Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

[gill1109]

PM = private messaging on the forum. Sorry, attachments aren't allowed in PM's. But you can swap email addresses via PM.

Thanks!

[Gordon Watson]

I am bringing this here, with a bump, from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=214

Fred, Can you point me to minkwe's stuff? Tks, G

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39

Just do a search on minkwe on the forum for more recent comments from this year. Make that an advanced search with minkwe as the author. Perhaps discussions involving Schmelzer and Jochen.

Reason: (i). Because this thread raises excellent points against the Bellians. (ii) Newcomers should enjoy and become familiar with it. (iii) It seems minkwe and I have very similar ideas. (iv) I would like to press the Bellians for definitive responses.

PS: I will to add my 2 cents soon.

[FrediFizzx]

I am bringing this here, with a bump, from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=214

Reason: (i). Because this thread raises excellent points against the Bellians. (ii) Newcomers should enjoy and become familiar with it. (iii) It seems minkwe and I have very similar ideas. (iv) I would like to press the Bellians for definitive responses.

PS: I will to add my 2 cents soon.

You will probably just get the same insufficient arguments as already presented in this thread by the Bell fans. They refuse to acknowledge that the experiments shift to a different inequality from the one they are supposed to be testing. It is a big mystery to me and quite mind boggling. Yeah, I suppose it is interesting why so many people can be tricked by this.

[Gordon Watson]

I am bringing this here, with a bump, from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=214

Reason: (i). Because this thread raises excellent points against the Bellians. (ii) Newcomers should enjoy and become familiar with it. (iii) It seems minkwe and I have very similar ideas. (iv) I would like to press the Bellians for definitive responses.

PS: I will to add my 2 cents soon.

You will probably just get the same insufficient arguments as already presented in this thread by the Bell fans. They refuse to acknowledge that the experiments shift to a different inequality from the one they are supposed to be testing. It is a big mystery to me and quite mind boggling. Yeah, I suppose it is interesting why so many people can be tricked by this.

Fred, one thing I note about many non-Bellians: they are prepared to focus and debate their ideas and beliefs. Contrary-wise: many Bellians -- not realising what they've signed up to, but seeking to justify their belief -- tend to range all over the place. You make the point nicely: Bellians refuse to acknowledge that real experiments test a VERY different inequality to the one that they worship. Like a realistic and testable range of [-4, +4] versus a constricted but easily beatable Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Which brings us to the source of the trickery. (i) The trick is not in Bell's premises; they are just that good old magician's trick of "Look Here"! (ii) The trick is a switcheroonie on the naive in the bowels of his analysis -- Bell's error -- a trick so good that it forever-after fooled Bell himself; then CHSH; which then gave the world the remarkable positive-feedback loop of CHSH-Bell-CHSH that continues to this day; eg, http://hansonlab.tudelft.nl/wp-content/ ... vOct16.pdf.

I close with an open invitation to solve a very modern mystery; mysterious because I myself, a non-Bellian, know the trick; mysterious because some well-known Bellians do not! Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Thanks in advance.

[Mikko]

Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should as this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

[FrediFizzx]

Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should as this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

It is pretty trivial to find experiments that can't exceed the bound of 2 given Bell's conditions. Perhaps Gordon meant quantum experiments.

[Gordon Watson]

Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should ask this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

Thanks Mikko, I truly appreciate your comments; and I encourage you to bring your own Bellian ideas (if any) here for testing and discussion.

Note that Bohmians, Bohrians, Christians, Freudians, Newtonians, etc., and those studying such systems: all seem happy to test and defend their beliefs most anywhere. But you're right, Bellians are not in the same class. A point made the more telling in that several leading Bellians have yet to answer questions related to the one above.

My thanks again; Gordon

[Gordon Watson]

Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should as this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

It is pretty trivial to find experiments that can't exceed the bound of 2 given Bell's conditions. Perhaps Gordon meant quantum experiments.

You're right, Fred: "It is pretty trivial to find experiments that can't exceed the bound of 2." To be clear: I was interested in any non-quantum experiment that delivered the Bellian RANGE [-2, +2]. For I then might understand/discuss the relevance of such to CHSH, and to Bell's related endorsement.

[Mikko]

To be clear: I was interested in any non-quantum experiment that delivered the Bellian RANGE [-2, +2].

Do you by "range" mean the range of possible values of the expected values of S? Or the observed value S? The former is a constant for a particular experiment and the latter is a single random variable. So one experiment does not give you a range, only a single value. Variations of an experiment may give you a range, but you need an infinite family of experiments to get the whole range. If that is what you want, you must state it very clearly in your question. Otherwise you are told something else if anything at all.

For I then might understand/discuss the relevance of such to CHSH, and to Bell's related endorsement.

Unlikely that you would find more relevance than that the expected S satisfies the CHSH inequality in those experiments where it does. But maybe you are lucky.

Perhaps you can desing an experiment that gives some value of S, for that is trivial, as Fred already said. Then it would be easier to find out ways to vary the experiment to get other values and find some range of possibilities.