discussion in this thread has somehow veered to the topic of another. Namely, the thread on Joy Christian's proposed experiment. To answer a question by Michel: yes, that experiment is good enough for me.
I quote from the other thread:

These sensors will determine the exact direction of the spin angular momentum s_k (or −s_k) for each shell in a given explosion, without disturbing them otherwise so that their total angular momentum would remain zero, at a designated distance from the center.

Once the actual directions of the angular momenta for a large ensemble of shells on both sides are fully recorded, the two computers are instructed to randomly choose a pair of reference directions, say a for one station and b for the other station.

The correlation function for the bomb fragments can then be calculated as E(a, b) = lim_n 1/n sum_k {sign(+s_k · a)} {sign (−s_k · b)}

I am making a bet about the value of the correlation function at just four points: E(a, b), E(a, b'), E(a', b), E(a', b').

We are going to do one experiment in order to settle this bet, and it has one "n", we don't take a limit.

I have insisted on a CHSH style experiment where each run is assigned (by random choice) to just one of the four correlations. But I am happy to relinquish that demand if Joy really is happy to calculate the four correlations on the same set of n runs (n values of s_k).