SciPhysicsForums.com

I belatedly heard that Boris Tsirelson has passed away (it was two months ago). Maybe we should discuss his theorem (you could call it: the quantum CHSH inequality)

https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2020/04/ ... -tsirelson

gill1109 wrote:I belatedly heard that Boris Tsirelson has passed away (it was two months ago). Maybe we should discuss his theorem (you could call it: the quantum CHSH inequality)

https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2020/04/ ... -tsirelson

It's easy perhaps.



Is it the only way of getting the maximum bound?
.

gill1109 wrote:
I belatedly heard that Boris Tsirelson has passed away (it was two months ago). Maybe we should discuss his theorem (you could call it: the quantum CHSH inequality)

https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2020/04/ ... -tsirelson

Yes, we know Boris Tsirelson passed away. First Bell, then Peres, then Shimony, and now Tsirelson. One by one the old guards of Bell's theorem are falling. Sadly, none of us are here forever.

I have had several heated discussions with Boris on Wikipedia pages and elsewhere. He guarded Bell's theorem page on Wikipedia as if his life depended on it. I thought that was rather sad.

But, unlike John Bell, Boris Tsirelson will be remembered forever for his bounds. Bell's bounds on the CHSH correlator, namely -2 and +2, are fake. They are a result of a silly and mistaken calculation, as I have explained in my recent paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876. But Boris's bounds, -2\/2 and +2\/2, are true. They are true bounds for any quantum correlations, not just singlet correlations, and they are also the true local-realistic bounds on the CHSH correlator. They also happen to be the bounds predicted by my 3-sphere and 7-sphere models for the quantum correlations: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578.

So, there! I have publicly paid tribute to Boris Tsirelson despite my acrimonious interactions with him.

***

FrediFizzx wrote:

gill1109 wrote:I belatedly heard that Boris Tsirelson has passed away (it was two months ago). Maybe we should discuss his theorem (you could call it: the quantum CHSH inequality)
https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2020/04/ ... -tsirelson

It's easy perhaps.

Is it the only way of getting the maximum bound?

Boris indeed proved that (within quantum mechanics) there was essentially one and only one way to achieve the bound. i.e. that the two pairs of observables and the quantum state which together achieve the 2 sqrt 2 bound, are unique up to Hilbert space isomorphism

I gave a Zoom talk in Krakow (well ... I was in Apeldoorn, Netherlands) with somehow Boris' spirit very much in my mind. There will be a second talk next Monday. The slides are here:
https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Warsaw.pdf
https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Warsaw2.pdf
Email (or PM) me if you'd like an invite for the "Part 2".

You may ask yourself: what does this have to do with Warsaw?

gill1109 wrote:I
You may ask yourself: what does this have to do with Warsaw?

Part of the answer is here: https://gill1109.com/2020/04/08/warsaw/

gill1109 wrote:
I gave a Zoom talk in Krakow (well ... I was in Apeldoorn, Netherlands) with somehow Boris' spirit very much in my mind. There will be a second talk next Monday. The slides are here:
https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Warsaw.pdf
https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Warsaw2.pdf

Nice slides, but you are wasting your time. Bell's theorem has no scientific merit. It is simply a politically and sociologically sustained belief system. You don't have to keep up the facade.

***

Joy, I am still waiting for your explanation of QM violation of Mermin's Pr(A=B)+Pr(A=C)+Pr(B=C)>=1 inequality: that tossing 3 coins at least 2 are equal?

Joy Christian wrote:Nice slides, but you are wasting your time. Bell's theorem has no scientific merit. It is simply a politically and sociologically sustained belief system. You don't have to keep up the facade.

Thanks ... life is short. We waste a bit of time and then we're gone. It's not a facade, it's all there is. The past is history, the future a mystery ... today is a gift.