Heinera wrote:This is not new. Joy Christian described a local realistic model for Bell type phenomena more than ten years ago.
FrediFizzx wrote:What is more, is that Jay Yablon showed that quantum mechanics itself is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412&p=10488#p10488
.
Esail wrote:I've developed a model that correctly predicts the quantum measurement results with entangled photons thus refuting Bell's theorem. It can be found on ResearchGate
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem"
DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29860.22403
As a consequence, we cannot conclude any more nature is nonlocal. Experimental results with spin or polarization measurements can be explained without assuming non-local effects.
Also, the concept of superposition which implies the simultaneous existence of incompatible physical states is in question. If measured values exist beforehand mutually exclusive values cannot exist simultaneously.
Hence, the concept of a quantum computer is in question as it relies upon the assumption that a quantum system bears simultaneously information about two mutually exclusive outcomes.
Comments are welcome
gill1109 wrote:
You introduce a *contextual* realistic model. It violates *locality*.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:
You introduce a *contextual* realistic model. It violates *locality*.
Can you, please, explain where my model violates locality?
gill1109 wrote:
Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).
I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.
FrediFizzx wrote:Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).
I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.
Nope. His "challenge" is rigged as far as matching QM goes. You have to beat CHSH by a certain amount using the +/-1 A and B outcomes only. IOW, you have to be able to do what the QM experiments do. Well..., that is certainly what Nature does but QM can't predict the correct individual event by event outcomes. So he wants you to do more than what quantum mechanics can do.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).
I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.
gill1109 wrote:Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).
I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.
Please send me the program (or better still, publish it on internet) so we can find out whether or not it satisfies the requirements specified in my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103.
I am not going to do your programming work for you, nor check your mathematics for you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You think you have overturned more than fifty years of work in physics and mathematics and computer science. I think it is more likely that you have misunderstood what Bell did. Of course, I might be wrong. If you are right, you can easily prove to the world that you are right, and you will almost certainly get the Nobel prize and revolutionise physics. Once your programs are published and validated, no establishment conspiracy can stop the word from getting out.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Show you can violate Bell’s inequalities. I have 64 thousand Euro’s for you if you succeed. No cost to you if you fail (but you must admit that you failed).
I've specified the program already. So you can prepare to send the money to me.
Please send me the program (or better still, publish it on internet) so we can find out whether or not it satisfies the requirements specified in my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103.
I am not going to do your programming work for you, nor check your mathematics for you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You think you have overturned more than fifty years of work in physics and mathematics and computer science. I think it is more likely that you have misunderstood what Bell did. Of course, I might be wrong. If you are right, you can easily prove to the world that you are right, and you will almost certainly get the Nobel prize and revolutionise physics. Once your programs are published and validated, no establishment conspiracy can stop the word from getting out.
I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:...
I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.
Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.
A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.
A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.
"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.
A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.
"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.
Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because
(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),
so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.
***
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:
Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because
(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),
so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.
Joy, of course but not exactly what I am talking about here. Haven't you already done that?
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:
Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because
(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),
so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.
Joy, of course but not exactly what I am talking about here. Haven't you already done that?
Yes, we have done all of this before. But I thought you were trying to program the model that started this thread and Gill and Heinera were trying to distract you from that task.
***
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests