gill1109 wrote:Using a different inequality with a higher bound would not be subtle.
If there is a trick, it is a great deal more subtle.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Using a different inequality with a higher bound would not be subtle.
If there is a trick, it is a great deal more subtle.
Please demonstrate mathematically how QM supposedly "violates" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it? That is because it is.
gill1109 wrote:Thanks Jay, Fred, and Joy! I'm back on Fred's wonderful forum - as long as I behave myself, obviously.
We (=Jay, Joy and myself) are still working hard on the symposium. A new idea has been to hold it not in Leiden, but perhaps in Groningen, if Hans de Raedt would be interested in being the local host. I am very likely seeing Hans in less than a month in Växjö. But I hope to email him about the idea, as soon as possible.
The idea for the new location came from Ilija Barukčić, another well known anti-Bell researcher, who lives not far from Hamburg in North Germany. He too has an apple to pick with me. Groningen is mid way between Leiden and Hamburg. And also, importantly, still not far from Oxford.
Ilija has written an extraordinary book on "causality" which at the moment is a very very hot topic in machine learning, AI, big data, data science ... And naturally he applies his ideas on causality to quantum mechanics.
Groningen is a wonderful old university town and gateway to perhaps the most amazing part of the Netherlands, the "Waddenzee" (the water between mainland and string of islands at the top). The string of islands continues along the North German coast, past Schleswig Holstein, and on, almost all the way along the Danish coast to the Northernmost tip of Jutland.
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Using a different inequality with a higher bound would not be subtle.
If there is a trick, it is a great deal more subtle.
Please demonstrate mathematically how QM supposedly "violates" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it? That is because it is.
Well, I will just cut to the chase here and demonstrate the trick myself. It is pretty easy to follow. So we have the original Bell inequality,
Now suppose that a is 90 degrees to b and c is in the middle at 45 degrees to both. So quantum mechanics gives |0 + 0.707| + 0.707 = 1.41 which is certainly greater than 1 so it seemingly violates the inequality.
But wait a minute! What they don't tell you is that a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time! So the quantum mechanics calculation is actually,
Which is easy to demonstrate. |(-1) - (+1)| -(-1) = 3 and 1.41 is certainly not greater than 3 so no actual violation. So what happened here? Since a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time, the interdependency was lost that Bell setup in the original inequality. It is that simple. It is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the original inequality. So the trick is indeed subtle.
Now, I suppose we will have some bizarre rationalization as to why the above is wrong.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Using a different inequality with a higher bound would not be subtle.
If there is a trick, it is a great deal more subtle.
Please demonstrate mathematically how QM supposedly "violates" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it? That is because it is.
Well, I will just cut to the chase here and demonstrate the trick myself. It is pretty easy to follow. So we have the original Bell inequality,
Now suppose that a is 90 degrees to b and c is in the middle at 45 degrees to both. So quantum mechanics gives |0 + 0.707| + 0.707 = 1.41 which is certainly greater than 1 so it seemingly violates the inequality.
But wait a minute! What they don't tell you is that a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time! So the quantum mechanics calculation is actually,
Which is easy to demonstrate. |(-1) - (+1)| -(-1) = 3 and 1.41 is certainly not greater than 3 so no actual violation. So what happened here? Since a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time, the interdependency was lost that Bell setup in the original inequality. It is that simple. It is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the original inequality. So the trick is indeed subtle.
Now, I suppose we will have some bizarre rationalization as to why the above is wrong.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Please demonstrate mathematically how QM supposedly "violates" an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate. Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it? That is because it is.
Well, I will just cut to the chase here and demonstrate the trick myself. It is pretty easy to follow. So we have the original Bell inequality,
Now suppose that a is 90 degrees to b and c is in the middle at 45 degrees to both. So quantum mechanics gives |0 + 0.707| + 0.707 = 1.41 which is certainly greater than 1 so it seemingly violates the inequality.
But wait a minute! What they don't tell you is that a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time! So the quantum mechanics calculation is actually,
Which is easy to demonstrate. |(-1) - (+1)| -(-1) = 3 and 1.41 is certainly not greater than 3 so no actual violation. So what happened here? Since a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time, the interdependency was lost that Bell setup in the original inequality. It is that simple. It is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the original inequality. So the trick is indeed subtle.
Now, I suppose we will have some bizarre rationalization as to why the above is wrong.
.
Hm. It's not wrong. It's irrelevant. ...
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, I will just cut to the chase here and demonstrate the trick myself. It is pretty easy to follow. So we have the original Bell inequality,
Now suppose that a is 90 degrees to b and c is in the middle at 45 degrees to both. So quantum mechanics gives |0 + 0.707| + 0.707 = 1.41 which is certainly greater than 1 so it seemingly violates the inequality.
But wait a minute! What they don't tell you is that a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time! So the quantum mechanics calculation is actually,
Which is easy to demonstrate. |(-1) - (+1)| -(-1) = 3 and 1.41 is certainly not greater than 3 so no actual violation. So what happened here? Since a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time, the interdependency was lost that Bell setup in the original inequality. It is that simple. It is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the original inequality. So the trick is indeed subtle.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Well, I will just cut to the chase here and demonstrate the trick myself. It is pretty easy to follow. So we have the original Bell inequality,
Now suppose that a is 90 degrees to b and c is in the middle at 45 degrees to both. So quantum mechanics gives |0 + 0.707| + 0.707 = 1.41 which is certainly greater than 1 so it seemingly violates the inequality.
But wait a minute! What they don't tell you is that a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time! So the quantum mechanics calculation is actually,
Which is easy to demonstrate. |(-1) - (+1)| -(-1) = 3 and 1.41 is certainly not greater than 3 so no actual violation. So what happened here? Since a, b, and c can't happen all at the same time, the interdependency was lost that Bell setup in the original inequality. It is that simple. It is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the original inequality. So the trick is indeed subtle.
This was my initial objection too, when I first encountered Bell's theorem many, many years ago. I guess we've all been there.
However, I realized that the objection was so trivial that there must surely be something I had overlooked, else the theorem would never have survived the scrutiny it has received over the years. And indeed there was.
gill1109 wrote:Maybe Joy Christian and Fred Diether would both care to comment on the EPR argument. Einstein argues, using predictions of quantum mechanics, that position and momentum are *both* defined on *both* of a pair of entangled particles. This leads Einstein to say (assuming that QM predictions are indeed correct) that both particles both have a position and momentum and that in a local hidden variables theory both are defined even if we can only measure one of the two on each of the two particles. …(snip)…
FrediFizzx wrote: Once more... IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO VIOLATE BELL'S INEQUALITIES!
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 55 guests