gill1109 wrote:According to QM, in a CHSH type experiment the following bound holds:
E(a, b) - E(a, b') - E(a', b) - E(a', b') <= 2 sqrt 2 = 2.828...
A clear violation of this bound (i.e., taking account of experimental error) has almost never been reported, though many attempts were made.
On the other hand, simulation programs like those of Michel Fodje can easily violate this bound, getting results all the way up to 4.
The bound 2 sqrt 2 was first proven by Boris Tsirelson and later Joy Christian also gave a proof.
According to Michel Fodje and Fred Diether, the only bound one can assert is 4.
Is Joy Christian's work flawed, or are Michel and Fred missing something?
Should the Tsirelson bound follow the CHSH bound to the waste-bin?
gill1109 wrote:According to QM, in a CHSH type experiment the following bound holds:
E(a, b) - E(a, b') - E(a', b) - E(a', b') <= 2 sqrt 2 = 2.828...
A clear violation of this bound (i.e., taking account of experimental error) has almost never been reported, though many attempts were made.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:According to QM, in a CHSH type experiment the following bound holds:
E(a, b) - E(a, b') - E(a', b) - E(a', b') <= 2 sqrt 2 = 2.828...
A clear violation of this bound (i.e., taking account of experimental error) has almost never been reported, though many attempts were made.
As already explained,
1. that is not a CHSH-type experiment. A CHSH-type experiment produces 4 columns of single-sided data which are recombined in pairs to calculate paired-correlations.
2. There is nothing wrong with 2.828 it is fully consistent with the upper bound of 4 for experiments of that type which produce 8 columns of data in 4 pairs.
3. An upper bound is never violated, never, not even by experimental error, never!!!
minkwe wrote:3. An upper bound is never violated, never, not even by experimental error, never!!!
Anyone who disagrees, should use any spooky source of data and introduce as much experimental error as they like to:
a) produce a spreadsheet of ONLY 4 columns of +/- results of any length which violates the upper bound of 2.
b) produce a spreadsheet of 8 pairs of columns of data of any length which violates the upper bound of 4.
Hopefully, this falsehood will be put to rest once and for all. Upper bounds are NEVER NEVER NEVER violated.
Feel free to introduce as much experimental error as you like. I'm sure you can write an R script for that. All that I ask is that you maintain the degrees of freedom. 4 columns only for the bound of 2, and 4 pairs of columns ONLY for the upper bound of 4. And you only have to violate the bound by 0.0000001. You can even use QM or any non-local theory of your choosing, no limits there, I don't care where you get the data.
This is a simple challenge and the results should prove once and for all that all talk of upper bounds being violated are illusory.
gill1109 wrote:Perhaps people who talk of bounds being violated should be a bit more careful in what they say. What do they mean, precisely?
The violation of the Bell inequalities show that any deterministic, underlying, theory intending to explain the surface randomness of quantum physical predictions, has to be grossly non-local in character.
minkwe wrote:3. An upper bound is never violated, never, not even by experimental error, never!!!
minkwe wrote:I wonder what the author meant when he talked of violation of Bell's inequalities by QM.
gill1109 wrote:When are you going to do my little experiment? I need your help translating that silly bit of R code into Python, because it is part of the code in the evaluation of the outcome of Joy and my bet.
gill1109 wrote:Why this refusal to help out in the preparations for the great experiment? To translate 20 lines of R into Python? What can you be scared of? Incomprehensible.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:Why this refusal to help out in the preparations for the great experiment? To translate 20 lines of R into Python? What can you be scared of? Incomprehensible.
Richard, since you asked so nicely, I will translate your R-code into python if Joy agrees that it is needed for the bet. Convince Joy that your R-code is necessary for the bet, and I will translate it for you into Python, C++, JavaScript, and even Ruby.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 80 guests