Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

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

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby local » Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:06 pm

Hadn't seen that. Thank you for the link, Fred.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:01 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
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
.

Jay did not do that. His notion of “local” is not the common one. As Boris Tsirelson writes QM is “incompatible with the conjunction of three fundamental assumptions about nature, called "counterfactual definiteness", "relativistic local causality" and "no-conspiracy", but compatible with the conjunction of the last two of them: "relativistic local causality" and "no-conspiracy".”

Jay told us something we already knew.

QM is local in that it satisfies relativistic local causality.

I am no “arbiter of the real explanation”. I don’t have an explanation to offer. I am a facilitator of the distribution of information. Please help set up these Wikipedia pages. I’m interested in all explanations which are compatible with established mathematical facts.

https://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/dump/Static/knowino.org/wiki/Entanglement_(physics).html
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:29 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
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
.

Jay did not do that. His notion of “local” is not the common one. As Boris Tsirelson writes QM is “incompatible with the conjunction of three fundamental assumptions about nature, called "counterfactual definiteness", "relativistic local causality" and "no-conspiracy", but compatible with the conjunction of the last two of them: "relativistic local causality" and "no-conspiracy".”

Jay told us something we already knew.

QM is local in that it satisfies relativistic local causality.

I am no “arbiter of the real explanation”. I don’t have an explanation to offer. I am a facilitator of the distribution of information. Please help set up these Wikipedia pages. I’m interested in all explanations which are compatible with established mathematical facts.

https://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/dump/Static/knowino.org/wiki/Entanglement_(physics).html

More rubbish! Jay's measurement functions are completely local.
.
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 Austin Fearnley » Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:00 am

Hi Richard

A few points.

1. IMO Alice and Bob are treated symmetrically in my model. I cannot understand how you would think they could be being treated differently. You may be intending to reply on this but if not could you add something about why you think there is asymmetry, as at the moment there is only your bald aspersion which I do not understand?

2. In the theme of bald aspersions... You categorise my model as falling into the conspiracy loophole. In the wiki page being built, could there be scope for more neutral or softening of terminology about loopholes. IMO nature is using what you call a conspiracy loophole. If I am correct the wiki page could in retrospect look very anti towards the correct resolution of the Bell paradox.

Further, I sense that you think all loopholes are associated with evil, underhand, conjuring tricks, fudging etc etc? But that view means that you are forcing nature to be spooky (that is, break Bell's Inequalities). Since I know that my model is right ;) that forces the Bell Paradox to be around forever unresolved. Well, except that the failure to progress in quantum computing might cause some long-term doubts.

As I previously said, Bell's Theorem is IMO correct and is useful to find out why physics is wrongly understood. The resolution of the paradox is not necessarily going to be that the inequalities are broken so why not use less pejorative terms ... just in case you are wrong.

{c.f. Yesterday the UK Law Society complained about the Home Office using the biased term ""activist lawyers"!}

3. Something new in my model which might interest you. The detection loophole might seem possibly to be in the category "evil, underhand, conjuring tricks, fudging etc". Certainly you ought to count the pairs out and count them all back in again. You have programmed an interesting formula based originally on Pearle using trimmed data to get the Bell correlation.

I am not sure I often see the term 'unpolarised' used to describe the beams measured by Alice and Bob. It is of course what is assumed to occur. Chantal's 'random-on-a-sphere' method of generating pairs simulates unpolarised beams. My backwards-in-time-positrons model shows that Alice and Bob are measuring polarised beams. Data trimming is necessary to convert simulated unpolarised beams into simulated polarised beams. It is too complex a formula for me to unrave but I expect that is what the Pearle-based formula is doing. In my model I use an alternative formula to generate a polarised beam. (It is all in my vixra paper including VB computer program coding.) IMO the spin vectors in a polarised beam occupy a concavo-convex distribution. In an electron beam polarised to point at the north pole, zero vectors point at the equator. This rises to a thickness of 0.5 pointing exactly at the pole. At 45 degrees latitude the thickness of the distribution is 0.354. The exact 2D curve is given by 0.5 * sin θ where
θ = 0 and 180 degrees at the equator and θ=90 at the pole. My computer program outputs results conforming to Malus's Law. And I reckon Malus's Law is dual to the Bell correlation.

If you demand unpolarised beams then I have used data trimming in addition to conspiracy. But IMO the actual physics involves polarised beams and communication in the present.
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby Heinera » Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:07 am

Hi Austin,

Have you published any of your work? It sounds interesting, but I'm afraid that time constraints due to my short expected life span mandate that I only read papers published in reputable journals (which excludes predatory journals or anything "open access").
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:49 pm

Hi Austin

You gave me the impression your theory was not symmetric. You talked about a positron leaving a detector *after* the measurement and moving backwards in time... reminding me of Bell’s article about tachyon crime. Or are you now saying that in your model, tachyons leave both detectors?

A Wikipedia article summarises what reliable sources have said in the past. In the past, the the term “no-conspiracy” has been often used by notable scientists. Other notable scientists have complained about the term. The article I propose must report that debate. If there is a better phrase, it should be used in publications, and Wikipedia can report them. If it already exists, we will use it too. Wikipedia articles must take a “neutral point of view”.

Sabine Hossenfelder just published a paper with a toy model in which she and a co-author have the express aim of showing that a superdeterministic model need not necessarily be *conspiratorial* or *fine-tuned*. The Wikipedia article will report her views and cite that article.

I discuss this question with many people. Tim Palmer and I agree that “realism” is a misnomer. It is an idealistic standpoint. It could be called a religion. That’s why Tsirelson proposed to name it “counterfactual definiteness”.

Please discuss this on the “talk page” which accompanies the draft article’s page, so that anyone who wants to help can see what everyone else is saying. Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines.

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

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip ... ve_pillars

Heinera: the best journals nowadays are also “Open access”.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:53 pm

gill1109 wrote: ... Wikipedia articles must take a “neutral point of view”. ...

More laughable rubbish! :lol:
.
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 Austin Fearnley » Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:14 am

My paper on Bell's experiment being solved using backwards-in-time positrons can be found at https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0160

Some points in this simulation:.
Entanglement is downgraded in importance.
Polarisation rather than entanglement is the key. Electron beams are polarised while positron beams are unpolarised here.
Alice's and Bob's roles are fully interchangeable.
Counterfactual determinism is not possible.
Locality is preserved.
There is no FTL motion of particles. No tachyons here.
There is no FTL transmission of information from the point of view of the particles.


I have read papers on superdeterminism, and I have followed until recently, Sabine's blog site. I think my realisation that retrocausality enforces polarised beams of electrons is progress. I see superdeterminism as saying "I give up, what will be will be". I may be wrong and biased in this view of superdeterminism, of course.


Hi Richard
I was not expecting you to re-write history on the wiki page, nor to throw statues in the river. :)
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:00 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... Wikipedia articles must take a “neutral point of view”. ...
More laughable rubbish! :lol:

Fred, read the Wikipedia pages on Wikipedia core principles about how Wikipedia understands the phrase: "neutral point of view". And if you are bothered by particular web pages where you think a "neutral point of view" (in Wikipedia's terms) is not being taken, then you should become a Wikipedia editor, and start to edit those pages. Be bold! You can change what you like.

If you disagree with the core principles, start a fork of Wikipedia with different principles. It has been done many times before, though not with much success.

If you prefer to stand on the side-line complaining, of course, that's your choice.

Since I think that Joy Christian is an important and notable scientist among the many who try to get around Bell's theorem in various ways, or among those who think the theorem is just plain false, I also started a web page on his public activities. It must strictly adhere to the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. There must be arguments for Christian's notability, which satisfy Wikipedia's criteria.

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

I didn't write anything there yet. Anyone who likes can write something on the page, or make suggestions on its "Talk page"
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby local » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:32 am

gill1109 wrote: If you prefer to stand on the side-line complaining...

This link can help you.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends- ... 0671027034
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposition

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:38 am

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: If you prefer to stand on the side-line complaining...

This link can help you.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends- ... 0671027034

:mrgreen: "squealapedia" It's run by a bunch of kids.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Wikipedia article on Bell opposit

Postby gill1109 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:18 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: If you prefer to stand on the side-line complaining...

This link can help you.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends- ... 0671027034

:mrgreen: "squealapedia" It's run by a bunch of kids.
.

No, not just kids, also by retired professors, amateurs with dreams, and so on. It *is* consulted by young scientists, all over the world. I have seen PhD thesis after PhD thesis with the introductory chapter mainly copied from Wikipedia. It *is* consulted by science journalists. It *is* consulted by referees of scientific papers submitted to peer reviewed journals. It has been shown to be equally reliable as, or more reliable than, various established encyclopaedias. It’s there. So you have the opportunity to contribute. And you have the opportunity to make sceptical noises on the sideline.

I already know how to win friends and influence people. I’ve done a lot of that in the past; on the whole, I think, to good effect. Some people disagree. I caused a lot of embarrassment to some very important and powerful people.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library