53 posts
• Page **1** of **3** • **1**, 2, 3

***

Professor Karl Hess has published a new paper on Bell's Theorem, entitled "Concepts of "local" and "nonlocal" in Bell's Theorem."

So far the paper has appeared only on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re ... 968db468eb

In the paper, Professor Hess proposes to classify local and nonlocal theories into the following four categories:

There is a nice discussion in the paper about the meaning and scope of these four categories, with examples of various known and less-known theories in physics.

Rather kindly, in his paper Professor Hess also mentions my work on Bell's theorem, citing the second edition of my book and my latest Royal Society paper:

As we can see, he is cautious about my local-realistic framework, and justifiably so. It is not easy to analyze the geometrical and topological subtleties of the 3- and 7-sphere on which my framework is based. However, in my view, my framework falls into Category 1, for the following reason. Within my framework the strong correlations are the consequences of the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere, S^3, taken as the physical space, with the 7-sphere, S^7, being its algebraic representation space. This is in addition to the experimenters' labeling of their data by unit vectors a, b, etc of some vector space. This would suggest that my framework should belong to Category 2 instead of Category 1. However, Alice and Bob need not be aware of the fact that we are living in the 3-sphere, S^3, or that its algebraic representation space is S^7. They can be --- and are in the actual experiments --- oblivious to S^3 and S^7 geometries. They simply collect and analyze the data in the usual local manner, and represent them in Bell’s local-realistic functions, as A(a, λ) = +/-1 and B(b, λ) = +/-1, respectively. My contention is that, if we assume that Alice and Bob are living in S^3 without their knowledge, then the calculations of the average of the product AB of their results A and B will automatically be -a.b. So, for the purposes of performing their experiment, collecting data, and analyzing that data, they do not in any way use the fact that they are living in S^3. That “additional information” is from "God's vantage point", as a way of understanding the puzzling strong correlations. Consequently, I believe that my framework belongs to Category 1 and not to Category 2.

***

Professor Karl Hess has published a new paper on Bell's Theorem, entitled "Concepts of "local" and "nonlocal" in Bell's Theorem."

So far the paper has appeared only on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re ... 968db468eb

In the paper, Professor Hess proposes to classify local and nonlocal theories into the following four categories:

There is a nice discussion in the paper about the meaning and scope of these four categories, with examples of various known and less-known theories in physics.

Rather kindly, in his paper Professor Hess also mentions my work on Bell's theorem, citing the second edition of my book and my latest Royal Society paper:

As we can see, he is cautious about my local-realistic framework, and justifiably so. It is not easy to analyze the geometrical and topological subtleties of the 3- and 7-sphere on which my framework is based. However, in my view, my framework falls into Category 1, for the following reason. Within my framework the strong correlations are the consequences of the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere, S^3, taken as the physical space, with the 7-sphere, S^7, being its algebraic representation space. This is in addition to the experimenters' labeling of their data by unit vectors a, b, etc of some vector space. This would suggest that my framework should belong to Category 2 instead of Category 1. However, Alice and Bob need not be aware of the fact that we are living in the 3-sphere, S^3, or that its algebraic representation space is S^7. They can be --- and are in the actual experiments --- oblivious to S^3 and S^7 geometries. They simply collect and analyze the data in the usual local manner, and represent them in Bell’s local-realistic functions, as A(a, λ) = +/-1 and B(b, λ) = +/-1, respectively. My contention is that, if we assume that Alice and Bob are living in S^3 without their knowledge, then the calculations of the average of the product AB of their results A and B will automatically be -a.b. So, for the purposes of performing their experiment, collecting data, and analyzing that data, they do not in any way use the fact that they are living in S^3. That “additional information” is from "God's vantage point", as a way of understanding the puzzling strong correlations. Consequently, I believe that my framework belongs to Category 1 and not to Category 2.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2132**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Thanks for posting this! There is already an interesting discussion evolving there on ResearchGate.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1653**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:

Thanks for posting this! There is already an interesting discussion evolving there on ResearchGate.

We should invite Professor Karl Hess as a speaker in the symposium. He has told me privately that he has read some chapters of my book as well as some sections of my Royal Society paper.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2132**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

gill1109 wrote:Thanks for posting this! There is already an interesting discussion evolving there on ResearchGate.

Interesting discussions indeed. It seems that there are at least a couple of "Bell-deniers" that are now clashing over the respective merits of their own proprietary LHV models. Also, it is interesting how the commenters are discussing and interpreting sentences in Bell's original 64-paper much like orthodox clerics are debating literal passages in the Bible.

If you understand the proof, you will never have to reference Bell's paper ever again. The proof is that simple.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:

If you understand the proof, you will never have to reference Bell's paper ever again. The proof is that simple.

That is very true. The "proof" of Bell's claim is so mind-numbingly flawed that no one should ever refer to it at all. In fact, Bell's paper should be retracted from all of its published forms.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2132**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:

If you understand the proof, you will never have to reference Bell's paper ever again. The proof is that simple.

That is very true. The "proof" of Bell's claim is so mind-numbingly flawed that no one should ever refer to it at all. In fact, Bell's paper should be retracted from all of its published forms.

***

Proof? What proof? The "theorem" is a word theorem so there is no mathematical proof. The only "proof" I need is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to "violate" the inequalities.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1700**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Proof? What proof? The "theorem" is a word theorem so there is no mathematical proof. The only "proof" I need is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to "violate" the inequalities.

.

Which is exactly why Sashsa Vongehr published his Randi Quantum (Crackpot) Challenge. No words. Only computer code. Still not met.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Proof? What proof? The "theorem" is a word theorem so there is no mathematical proof. The only "proof" I need is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to "violate" the inequalities.

.

Which is exactly why Sashsa Vongehr published his Randi Quantum (Crackpot) Challenge. No words. Only computer code. Still not met.

Only a fool would ever try to beat that rigged challenge. It does not prove the "theorem". It only proves that it is impossible to "violate" the inequalities as I have been saying.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1700**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Heinera wrote:

...Sashsa Vongehr published his Randi Quantum (Crackpot) Challenge.

Well said. The so-called "Randi Challenge" is indeed a "Crackpot Challenge." It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics. It is just a fictitious junk. It is as good as a pink unicorn.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2132**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Having read a bit more in the comment section, it is apparent that denial of Bell's theorem is a very thin membrane, that is almost immediately punctured. Every denier agrees that Bell was wrong, but they also have their own pet model that clearly shows how an LHV model would work, and thus end up in a wonderful disagreement. I can come up with at least a dozen Monty Python sketches that illustrate this perfectly.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:

I can come up with at least a dozen Monty Python sketches that illustrate this perfectly.

Funnily enough, just one Monty Python sketch is enough for Bell's theorem itself --- it is "resting": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2132**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Yes, yes, but still very entertaining.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:Yes, yes, but still very entertaining.

Anyways, we are still waiting for a mathematical proof of the "theorem". Guess what? There isn't one.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1700**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote: Only a fool would ever try to beat that rigged challenge.

.

That is correct. It is rigged because of Bell's theorem, which says it is impossible.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote: Only a fool would ever try to beat that rigged challenge.

.

That is correct. It is rigged because of Bell's theorem, which says it is impossible.

No, it is rigged because of the inequality which is mathematically impossible to "violate". You are mixing up the theorem with the inequality.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1700**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:No, it is rigged because of the inequality which is mathematically impossible to "violate". You are mixing up the theorem with the inequality.

.

That inequality is called Bell's inequality. That the Randi Quantum (Crackpot) Challenge can't be won is called Bell's theorem. The challenge doesn't mention any inequality. The challenge is simply to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation.

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

The "theorem" is deduced from the inequality but Bell made a mistake in his deduction. We have already beaten the challenge. If you have an inequality that is mathematically impossible to "violate", then an immediate GIANT alarm bell should go off in your brain. How do the experiments and QM claim to violate it? It's simple. They don't use Bell's inequality. Neither do we when we beat the challenge.

For some unknown and weird reason, Bell fans don't have that alarm bell.

.

For some unknown and weird reason, Bell fans don't have that alarm bell.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1700**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:No, it is rigged because of the inequality which is mathematically impossible to "violate". You are mixing up the theorem with the inequality.

.

That inequality is called Bell's inequality. That the Randi Quantum (Crackpot) Challenge can't be won is called Bell's theorem. The challenge doesn't mention any inequality. The challenge is simply to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation.

It is indeed a crackpot challenge because only crackpots believe in Bell's theorem.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2132**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:No, it is rigged because of the inequality which is mathematically impossible to "violate". You are mixing up the theorem with the inequality.

.

That inequality is called Bell's inequality. That the Randi Quantum (Crackpot) Challenge can't be won is called Bell's theorem. The challenge doesn't mention any inequality. The challenge is simply to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation.

The challenge certainly does use the inequality.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1700**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:The challenge certainly does use the inequality.

.

The challenge is to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation. There. Where did I say anything about an inequality?

- Heinera
**Posts:**696**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

53 posts
• Page **1** of **3** • **1**, 2, 3

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests