No spooky action at a distance

[FrediFizzx]

...
The problem is that your model cannot be implemented on a network of computes whose communications are constrained so as to reflect the spatial and temporal separations of a real Bell-type experiment. Alice and Bob receive photons from a source. Alice and Bob receive settings from "outside". Alice and Bob see outcomes. Alice sees her outcome before Bob's setting could possibly have been transmitted in any way from Bob's side of the experiment to Alice's.

Bell's theorem is a simple mathematical theorem which says that it can't be done. ...

Sorry, that is NOT Bell's "theorem". That is your "theorem". Is there any actual mathematical proof that a hidden variable can't be found to simulate the EPR type experiments correctly? I don't think so. So, it is not even really a rigorous mathematical theorem.
.

[gill1109]

The problem is that your model cannot be implemented on a network of computes whose communications are constrained so as to reflect the spatial and temporal separations of a real Bell-type experiment. Alice and Bob receive photons from a source. Alice and Bob receive settings from "outside". Alice and Bob see outcomes. Alice sees her outcome before Bob's setting could possibly have been transmitted in any way from Bob's side of the experiment to Alice's.
Bell's theorem is a simple mathematical theorem which says that it can't be done

Sorry, that is NOT Bell's "theorem". That is your "theorem". Is there any actual mathematical proof that a hidden variable can't be found to simulate the EPR type experiments correctly? I don't think so. So, it is not even really a rigorous mathematical theorem.
.

No, it is not my theorem. It has been proven by Tsirelson and by many other great mathematicians with as much mathematical rigour as you could desire. The proof is rather easy. It is not a deep or difficult theorem, there are many ways to prove it. For instance, Steve Gull (Cambridge astrophysicist and aficionado of geometric algebra) has a wonderful proof using simple ideas from Fourier analysis which every engineer would appreciate. It is a rigorous mathematical theorem. On the other hand, a hidden variable model for EPR experiments has existed for half a century. David Bohm came up with a hidden variable theory in the early 50s. His mentor, the great physicist Oppenheimer, convened a top secret workshop of the top people in quantum physics to find the mistake in Bohm's maths. They couldn't find it, so instead they agreed to completely ignore Bohm. He was "shunned". His papers weren't accepted and he had to leave the US. This was terrible for David since Oppenheimer had been like a father figure to David. They were both Jewish, of course, but David was also "too" Jewish for the US establishment. And too "leftish".

[Joy Christian]

No, it is not my theorem. It has been proven by Tsirelson and by many other great mathematicians with as much mathematical rigour as you could desire. The proof is rather easy. It is not a deep or difficult theorem, there are many ways to prove it. For instance, Steve Gull (Cambridge astrophysicist and aficionado of geometric algebra) has a wonderful proof using simple ideas from Fourier analysis which every engineer would appreciate. It is a rigorous mathematical theorem. On the other hand, a hidden variable model for EPR experiments has existed for half a century. David Bohm came up with a hidden variable theory in the early 50s. His mentor, the great physicist Oppenheimer, convened a top secret workshop of the top people in quantum physics to find the mistake in Bohm's maths. They couldn't find it, so instead they agreed to completely ignore Bohm. He was "shunned". His papers weren't accepted and he had to leave the US. This was terrible for David since Oppenheimer had been like a father figure to David. They were both Jewish, of course, but David was also "too" Jewish for the US establishment. And too "leftish".

Pure waffle. Every word of it. The so-called "proof" by Steve Gull, for example, is just hot air. There is no head or tail to it. And David Bohm's papers on his pilot-wave theory are actually published in none other than Physical Review. While Bohm did have to leave the US, it was not because of his work in physics but because of his connections to the Communist Party when he was a graduate student at Berkeley during World War II. This was the McCarthy era in the US and Bohm was one of its many victims.

***

[Heinera]

Well, bickering aside, I see that no one has yet successfully provided a working program that satisfies the conditions laid out here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=404&hilit=operational+refutation#p9976

So I will limit my further participation in this forum to not discuss Bell's theorem on a philosophical level anymore, but just restrict myself to point out the inevitable errors in whatever code any of you Bell deniers produce.

[gill1109]

No, it is not my theorem. It has been proven by Tsirelson and by many other great mathematicians with as much mathematical rigour as you could desire. The proof is rather easy. It is not a deep or difficult theorem, there are many ways to prove it. For instance, Steve Gull (Cambridge astrophysicist and aficionado of geometric algebra) has a wonderful proof using simple ideas from Fourier analysis which every engineer would appreciate. It is a rigorous mathematical theorem. On the other hand, a hidden variable model for EPR experiments has existed for half a century. David Bohm came up with a hidden variable theory in the early 50s. His mentor, the great physicist Oppenheimer, convened a top secret workshop of the top people in quantum physics to find the mistake in Bohm's maths. They couldn't find it, so instead they agreed to completely ignore Bohm. He was "shunned". His papers weren't accepted and he had to leave the US. This was terrible for David since Oppenheimer had been like a father figure to David. They were both Jewish, of course, but David was also "too" Jewish for the US establishment. And too "leftish".

Pure waffle. Every word of it. The so-called "proof" by Steve Gull, for example, is just hot air. There is no head or tail to it. And David Bohm's papers on his pilot-wave theory are actually published in none other than Physical Review. While Bohm did have to leave the US, it was not because of his work in physics but because of his connections to the Communist Party when he was a graduate student at Berkeley during World War II. This was the McCarthy era in the US and Bohm was one of its many victims.

***

I did not say his initial papers were not published. I said that he was shunned by the physics establishment. The first reason he left the US was because his work was suppressed there, because it was against the Copenhagen dogma, and Oppenheimer led the suppression.

Show us the mistake in Steve Gull’s proof.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, bickering aside, I see that no one has yet successfully provided a working program that satisfies the conditions laid out here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=404&hilit=operational+refutation#p9976 ...

LOL! That is Gill's "theorem" not Bell's junk physics theory! Bell's theory is about comparing local hidden variable theories to quantum mechanics. Bell's theory is NOT about modelling Nature and the experiments which may or may not have anything to do with QM. You Bell fans need to stop mixing up the two. Oh... that's right, you can't because Bell's theory is dead. So, typically you have to move the goalposts as usual.

However, Gill's "theorem" is interesting on its own but I doubt very much that it will stand the test of time.
.

[Joy Christian]

Show us the mistake in Steve Gull’s proof.

Show us the proof. There is no proof. There is only a claimed sketch of the "proof" that does not meet my challenge. To begin with, the so-called "proof" violates my condition (2) right from the start. Secondly, it says, with emphasis, that "This is a mathematical project. There are no physical assumptions." I couldn't care less about a mathematical project in this context. I am talking about the physically realizable EPR-Bohm type experiment. Thirdly, I see no derivation of the bounds on the CHSH correlator at all in the "proof." Finally, there actually exists an explicit, clear-cut local-realistic model, published in IEEE Access. Therefore the so-called "proof" cannot possibly have any physical significance.

By the way, I was lucky enough to meet David Bohm in 1989, in South Carolina, where many of us in "Foundations" had got together to celebrate 30 years of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

I have a paper with Abner Shimony published in the proceedings of that conference: "Berry Phase as an Appropriate Correspondence Limit of the Aharonov-Anandan Phase in a Simple Model."

***

[Esail]

If photons at wing A are selected with alpha the thus selected peer photons at wing B are in state alpha+pi/2 as described in the paper.

Locality means that the result of measurement at wing B should not in any way depend on the setting alpha. Anything else is non-local.

What you fail to understand is that the measurement results themselves do not depend on the polarizer position on the other side, but that the measurement results of a selection depend on the position of the selecting polarizer. Now it is the case that a selection on one wing acts like a selection on the other side with a polarizer that is perpendicular to it on that wing. This is due to the common parameter lambda. In Bell measurements we always consider selections of particle pairs with the same parameter lambda.

[Joy Christian]

If photons at wing A are selected with alpha the thus selected peer photons at wing B are in state alpha+pi/2 as described in the paper.

Locality means that the result of measurement at wing B should not in any way depend on the setting alpha. Anything else is non-local.

What you fail to understand is that the measurement results themselves do not depend on the polarizer position on the other side, but that the measurement results of a selection depend on the position of the selecting polarizer. Now it is the case that a selection on one wing acts like a selection on the other side with a polarizer that is perpendicular to it on that wing. This is due to the common parameter lambda. In Bell measurements we always consider selections of particle pairs with the same parameter lambda.

The parameter lambda is also not allowed to be non-local. It should not depend, or "know" anything about, the choices of the polarization angles made on either side of the experiment.

***

[Heinera]

What you fail to understand is that the measurement results themselves do not depend on the polarizer position on the other side

But in you pseudocode they do. If I change the value of alpha and keep everything else the same (including the value of lambda), I can get a different measurement result in wing B.

I the measurement result in wing B does not depend on alpha, why is alpha referenced in the code for wing B in the first place?

[Esail]

The parameter lambda is also not allowed to be non-local. It should not depend, or "know" anything about, the choices of the polarization angles made on either side of the experiment.

***

Lambda is created by the source of the photon pair. Both particles of a pair share the same value of lambda from the beginning long before any measurement has taken place.

[Esail]

What you fail to understand is that the measurement results themselves do not depend on the polarizer position on the other side

But in you pseudocode they do. If I change the value of alpha and keep everything else the same (including the value of lambda), I can get a different measurement result in wing B.

I the measurement result in wing B does not depend on alpha, why is alpha referenced in the code for wing B in the first place?

If you change alpha you change the selection. This changes the correlation. Now the context comes into play. Measurement results depend on the context. This is defined in MA4 in that the polarization of the photons of a selection is equal to the p-state (polarization angle) of the selection. So if we select alpha on wing A and by this way alpha+pi/2 on wing B we have the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons on wing B. This can indeed mean that a photon with polarization 90° from the initial state and a particular value of lambda would hit polarizer B at beta. But if we change the context by setting polarizer A at alpha thus having polarization alpha +pi/2 at B the photon with the same value of lambda would possibly not hit B at beta anymore. This is the effect of contextuality. That means we can only speak about measurement values if we add the context in which they appear. In a definite context the measurement values are constant.

[Heinera]

If you change alpha you change the selection. This changes the correlation. Now the context comes into play. Measurement results depend on the context. This is defined in MA4 in that the polarization of the photons of a selection is equal to the p-state (polarization angle) of the selection. So if we select alpha on wing A and by this way alpha+pi/2 on wing B we have the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons on wing B. This can indeed mean that a photon with polarization 90° from the initial state and a particular value of lambda would hit polarizer B at beta. But if we change the context by setting polarizer A at alpha thus having polarization alpha +pi/2 at B the photon with the same value of lambda would possibly not hit B at beta anymore. This is the effect of contextuality. That means we can only speak about measurement values if we add the context in which they appear. In a definite context the measurement values are constant.

In the context of Bell's theorem, this is non-local. Outside of that, it is just ordinary QM.

[Esail]

If you change alpha you change the selection. This changes the correlation. Now the context comes into play. Measurement results depend on the context. This is defined in MA4 in that the polarization of the photons of a selection is equal to the p-state (polarization angle) of the selection. So if we select alpha on wing A and by this way alpha+pi/2 on wing B we have the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons on wing B. This can indeed mean that a photon with polarization 90° from the initial state and a particular value of lambda would hit polarizer B at beta. But if we change the context by setting polarizer A at alpha thus having polarization alpha +pi/2 at B the photon with the same value of lambda would possibly not hit B at beta anymore. This is the effect of contextuality. That means we can only speak about measurement values if we add the context in which they appear. In a definite context the measurement values are constant.

In the context of Bell's theorem, this is non-local. Outside of that, it is just ordinary QM.

It is important to note that the contextual effect is a local effect. Thus the entire model is local. Bell's inequation only applies to non-contextual models.

[Joy Christian]

If you change alpha you change the selection. This changes the correlation. Now the context comes into play. Measurement results depend on the context. This is defined in MA4 in that the polarization of the photons of a selection is equal to the p-state (polarization angle) of the selection. So if we select alpha on wing A and by this way alpha+pi/2 on wing B we have the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons on wing B. This can indeed mean that a photon with polarization 90° from the initial state and a particular value of lambda would hit polarizer B at beta. But if we change the context by setting polarizer A at alpha thus having polarization alpha +pi/2 at B the photon with the same value of lambda would possibly not hit B at beta anymore. This is the effect of contextuality. That means we can only speak about measurement values if we add the context in which they appear. In a definite context the measurement values are constant.

In the context of Bell's theorem, this is non-local. Outside of that, it is just ordinary QM.

It is important to note that the contextual effect is a local effect. Thus the entire model is local. Bell's inequation only applies to non-contextual models.

I agree with Heinera. I doubt that anyone else apart from Esail would see the described model as local.

***

[Esail]

I agree with Heinera. I doubt that anyone else apart from Esail would see the described model as local.

***

Scientific discussions require clear, precise arguments. The basis for this is a scientific essay. I recommend reading the paper. There it is very precisely and completely justified why the entire model is local in its individual parts in Einstein's sense, namely that the actual effects on one side must not depend on the settings on the other side. However, this does not mean that there must be no correlations and that selections on one side do not also mean selections on the other.
If you find any bug let us know.

[Heinera]

It is important to note that the contextual effect is a local effect. Thus the entire model is local. Bell's inequation only applies to non-contextual models.

The fact that you need to know the value of alpha in order to determine the measurement result in wing B, as your code shows, makes the model non-local. This is the very definition of non-local concerning Bell's theorem.

[FrediFizzx]

It is important to note that the contextual effect is a local effect. Thus the entire model is local. Bell's inequation only applies to non-contextual models.

The fact that you need to know the value of alpha in order to determine the measurement result in wing B, as your code shows, makes the model non-local. This is the very definition of non-local concerning Bell's theorem.

Yeah, and his paper is worse than his weird code. He has A(delta, lambda) and B(delta, lambda) with delta = alpha in both cases. No indication of what beta is even.
.

[Joy Christian]

It is important to note that the contextual effect is a local effect. Thus the entire model is local. Bell's inequation only applies to non-contextual models.

The fact that you need to know the value of alpha in order to determine the measurement result in wing B, as your code shows, makes the model non-local. This is the very definition of non-local concerning Bell's theorem.

Yeah, and his paper is worse than his weird code. He has A(delta, lambda) and B(delta, lambda) with delta = alpha in both cases. No indication of what beta is even.

Not to mention major conceptual problems with his understanding of Bell's theorem. He says in a post above that Bell's inequality only applies to non-contextual models. That is nonsense.

Physically [Bell] only took into account noncontextual models.

This statement is quite wrong. It ignores the history of how Bell arrived at his theorem. In his 1966 paper, which was written before his famous 1964 paper, Bell points out the mistake von Neumann had made regarding the possibility of general non-contextual hidden variable theories. Having done so, Bell then provides a correct theorem that rules out the possibility of any noncontextual theory that can reproduce the predictions of quantum theory. The latter theorem is also independently proved by Kochen & Specker. It is now known as Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. Thus by the time Bell wrote his famous 1964 paper he was more than aware of the fact that noncontextual models have been ruled out, quite generally, because he was one of the people who had decisively ruled them out! Therefore his famous theorem of 1964 explicitly considers contextual hidden variable models and claims that, while contextual models are still possible [albite Bell does not use this language because Shimony had not yet introduced the word "contextual" in the literature on Bell's theorem], any such realistic model must be nonlocal (or remotely contextual). Thus it is quite wrong to claim that "physically [Bell] only took into account noncontextual models." On the contrary, Bell explicitly considered contextual models.

***

[Esail]

Yeah, and his paper is worse than his weird code. He has A(delta, lambda) and B(delta, lambda) with delta = alpha in both cases. No indication of what beta is even.
.

The polarizer setting was beta = alpha+pi/2. With perpendicular polarizer setting there is 100 % coincidence predicted by the model in the paper in accordance with QM and with experiments.