On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

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

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:57 pm

Heinera wrote:Since this simulation is intended to demonstrate a mathematical point, there is no matching issue. So let me ask the question again: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?

I already answered the question. What part of my answer don't you understand. Yes, it is possible to simulate the EPR experiment and produce the same correlation as QM predicts for the experiment without any reliance on spooky business. If you simulate something else don't expect the results to be similar.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:13 pm

That was not my question. Is it possible to run MY simulation, as specified, and get the correlations (which incidentally may bear no relations to the correlations QM predict)?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:02 pm

Heinera wrote:Is it possible to run MY simulation, as specified, and get the correlations (which incidentally may bear no relations to the correlations QM predict)?

I don't know if it is possible for your simulation to produce the correlation . Since your simulation has no relation to the QM prediction, I haven't looked or thought about it.

I assumed you were talking about Bell's theorem which is in the topic of the thread, in which case Bell's theorem is a claim about models of real experiments, and QM predictions of real experiments. If now you are admitting that this thread is about some simulation that is not related to QM or real experiments and you want me to make a claim about it. I don't know the answer to that question.

But I will repeat my previous answer for anyone who may mistakenly think this thread is related to QM or real experiments. It is possible to simulate the EPR experiment and produce the same correlation as QM predicts for the experiment without any reliance on spooky business.. I couldn't be more clear about this.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:22 pm

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:Is it possible to run MY simulation, as specified, and get the correlations (which incidentally may bear no relations to the correlations QM predict)?

I don't know if it is possible for your simulation to produce the correlation . Since your simulation has no relation to the QM prediction, I haven't looked or thought about it.


LOL!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

minkwe wrote:I assumed you were talking about Bell's theorem which is in the topic of the thread, in which case Bell's theorem is a claim about models of real experiments, and QM predictions of real experiments.


Bell's theorem is a theorem about an ideal thought experiment (Bell hardly refers to the word "experiment" at all in his paper, only in the last paragraph), same can be said for the original EPR paper. The QM predictions he uses are the predictions for this ideal experiment.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

Heinera wrote:Bell's theorem is a theorem about an ideal thought experiment (Bell hardly refers to the word "experiment" at all in his paper, only in the last paragraph), same can be said for the original EPR paper. The QM predictions he uses are the predictions for this ideal experiment.

I didn't know you knew how to laugh. You think there is a difference between "measurement" and "experiment"? How many times does Bell use the word measurement in his paper, I dare you to count it and then make the same ridiculous claim about Bell hardly using the word "experiment".

If however, now you are changing your mind again and claiming to be talking about Bell's theorem and QM predictions, then my answer as I've already stated is. Yes, It is possible to simulate the EPR experiment and produce the same correlation as QM predicts for the experiment without any reliance on spooky business.. I couldn't be more clear about this..

Heinera wrote:Who said it should resemble "actual EPR experiments"? Bell's theorem compares LHV theories to QM theory. No actual experiments needed.


Now make up your mind, are you talking about the EPR experiment that is the subject of Bell's paper or are you talking about simulations that have no relation to it. Again, it is possible to simulate the EPR experiment that is the subject of Bell's paper and produce the same correlation as QM predicts for the experiment without any reliance on spooky business. I couldn't be more clear about this..

BTW Bell's "theorem" is not a theorem. But let me give you a theorem that trumps all of this nonsense:

"Mutual cross-correlations of measured or predicted data for three (or four) variables must necessarily satisfy Bell's inequalities despite the source of the data, or the physical mechanism by which the data is produced"

Do you disagree with this.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:39 pm

Your replies make it sufficiently clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about so I'll leave it at that.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:47 pm

minkwe wrote:"Mutual cross-correlations of measured or predicted data for three (or four) variables must necessarily satisfy Bell's inequalities despite the source of the data, or the physical mechanism by which the data is produced"

Do you disagree with this?

I will wait for your answer to this question.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby local » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:15 am

Heinera wrote:Since this simulation is intended to demonstrate a mathematical point, there is no matching issue. So let me ask the question again: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?

FrediFizzx answered above in the affirmative and gave you a link. Did you find a way to refute that claim?
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:05 am

local wrote:
Heinera wrote:Since this simulation is intended to demonstrate a mathematical point, there is no matching issue. So let me ask the question again: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?

FrediFizzx answered above in the affirmative and gave you a link. Did you find a way to refute that claim?

:D It is impossible to refute the way Nature actually works.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:15 pm

local wrote:
Heinera wrote:Since this simulation is intended to demonstrate a mathematical point, there is no matching issue. So let me ask the question again: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?

FrediFizzx answered above in the affirmative and gave you a link. Did you find a way to refute that claim?

With all due respect, I have to say that I think that FrediFizzx is wrong. Are you asking for literature references, "local"?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:25 pm

gill1109 wrote:
local wrote:
Heinera wrote:Since this simulation is intended to demonstrate a mathematical point, there is no matching issue. So let me ask the question again: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?

FrediFizzx answered above in the affirmative and gave you a link. Did you find a way to refute that claim?

With all due respect, I have to say that I think that FrediFizzx is wrong. Are you asking for literature references, "local"?

I think he was asking if Heine could refute,

Image

That says it all.

EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf

Can you refute it? Please don't post some long distraction like you usually do.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:00 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:I think he was asking if Heine could refute
Image
That says it all.
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf
Can you refute it? Please don't post some long distraction like you usually do.
.

Yes. You have seen my refutations in the past. You didn't believe them. So this discussion does not get us further.

How about Joy demonstrates at the symposium that your code also does the job when it is split into three different programs each run on a different computer and used just to reproduce fairly accurately the four correlations of the CHSH inequality, while the settings or inputs are being chosen by a trusted third party and delivered to Joy's computers sequentially and separately; the outcomes are delivered sequentially and separately, in step with the inputs. We take N = 30 000. So you'll have about 7 500 trials for each of the four pairs of settings. Further details are given in my 2001 arXiv paper https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137, published in a refereed conference proceedings in 2003 in the IMS Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, Volume 42.

15 thousand Euros says it can't be done.

If Joy and his team of programmers succeed, he will have achieved quantum supremacy! It will be in all the newspapers all over the world. I'll make sure that the press is also present at the symposium.

Luigi Accardi often demonstrated his programs, implementing the Pearl model, at conferences in the late 90's, but he always insisted that the outputs of the measurement computers would have three outcomes: "spin up", "spin down", "no show".
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:12 pm

You haven't even looked at the Mathematica code. I've already done it. You can send us the 15 thousand Euros. Thanks.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:51 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:You haven't even looked at the Mathematica code. I've already done it. You can send us the 15 thousand Euros. Thanks. :D
.

You've got two choices. Accept that there is some kind of mysterious non-local connection between A and B that no one can physically explain or accept complete states as to how Nature works. The later makes more sense to me and it is completely local. We have already demonstrated that our local QM measurement functions do indeed predict -a.b. Add the complete states function to the functions then we can also predict individual +/-1 outcomes for A and B that also gives -a.b. Bam!

So you really should cough up that 15 thousand Euros. :D
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:28 am

FrediFizzx wrote:You haven't even looked at the Mathematica code. I've already done it. You can send us the 15 thousand Euros. Thanks.

I have looked at the Mathematica code. With all respect, I have to say that as far as I can see you have not already done anything worth doing at all. OK, I may be wrong. Prove me wrong!

*You* haven't looked up what are the constraints on the experiment.

In fact, I don't know how to modify your code so that it runs on three computers according to the rules of the experiment. I don't believe it is possible. If I could have done it I would have done it long ago, I would have already won my own challenge, been the first to do so, and I would have received 15 000 Euro's from myself. I would give my friends a party (I would invite you, Joy, Heine, Michel and others to it), because I would get my results published in "Nature". I would tell the world what I had done, I would in effect have claimed quantum supremacy with classical means, and proven it decisively by experiment. It would get me the Nobel prize. "The Establishment" would have no chance to suppress my results because everyone would be able to copy my code and do it themselves.

You must follow the rules which are followed in real experiments, today. And which are followed since 2015 by every self-respecting experimenter.

15 000 Euro says you can't do it. I suggest you work on it quietly and present your results at the symposium. There will be journalists present, and a lot of famous people.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:18 am

gill1109 wrote:
You must follow the rules which are followed in real experiments, today. And which are followed since 2015 by every self-respecting experimenter.

All the experimenters are doing is confirming what is predicted by quantum mechanics. If they are observing something that is not predicted by quantum mechanics or going beyond quantum mechanics, then we already have a revolution in physics and then nothing we are discussing here matters.

Given the above, what my 3-sphere model predicts and Fred's Mathematica code varifies is exactly what is predicted by quantum mechanics. Therefore your "challenge" has been met.

FrediFizzx wrote:
So you really should cough up that 15 thousand Euros. :D

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:10 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:You must follow the rules which are followed in real experiments, today. And which are followed since 2015 by every self-respecting experimenter.

All the experimenters are doing is confirming what is predicted by quantum mechanics. If they are observing something that is not predicted by quantum mechanics or going beyond quantum mechanics, then we already have a revolution in physics and then nothing we are discussing here matters.
Given the above, what my 3-sphere model predicts and Fred's Mathematica code varifies is exactly what is predicted by quantum mechanics. Therefore your "challenge" has been met.
FrediFizzx wrote:So you really should cough up that 15 thousand Euros. :D


My challenge has some rules, and *I* am the one to set them the rules of a challenge which *I* offer.

If you like, we can raise the challenge (I repeat, *my* challenge) to 64 000 dollars.

If you don't like *my* rules we can debate them, here or elsewhere. For instance, we can debate them here. It is an interesting scientific question which deserves further study. It is also going to be important to many quantum-side researchers since they are keen on using violation of Bell inequalities in protocols in the quantum internet.

At the *workshop* I also plan to talk about the rules of such challenges. Both sides need to be very confident that they can't be cheated. We will need trusted third parties, and they need to be able to apply the rules without knowledge of quantum mechanics or of Joy Christian's theory of the quantum correlations. The jury should include two persons, one on each side of the line perhaps, and a perhaps neutral/undecided person. I would not object to having Jay Yablon as chairman of such a jury despite his formal affiliation with Joy Christian's research institute in Oxford.

I think that quantum mechanics itself provides means for retaining the confidence of *both* sides. We all agree on the match between standard QM theory and the results of many experiments, including the post 2015 experiments which my challenge is about. My challenge is not about the pre 2015 experiments. My challenge, my choice.

However, quantum sceptics will maybe see ways that they themselves could cheat, given their own superior understanding of physical reality. Their own superior understanding of nature.

I repeat: 64 000 dollars says you can't do it, following *my* rules, in public, *at the symposium*.

There will be journalists present, and a lot of famous people. You have plenty of time to get the three computer programs ready. Remember that Michel himself did offer three Python programs and his programs could be used within the constraints which, at the time, many experimenters did accept. For reasons which we can also discuss, if you like. Why has the target moved? The answer is, I think, simple. Those past experiments required a supplementary un-testable assumption, the fair sampling assumption. If you look at Michel's Python code, and analyse it mathematically (ie you get a glance into God's mind; you do know the secrets of nature, within the "toy world" which Michel had created), you will discover that his underlying (hidden) model does not satisfy the fair sampling assumption.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:19 pm

***
I do not care about your supposed challenge. No sane person should. It has nothing to do with physics. It is an empty game. You can keep playing your game. Your game, your rules. Enjoy!

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:35 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
I do not care about your supposed challenge. No sane person should. It has nothing to do with physics. It is an empty game. You can keep playing your game. Your game, your rules. Enjoy!

***

Yeah, nah we are not going to do that game because we already won anyways. If anything, the rules would have to also be set by a third party and only be set to what Nature allows. IOW, no man-made restrictions.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:30 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:I do not care about your supposed challenge. No sane person should. It has nothing to do with physics. It is an empty game. You can keep playing your game. Your game, your rules. Enjoy!

Yeah, nah we are not going to do that game because we already won anyways. If anything, the rules would have to also be set by a third party and only be set to what Nature allows. IOW, no man-made restrictions.

It was not a game, it was a challenge. I challenged Joy and you. I made a bet that you could not fulfil a fairly simple challenge. Last time you attempted to win the bet you lost the challenge. Unfortunately I had not demanded that you put any money on the table. But apparently, at that time, you did think that the experimental set-up was legitimate. You entered a submission and it failed to win.

The rules were set by John Bell in 1981, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00220688/document. By the way, the rules don't give local realism an unfair advantage. John Bell himself was quite ambivalent about whether or not QM would win. He admitted as much in correspondence to E. Santos, long ago. This point of view of Santos is similar to the minority point of view, held by a few QM authorities, that large scale quantum computing is doomed to failure because of *quantum* noise.

The rules have to be agreed by us jointly. I don't see how you can complain that I choose to use an experimental framework which every experimenter since 2015 has been using, and every experimenter since 1981 has been moving towards.

Experiments are performed by human beings who have to choose an experimental design. Then they investigate what nature can do, within the framework they have chosen. The 2015 framework was chosen by the scientific community (not by me) because people agreed that Bell's 1981 framework would test quantum mechanics (not; test Joy Christian's model, or local realism in general) to the utmost. The results were ... according to the predictions of quantum mechanics. Therefore also according to the predictions of Joy Christian's model. If Joy Christian's model is mathematically sound and if it can be faithfully simulated on a network of computers, then that computer network can do what a bunch of lasers, glass fibre cables, polarization filters and and photo-detectors can do.

Philip Pearle (1970), Luigi Accardi et al. (2001), Caroline Thompson (1996), Michel Fodje (First version: 4 November 2013), Hans de Raedt et al. (2007), Gisin & Gisin (1999) and no doubt, a host of others, rose to the challenges put down by previous generations of lab experiments. Since 2015 they have *all* been silent. But if Joy Christian is right then his model should work in the 2015+ framework. What the hell is the problem?

I kind of imagine that you are afraid that you can't do it. Hence the bluster.

Anyways, my challenge to you (and the fact that I am ready to stake 64 thousand dollars - I don't know what you are prepared to put on the table) is already on record, and I will remind the audience at the symposium that I challenged you. I expect I will be forced to tell the audience, in a year and half, that you have failed to rise to the challenge. I will feel free to quote from responses here by Fred Diether and Joy Christian.

The reason I can happily raise the bet from 15 thousand Euro to 64 thousand dollar is that in the mean time my earlier probability calculations got improved by various *physicists* who moreover used my approach in their computation of p-values for their experiments.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library