Bell's theorem refuted: a prologue

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

Bell's theorem refuted: a prologue

Postby Gordon Watson » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:07 pm

.
1. For my records, my reference for this thread is 2020Pi.

2. In revising my "Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory"*** -- which revision should be up at viXra.org this week; which I'll announce here -- I want to provide a separate introductory section that I can readily update.

3. I need to point out: that, to facilitate discussion/communication/+, every paragraph and every equation is numbered; that I rely only on elementary probability theory and equivalence classes, with some high-school math; that I never refuse to answer technical questions; etc; that CHSH-Bell and GHZ fall to similar analysis.

4. With extensive acknowledgements and references sections; etc. With the hope that these "etcs" might include comments, suggestions, etc, from readers of the new version.

5. To also point out that a leading Bellian professor summarises what I am dealing with as follows:

Bell’s 1964 result is explicitly about experiments with binary outcome spaces: “spin-up” and “spin-down", for example; or “passed” and “absorbed” for a photon with a polarizer. Bell codes these two outcomes as +1 and -1 for the purpose of this proof, which it completely conventional and fine. If one looks at the actual output of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment, it is already easy to see that one can use such a binary outcome space: the particle is either deflected considerably above the midline or considerably below, which is how the results are then reported. The correlations discussed by Bell are correlations among these results. No problem at all. [Does this need refinement?]


6. For then, in the face of this authenticated no problem at all, any doubters about the validity of my work need only do this:

(a) Refute four high-school level equations, (14)-(17). For it is via these that I refute Bell's inequality!

That is: the inequality that Bell and Bellians rely on for proof of Bell's theorem

(b) Alternatively, some might prefer to refute a forthcoming essay: "Experimental validation of Watson's refutation of Bell's theorem."

My plan here is to support an experiment that delivers E(a,b|α) = cos 2(a,b) for Aspect's (2002) experiment -- http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402001v1.pdf -- using linearly-polarised photons. The need being to demolish (in advance), the Bellian argument that it is somehow "illegal" to adapt Malus' Law -- rather than discover the related quantum law? -- in my refutation of Bell's theorem.

They thus neglect the fact that I am talking about an experiment that is equivalent to Aspect's wrt it delivering the same expectation under true local realism.

For it is just this equivalence that my refutation uses.

Toujours en avant, with more later,

Gordon

*** https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0068v5.pdf and

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451&start=240#p12684
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Bell's theorem refuted: a prologue

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:24 pm

Gordon, your (15), “WI”, does not contradict (10), “BI”. You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's theorem refuted: a prologue

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:06 am

gill1109 wrote:Gordon, your (15), “WI”, does not contradict (10), “BI”. You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.


I seem to be missing your point. Please explain in some detail. Thanks
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Bell's theorem refuted: a prologue

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:40 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Gordon, your (15), “WI”, does not contradict (10), “BI”. You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.


I seem to be missing your point. Please explain in some detail. Thanks
.

BI is derived under certain assumptions. You don’t make those assumptions. So you get markedly different results.

BI is mathematically and experimentally irrefutable if those assumptions hold.

BT is equivalent to an impossibility theorem concerning distributed computing. The proof is easy. If the theorem were wrong it would have been easy to come up with proof: a computer program which satisfies certain specifications. Nobody has delivered that computer program yet. (Nobody ever will!). I suggest you read my paper on Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 69 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library