Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

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

Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:22 pm

Clearly there are a lot of scientists doing interesting work who feel strongly that Bell was wrong. There should be a Wikipedia page on that topic. I have started drafting something on my Wikipedia user talk page. In order for such an article to stay reasonably stable, it is important to follow Wikipedia’s rules very carefully and completely in good faith, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gill110951

A first question is what should the name of the article be. It must be completely uncontroversial. I suggest “Opposition to Bell’s theorem”
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:31 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill ... opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill ... _Christian

Anybody can edit these pages. If we achieve some kind of consensus, while sticking firmly to Wikipedia principles, we can copy them into the main encyclopedia.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:26 am

Amazingly, there is no Wikipedia page on “local realism”. When you go there, you are redirected to EPR. I think that is really bad. The page on loopholes in Bell’s experiments has similarly been purged of all “metaphysical” or logical loopholes. Only avoidable experimental loopholes are discussed. And the page is quite out of date. Almost no mention of the 2015 experiments.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:52 pm

gill1109 wrote:Clearly there are a lot of scientists doing interesting work who feel strongly that Bell was wrong. There should be a Wikipedia page on that topic. I have started drafting something on my Wikipedia user talk page. In order for such an article to stay reasonably stable, it is important to follow Wikipedia’s rules very carefully and completely in good faith, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gill110951

A first question is what should the name of the article be. It must be completely uncontroversial. I suggest “Opposition to Bell’s theorem”


Good idea Richard.

Suggestion. Use different categories (subsets) for different interests. For me, I'd help with Bell's theorem: mathematical objections.

After all, BT is first and foremost a mathematical error! See this 2-page PDF: https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0068

To help separate the wheat from the chaff, there might also be: Bell's theorem: physical objections, Bell's theorem: philosophical objections.

Best, Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:03 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Clearly there are a lot of scientists doing interesting work who feel strongly that Bell was wrong. There should be a Wikipedia page on that topic. I have started drafting something on my Wikipedia user talk page. In order for such an article to stay reasonably stable, it is important to follow Wikipedia’s rules very carefully and completely in good faith, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gill110951

A first question is what should the name of the article be. It must be completely uncontroversial. I suggest “Opposition to Bell’s theorem”


Good idea Richard.

Suggestion. Use different categories (subsets) for different interests. For me, I'd help with Bell's theorem: mathematical objections.

After all, BT is first and foremost a mathematical error! See this 2-page PDF: https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0068

To help separate the wheat from the chaff, there might also be: Bell's theorem: physical objections, Bell's theorem: philosophical objections.

Best, Gordon

Yes! (But *your* maths in your two pages is wrong... ;) . If you would like to discuss it please start a new topic! Two page papers are the best)

To help with the mathematical objections part we need to have what Wikipedia rules describe as reliable sources. I suspect that viXra papers by you don’t qualify, but for example Marian Kupczynski, whom you cite, is a professor of something relevant and has published a few papers in peer-reviewed journals. Actually, his work only becomes indisputably a reliable source (in Wikipedia sense) when his work is adopted in standard textbooks. This is unlikely to happen, IMHO, because he is evidently very confused and errors in his papers are not hard to find. But still, it must be thought notable that respected academics repeatedly come out against Bell, even if they remain a tiny and often despised minority. Karl Hess complains that the problem is that they never agree with one another. Each one supports their own deconstruction. Cites the papers of the others. But never adopts their methodology. It’s like small Protestant churches, splintering again and again on tiny points of dogma. My friend Theo Nieuwenhuis (Univ. Amsterdam) has a sign on his door “institute of retarded studies”. He wears the insult as a badge of honour, which is the right way to deal with insults like that.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Gordon Watson » Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:51 pm

Thanks Richard,

I Iook forward to learning more from you here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451

Cheers; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:58 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Thanks Richard,

I Iook forward to learning more from you here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451

Cheers; Gordon

Great!

In the meantime, I am drafting two Wikipedia pages (maybe more will be added) in my “user space” on Wikipedia. This “user space” is just working areas which I have started. They are owned by Wikipedia and *anyone can edit them*. Please step in, be bold. Do give yourself a Wikipedia account, ie don’t work anonymously in the sense of only leaving an IP address behind. All editing history is preserved, all edits can be reverted.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Editing_Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Bell_theorem_opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Joy_Christian
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:04 am

I'm still waiting to see some actual rigorous mathematical proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct. Bell's so-called "theorem" has been shattered to pieces so Gill's "theorem" has nothing to do with Bell at all.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:08 am

FrediFizzx wrote:I'm still waiting to see some actual rigorous mathematical proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct. Bell's so-called "theorem" has been shattered to pieces so Gill's "theorem" has nothing to do with Bell at all.
.

I gave you references. Please point out the errors in those references.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Austin Fearnley » Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:55 am

Hi Richard

Your wiki page seems like a good idea to me. But I suspect it will soon be an epitaph for Bell's Theorem. All the more reason for writing it now.

Main point 1: I do not oppose Bell's Theorem mathematically. How can one oppose the Bell inequalities which are easily proved using Venn diagrams. At the moment the physics of a Bell test is accepted but IMO the actual physics of what is happening in a simple Bell experiment is wrong. This is because the nature of antiparticles is IMO currently misunderstood. They are actually travelling backwards in time. Like this <--- :) and not like this :) ---> .

So I hesitate a little at the title of the wiki page as do I opt for opposition or not? IMO it is mathematically correct but it will become shown to be physically irrelevant (except in a history context).


Main point 2: Retrocausality is the nearest tag I can find for my viewpoint yet I do not empathise with any of the retrocausality papers that I have seen. Your wiki draft page says that retrocausality is associated with experimenters not having any freedom as though that affects a Bell experiment. IMO 'freedom' is irrelevant to my model. And, anyway, superdeterminism, and probably mere determinism, may mean that there is no free will. But I doubt it. Deterministic solution of a chaos (non-linear) formula or physical event implies infinite exactitude being available. It isn't available. But freewill is IMO irrelevant to the physics of a simple Bell experiment. Use tables of random numbers or stellar data. Pick the numbers well in advance or at the last second, it is irrelevant. Well, it is definitely irrelevant in a computer simulation.

So, for my main point 2, it is superdeterminism that is tied to lack of free will and my model (a 'sort of' retrocausality?) is neutral towards free will.

To explain that, when Bob measures an electron travelling from a source, that electron previously communed with a positron at the source (at which point they became entangled). The positron that did the communing travelled backwards in time from Alice's measurement. So the positrons pass information to the electrons directly at the source. There is no need in my model for Alice and Bob to commune between themselves, using free will or anything else.

No one mentions polarisation with respect to a Bell experiment. But, when Alice measures her beam of backwards-in-time positrons, that beam becomes polarised in the direction of her S-G setting as it travels back to the source. Each positron entangles with an electron and the property of 'entanglement' is established between particles at the source. But, for the two beams, entangling all the particles between two beams means that the two beams have identical or anti-identical polarisations. So the electron beam measured by Bob is polarised in the direction of Alice's S-G setting.

Malus's Law takes care of the mathematics of that scenario as I have shown that the Malus's Law formulae are dual to the Bell correlation formulae which arise from the 2x2 table of results of Alice and Bob's measurement outcomes. And Malus's Law is specially tailored for measurements on polarised beams.

Further, when Alice measures the positron, that positron is not yet entangled so the pairs of measurements are not even made on entangled pairs! Entanglement is only used to make a polarised beam of electrons. So Bell's inequalities do not apply.

The philosophical ramifications of Bell's Theorem will IMO also become to be seen as irrelevant to physics. Goodbye many worlds and goodbye quantum computers.
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:45 pm

Austin: so Alice’s measurement setting is communicated by a positron travelling backwards in time from Alice’s detector to the source, where it is communicated to an electron travelling forwards in time to Bob’s detector? And of course the same thing happens, exchanging Alice and Bob? Well yes, in this way you can explain the singlet correlations, easily, I’m sure. (Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???). Bell’s *theorem* does apply. You do not violate locality or realism, but you use “conspiracy”. You use time travel to communicate the future at one place to the past at another. Sure it can be made mathematically exact and I suggest mathematically isomorphic to the maths of QM, though I fear not in a way which treats Alice and Bob identically. So you can say it is an “explanation” of the physical phenomenon we are talking about. I don’t think it is an explanation. It seems to me more like a cute (and very clever) math conjuring trick.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Austin Fearnley » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:17 am

Hi Richard

so Alice’s measurement setting is communicated by a positron travelling backwards in time from Alice’s detector to the source, where it is communicated to an electron travelling forwards in time to Bob’s detector? And of course the same thing happens, exchanging Alice and Bob?


Yes and yes. But a measurement setting cannot be communicated by a single positron to a single electron. Single particles communicate entanglement information which is important but not sufficient to give the Bell correlation. The Bell correlation is achieved by beams of particles being polarised. Aggregating all the individual entanglements enforces the electron beam to be polarised in the direction of the positron measurement setting.


(Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???)



Yes. There are two incoming beams of positrons. Just re-run my explanation for Alice and Bob while switching their names. It is quite symmetrical wrt Alice and Bob. There are two sets of Malus calculations each giving a 2x1 results table. One 2x1 table for Alice's positrons and one 2x1 table for Bob's positrons. Join the two 2x1 tables together and you get a Bell 2x2 table of results.

Bell’s *theorem* does apply. You do not violate locality or realism, but you use “conspiracy”. You use time travel to communicate the future at one place to the past at another.


OK, almost, but conspiracy seems to be an inappropriate and ugly word in this context. Communication is definitely present. And communication is made in 'the present' at the time when both particle pairs are at the source. So I am not clear that the future is being communicated to the past. 'The present' is being communicated to 'the present' at the Source. It just so happens that the two particles are travelling in opposite time directions.

Sure it can be made mathematically exact and I suggest mathematically isomorphic to the maths of QM, though I fear not in a way which treats Alice and Bob identically.


Yes, I have it mathematically exact as a - cos theta correlation, and catering for all the particles in the experiment, and treating Alice and Bob equally.

I made two solutions. The first was by using only Malus's Law for the beams. So that is a classical/ statistical solution and not a local hidden variable solution. But it does give a correlation of - cos theta. So that did not involve QM at all, at least not explicitly.

My second solution was an event-by-event simulation of the experiment and I focused on replicating Malus's Law [intensity of a beam is proportional to cos^2 theta], particle at a time. (As the Malus calculations of intensity are exactly dual to the Bell correlation calculations.)

I could not, of course, make a completely sound local hidden variables solution because of the measurement problem. Even (linear) QM does not solve the (non-linear) measurement problem. The measurement problem is why counterfactual definiteness cannot be used in simulating a table of Bell results. This is like chaos theory when you run an almost identical calculation twice and get different results.

But, adding some uncertainty/statistics allowed the correct results to be obtained. Incidentally, to run this simulation I derived the form of distribution of local hidden variables in a polarised beam. This is a static statistical distribution whereas the physical hidden variables are dynamically occupying the distribution but not changing its static envelope. So I achieved the correct results based on a static distribution but I know that in reality the individual particle measurements are not knowable because of dynamism.


So you can say it is an “explanation” of the physical phenomenon we are talking about. I don’t think it is an explanation. It seems to me more like a cute (and very clever) math conjuring trick.


My distribution of local hidden variables in a polarised beam was obtained maybe using cute maths but I do not recognise 'cute math conjuring trick' as playing any other part of my work. Further, the easiest solution is a classical statistical solution based on a 200 year old physics formula which does even not use hidden variables.

Maths tricks were not on my agenda. I had been for a few years comparing Malus and Bell formulae and realising they were dual approaches using beam intensities (Malus and Bell) to form correlations (Bell only). But something was missing. The next step was Jay writing that maybe neutrinos have negative mass and could therefore form an alternative explanation of Dark Matter. I followed that up and wrote a paper suggesting that negative mass could explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy (see also Farnes). Then I suggested that antiparticles might have negative mass. That set me thinking about antiparticles maybe travelling backwards in time (just as they appear to do in a Feynman diagram). That was a short step away from visualising a Bell experiment in a Feynman diagram with the positrons travelling backwards from Alice to the source. I have no interest in Bell's Theorem other than as a stepping stone to better understand the physics. But it has been a good tool to make one realise that something in the current physics explanations are wrong.
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby local » Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:11 pm

gill1109 wrote: Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???.

That's a spurious request because QM also has a problem there. When the measurements are separated, the joint prediction cannot be used; rather, Luders' projection must be used. But now you have one side projecting the other, which is not symmetric, that is, Alice and Bob are not treated the same.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:24 pm

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???.

That's a spurious request because QM also has a problem there. When the measurements are separated, the joint prediction cannot be used; rather, Luders' projection must be used. But now you have one side projecting the other, which is not symmetric, that is, Alice and Bob are not treated the same.


Dear local,

By working with the joint prediction, I believe that my theorising treats Alice and Bob equally. So I'd welcome your comments at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451; see post dated Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:03 am for Version 2 of my Draft entitled: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory.

All the best; Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby local » Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:04 pm

Gordon Watson wrote: By working with the joint prediction, I believe that my theorising treats Alice and Bob equally.

Well sure, but you cannot use the joint prediction because it requires that each side knows the other side's measurement setting, and it does not reflect the experimental arrangement (separated measurement).

So I'd welcome your comments at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451; see post dated Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:03 am for Version 2 of my Draft entitled: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory.

I'll have a look. Is that version the cleaned-up one without the spurious beta, etc?
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:17 pm

local wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote: By working with the joint prediction, I believe that my theorising treats Alice and Bob equally.

Well sure, but you cannot use the joint prediction because it requires that each side knows the other side's measurement setting, and it does not reflect the experimental arrangement (separated measurement).

So I'd welcome your comments at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451; see post dated Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:03 am for Version 2 of my Draft entitled: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory.

I'll have a look. Is that version the cleaned-up one without the spurious beta, etc?


1. Yes. Cleaned up to get more critical comments. More cleaning to follow. Thanks!

2. And please let me know if this comment still holds in what I attempt: "Well sure, but you cannot use the joint prediction because it requires that each side knows the other side's measurement setting, and it does not reflect the experimental arrangement (separated measurement)."

3. Don't we need the joint prediction to derive the expectation? Without any reference to who knows what?
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby local » Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:25 pm

Gordon Watson wrote: 2. And please let me know if this comment still holds in what I attempt: "Well sure, but you cannot use the joint prediction because it requires that each side knows the other side's measurement setting, and it does not reflect the experimental arrangement (separated measurement)."

I will check and let you know.

3. Don't we need the joint prediction to derive the expectation? Without any reference to who knows what?

See here for an account of the difference between the joint and separated measurement scenarios. Separated measurement requires Luders projection to duplicate the quantum correlation.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.01808.pdf
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:27 pm

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???.

That's a spurious request because QM also has a problem there. When the measurements are separated, the joint prediction cannot be used; rather, Luders' projection must be used. But now you have one side projecting the other, which is not symmetric, that is, Alice and Bob are not treated the same.

I know QM has a problem there. My request is not spurious.

So: your answer is “no”. Your theory shares a major defect with QM. It may be adequate for computational purposes, in that it reproduces experimentally observed statistics, but it does not qualify as ‘the real explanation of what is going on behind the scenes’. It doesn’t give an acceptable picture of an underlying reality which does not depend on an arbitrary point of view.

That’s the whole point! That’s the name of the game.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby local » Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:01 pm

Gill wants to be the sole arbiter of 'the real explanation'. But his shameless espousal of quantum mysticism negates any such claim. Intelligent people laugh at 'quantum nonlocality'.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:18 pm

local wrote:Gill wants to be the sole arbiter of 'the real explanation'. But his shameless espousal of quantum mysticism negates any such claim. Intelligent people laugh at 'quantum nonlocality'.

Quantum nonlocality is especially laughable since Jay Yablon successfully demonstrated that QM is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=412&p=10488#p10488
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library