Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 It's pure freakin' nonsense. You have no proof.
.

[Joy Christian]

I gave a proof of the equivalence of Bell’s theorem in its usual formulation with the theorem in computer science formulated by Steve Gull.

Such a proof, even if valid, has nothing to do with the physics of quantum correlations. No self-respected physicist would care about a theorem or its proof in computer technology.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 It's pure freakin' nonsense. You have no proof.

Stick to particle physics.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 It's pure freakin' nonsense. You have no proof.

Stick to particle physics.

This is particle physics and/or simulation of such. You should learn some particle physics then perhaps you will understand why you have NO proof.
.

[gill1109]

I gave a proof of the equivalence of Bell’s theorem in its usual formulation with the theorem in computer science formulated by Steve Gull.

Such a proof, even if valid, has nothing to do with the physics of quantum correlations. No self-respected physicist would care about a theorem or its proof in computer technology.

I always found it curious that you nowadays illustrate your papers with computer simulations prepared for you by experts in computer technology. But a classical computer simulation lives in flatland! The computer simulations are senseless. No self-respecting physicist would have any interest in them whatsoever. So, what are they for?

You write in your draft reply to my comment on your Bertlmann's socks paper "That is not to say that Bell’s theorem does not have a sound mathematical core. When stated as a mathematical theorem in probability theory, there can be no doubt about its validity. But my work on the subject [2]–[6] does not challenge the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it."

This is important, and very fine that you now do admit that the mathematical theorem which the physicist Bell discovered was correct.

You also write "The computer code included in [6] provides a pedagogical tool, in addition to verifying the analytical computations presented in the paper. The analytical computations stand on their own and do not require a numerical simulation for their validity. On the other hand, the computer code for an event-by-event simulation of the singlet correlations does provide an added support to the analytical computations, for it is both pedagogically and statistically illuminating."

The computer code verifies the nice formula from geometric algebra: a.b = 1/2 (a b + b a). It certainly is very illuminating, since it does illustrate your theory very well indeed. It is not however an event-by-event simulation in the sense that most people in the field understand that term. The correlations which it finds are not computed from simulated event-by-event detections!

[FrediFizzx]

We might as well post this over here also as it is a more complete story of why Joy's local model shoots down Bell's theory. No geometric algebra; works just fine using quaternions.



And the result is....



The correlation result is exactly -a.b just like quantum mechanics predicts using a product calculation. So, since no geometric algebra, Gill is just talking more nonsense in the post previous to this one. Maybe some day he will get a clue. Bell's theory is kaput. Get over it and move on.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Fred, thanks for this new simulation. I have linked your above post at the bottom of the following page on our Centre's website: http://einstein-physics.org/research-programs/.
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
Fred, thanks for this new simulation. I have linked your above post at the bottom of the following page on our Centre's website: http://einstein-physics.org/research-programs/.
.

You're welcome and thanks. This is for those that don't understand GA; perhaps they understand quaternions.
.

[gill1109]

The correlation result is exactly -a.b just like quantum mechanics predicts using a product calculation.

Of course it is! Check the math, check the code. No need to run the simulation.

You can use the usual QM math framework, or quaternions, or GA, as the fancy takes you. Doran and Lasenby did it in their book, with GA, long ago.

People working in quantum mechanics have been saying for years that quantum mechanics does not violate locality, precisely because of this feature. Bell already agreed that Bohr would have been simply uninterested by his results. Bell gave his own definition of local realism and showed that QM violates it. It's not difficult to come up with a new definition of local realism such that there is no violation of it by QM.

Bell did argue that Einstein would have approved of Bell's definition, but who knows, maybe if Einstein were still around, he might have changed his mind by now.

Of course it might be time to re-think our conceptions of locality and of realism!

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

You shot at it, but you missed. Couldn’t we please agree to disagree?

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.
.

[Joy Christian]

@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.
.

[Justo]

@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.
.

I believe the same applies to many Bell-deniers and I am not talking of you. So it seems it is hard for some, either deniers or believers, to be scientifically objective.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.
.

I believe the same applies to many Bell-deniers and I am not talking of you. So it seems it is hard for some, either deniers or believers, to be scientifically objective.

Pure nonsense concerning Gill. Apparently you haven't been paying close attention to this thread. I've posted scientific mathematical proof that Bell's theory is shot down. And Joy's local model is fairly simple to understand. If there is something you don't understand about the proof, just ask away.
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.

I believe the same applies to many Bell-deniers and I am not talking of you. So it seems it is hard for some, either deniers or believers, to be scientifically objective.

Pure nonsense concerning Gill. Apparently you haven't been paying close attention to this thread. I've posted scientific mathematical proof that Bell's theory is shot down. And Joy's local model is fairly simple to understand. If there is something you don't understand about the proof, just ask away.

Indeed, Joy’s “model” is rather simple.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 And yet you still don't understand Joy's model after all these years. Pathetic!
.

[FrediFizzx]

I've updated the scientific mathematical objective proof that Bell's theory is shot down by Joy's local model using quaternions. I didn't like having the 1's and 2's on the Aq's and Bq's so got rid of that. Now it is just Aq and Bq in the product calculation.

[Joy Christian]

.
Hi Fred,

There is a minor problem with your proof. While the statistics behind the strong correlations is finely displayed by your code, it seems to violate the requirement that when a = b, AB = -1.

That is both an experimental requirement and a prediction of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was used by EPR as one of the prerequisites in their argument that started this debate.

This is a very minor problem for your code. It can be easily fixed by simply changing the sign on your function A or B, by recalling that bivectors square to -1.
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
Hi Fred,

There is a minor problem with your proof. While the statistics behind the strong correlations is finely displayed by your code, it seems to violate the requirement that when a = b, AB = -1.

That is both an experimental requirement and a prediction of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was used by EPR as one of the prerequisites in their argument that started this debate.

This is a very minor problem for your code. It can be easily fixed by simply changing the sign on your function A or B, by recalling that bivectors square to -1.
.

Hi Joy,

Not sure what you are seeing because when I run the program with vectorB = vectorA I get all -1's at zero degrees for each event.
.