"Bell's theorem refuted" now published by EPL

[FrediFizzx]

Michel, I have told you what were the blemishes in the 2015 experiments. I challenge you to simulate better ones. I think it’s impossible. You seem to be saying that it would be a piece of cake. You are bluffing. You are avoiding discussion of the exact location of the goalposts, but I have published several papers setting their location as precisely as I could.

Such nonsense! If in fact Nature does it, then it CAN'T be impossible. Time to get real, get over it and move on.
.

[gill1109]

Michel, I have told you what were the blemishes in the 2015 experiments. I challenge you to simulate better ones. I think it’s impossible. You seem to be saying that it would be a piece of cake. You are bluffing. You are avoiding discussion of the exact location of the goalposts, but I have published several papers setting their location as precisely as I could.

Such nonsense! If in fact Nature does it, then it CAN'T be impossible. Time to get real, get over it and move on.

Of course Fred, what Nature does is not impossible.

Michel and I are talking about *how* nature does it.

[Joy Christian]

Michel, I have told you what were the blemishes in the 2015 experiments. I challenge you to simulate better ones. I think it’s impossible. You seem to be saying that it would be a piece of cake. You are bluffing. You are avoiding discussion of the exact location of the goalposts, but I have published several papers setting their location as precisely as I could.

Such nonsense! If in fact Nature does it, then it CAN'T be impossible. Time to get real, get over it and move on.

Of course Fred, what Nature does is not impossible.

Michel and I are talking about *how* nature does it.

Fred's point is that Nature does not do it by using magic. Magics like non-locality, non-reality, and conspiracy loopholes are only believed by superstitious Bell-believers who can't do physics.
.

[FrediFizzx]

In particle physics all action happens locally at a vertex.
.

[minkwe]

Pre-defined time intervals are not *exactly* identical to coincidence matching and not almost identical either. They are only superficially similar. In actual fact, they are very fundamentally different.

I didn't think I would need to explain this very obvious point but here it is.

When doing coincidence matching, you have to pick a time window, and then apply a time offset on the stream of data from one arm of the experiment. After doing so, you would have time windows with matching indices on both arms. The assumption here is that events in those time windows correspond to each other. In actual experiments, all events are recorded with timestamps and the window size and offset are determined after the fact using event timestamps.

The new experiments are doing the same thing. They do a test run in which they figure out the offset and size of the time window. This data is not published with the paper. Then they set their devices to consider everything within the window (which they now call "pockel-cells"), to consider events within the same "pockel-cells" as corresponding events. This is done at the time of recording the events, not after the fact, but it changes nothing.
All it does is give people like Gill a new talking point to claim "predefined windows", "event-ready", etc. It changes absolutely nothing. The essential point is that they are still filtering events based on time, just like previously. It does not matter if the filtering is done during the experiment or afterwards.

All the new experiments claiming "loophole-free" are simply ingenious ways of filtering data at run-time instead of after the fact.

[Joy Christian]

.
Cheaters, cheaters, pumpkin eaters!
.

[FrediFizzx]

Hopefully, just one more day to go. It's still running.
.

[Austin Fearnley]

One of my last comments on Esail's paper was on Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:16 am:

"Why does Esail think that this is a local method? I suspect that it is something to do with interpretations of what is going on with polarisation effects at the detectors. IMO what happens at the detectors is not spooky and cannot be used to insert the spooky QM entanglement effect via a side door. The method is clearly non-local but I like the paper anyway."

And on Mon 7 June I wrote:

"Esail changes an expected particle polarisation before measurement by Bob from beta to alpha. This effectively enforces a Malus angle of alpha-beta on the experiment and converts a Bell into a Malus experiment. But I like this image as it is a way to think of what QM may be doing in its spooky action at a distance."

Back in May when this thread started I did no understand Esail's paper. But on further reading and thought realised that his paper was in some ways a twin of my retrocausal paper but of course with different mechanisms. If Alice makes the first measurement then Bob measures the partner particle having 'apparently' spookily changed to have its polarisation angle before measurement equal (or exactly opposite) to Alice's particle's polarisation vector. And that polarisation is alpha or -alpha for all particles. This reduces the Bell calculation to two simultaneous Malus calculations combined.

I continued thinking about why Esail sees his method as local. I see my retrocausal method as local but only local if one can accept the positron travelling backwards in time at less than speed c. In the retrocausal method the two particles in a pair are never spookily entangled.

I have always considered spooky entanglement to be a fiction, but I am getting less sure now. The reason for that is because my retrocausal method depends on the particles having their own spacetimes. The universe has its own spacetime which has the same nature as the electron spacetime but different from the positron spacetime. At a measurement the positron space (or wavefunction) collapses to a point and then starts expanding again. This is similar to a change of cycle in Penrose's cyclical conformal cosmology. {But note that if CCC collapse parallels chaotic wavefunction collapse, I doubt that the CCC collapse needs to be conformal.}

The next part is not relevant to my retrocausal model where there is no spooky entanglement but it is relevant to QM spooky action at a distance and to Esail's method. QM entanglement presumably has [in my own re-interpretation] a combined spacetime for the electron and positron. The collapse of the say positron space is connected to the collapse of the electron space. But this collapse takes place in the spacetimes of the two particles and not in the spacetime of the universe.

In the CCC model the end of cycle is associated with a loss of metric of the universe and the metric restarts at a point. So what happens to speed c at this breakdown of the metric of both time and space. And within the particles' spacetimes, I am assuming that the collapse may happen faster within the particles' breakdown than is possible in the universe's metric. Further there is no certainty that the speed of communication (whatever communication that might be) within the electron is limited to speed c even at mid-cycle c.f. Penrose's CCC.

So I am beginning to think that Esail's method could be 'apparent' but not real action at a distance? And spooky entanglement becomes only 'apparently' spooky entanglement. But it may be a lot more spooky than I have normally thought.

I much prefer the retrocausality mechanism, though, as that ties in with my dark energy and dark matter models.

See my relevant papers for more information.

https://vixra.org/abs/2101.0179 Antiparticles and the Nature of Space
https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0160 Malus’s Law and Bell’s Theorem with Local Hidden Variables
https://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329 Pseudo-Random Data Testing The Scales Used In Rasch Pairs Analysis/ Adaptive Comparative Judgement

(The third paper shows how a metric can break down under certain condition not unlike how the metric at the end of a CCC cycle could breakdown)

[gill1109]

Pre-defined time intervals are not *exactly* identical to coincidence matching and not almost identical either. They are only superficially similar. In actual fact, they are very fundamentally different.

I didn't think I would need to explain this very obvious point but here it is.

When doing coincidence matching, you have to pick a time window, and then apply a time offset on the stream of data from one arm of the experiment. After doing so, you would have time windows with matching indices on both arms. The assumption here is that events in those time windows correspond to each other. In actual experiments, all events are recorded with timestamps and the window size and offset are determined after the fact using event timestamps.

The new experiments are doing the same thing. They do a test run in which they figure out the offset and size of the time window. This data is not published with the paper. Then they set their devices to consider everything within the window (which they now call "pockel-cells"), to consider events within the same "pockel-cells" as corresponding events. This is done at the time of recording the events, not after the fact, but it changes nothing.
All it does is give people like Gill a new talking point to claim "predefined windows", "event-ready", etc. It changes absolutely nothing. The essential point is that they are still filtering events based on time, just like previously. It does not matter if the filtering is done during the experiment or afterwards.

All the new experiments claiming "loophole-free" are simply ingenious ways of filtering data at run-time instead of after the fact.

It is not “just like previously” at all. Sorry if you don’t understand that. People like Gill perhaps understand advanced probability theory, and in particular martingale theory, better than you? But admittedly, perhaps not, obviously. Oh well. Posterity will decide. Experimenters get ever more clever. Ideas from one area of science slowly percolate to others.

What is that principle saying that ignorant people often misjudge their own abilities? Dunning Kruger, I think. OK, so maybe I exemplify the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon, of course it’s possible. Fine by me if you like to believe that.

[gill1109]

…

I have always considered spooky entanglement to be a fiction, but I am getting less sure now. The reason for that is because my retrocausal method depends on the particles having their own spacetimes. The universe has its own spacetime which has the same nature as the electron spacetime but different from the positron spacetime. At a measurement the positron space (or wavefunction) collapses to a point and then starts expanding again. This is similar to a change of cycle in Penrose's cyclical conformal cosmology. {But note that if CCC collapse parallels chaotic wavefunction collapse, I doubt that the CCC collapse needs to be conformal.}

The next part is not relevant to my retrocausal model where there is no spooky entanglement but it is relevant to QM spooky action at a distance and to Esail's method. QM entanglement presumably has [in my own re-interpretation] a combined spacetime for the electron and positron. The collapse of the say positron space is connected to the collapse of the electron space. But this collapse takes place in the spacetimes of the two particles and not in the spacetime of the universe.

In the CCC model the end of cycle is associated with a loss of metric of the universe and the metric restarts at a point. So what happens to speed c at this breakdown of the metric of both time and space. And within the particles' spacetimes, I am assuming that the collapse may happen faster within the particles' breakdown than is possible in the universe's metric. Further there is no certainty that the speed of communication (whatever communication that might be) within the electron is limited to speed c even at mid-cycle c.f. Penrose's CCC.

So I am beginning to think that Esail's method could be 'apparent' but not real action at a distance? And spooky entanglement becomes only 'apparently' spooky entanglement. But it may be a lot more spooky than I have normally thought.

I much prefer the retrocausality mechanism, though, as that ties in with my dark energy and dark matter models.

See my relevant papers for more information.

https://vixra.org/abs/2101.0179 Antiparticles and the Nature of Space
https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0160 Malus’s Law and Bell’s Theorem with Local Hidden Variables
https://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329 Pseudo-Random Data Testing The Scales Used In Rasch Pairs Analysis/ Adaptive Comparative Judgement

(The third paper shows how a metric can break down under certain condition not unlike how the metric at the end of a CCC cycle could breakdown)

My emphasis, above.

I suggest we replace the word “spooky” with the word “heavenly” or “exquisite” or “celestial” or something like that. Can we, in any case, separate the value judgements from the facts? Shimony used the words “passion at a distance”. I love them! Bell said that he could not say that there was action at a distance, but he could not say that there is not action at a distance. I think that quantum mechanics leads us to reconsider our primitive (instinctual) notions of time and space and reality.

[Austin Fearnley]

I don't like spooky or heavenly or exquisite or celestial. And particularly do not like passion-at-a-distance. Ugh.

But 'spooky' is the term I met when first encountering the Bell issue and it is still hanging around in my thoughts. However, I now have what I believe are two mechanisms to provide changes in partner particles' polarisation alignments in what might appear to be a faster-than-light transmission. And, yes, I should now drop 'spooky' as apparent spookiness is only in the eye of the beholder.

As an analogy, two people talking to one another on a mobile phone could appear to be spooky or using witchcraft in the eyes of a seventeenth century person. The transmission transcends the speed of sound. Yet we in the modern age know it is not spooky or magical, even though the speed of sound is exceeded. Likewise, if I have two explanations for the Bell correlation, I ought to drop the term 'spooky' simply because IMO I have rational explanations.

[Esail]

Many have argued in the ongoing discussion that my model is not local. But nobody found and named an error in the derivation.
A comment by Justo Pastor Lambare was published by EPL at
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb3
The reasoning of this comment does also not establish a refutation of my model and has been replied at
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb4

[Justo]

Many have argued in the ongoing discussion that my model is not local. But nobody found and named an error in the derivation.
A comment by Justo Pastor Lambare was published by EPL at
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb3
The reasoning of this comment does also not establish a refutation of my model and has been replied at
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb4

Hi Esail, congratulations for having refuted my comment. Can you give us a preprint of your response to my comment?

[Esail]

Hi Esail, congratulations for having refuted my comment. Can you give us a preprint of your response to my comment?

Hi, Justo, I guess I'm not allowed to do so for copy rights reasons. Why don't you ask your library for a copy?

[Justo]

Hi Esail, congratulations for having refuted my comment. Can you give us a preprint of your response to my comment?

Hi, Justo, I guess I'm not allowed to do so for copy rights reasons. Why don't you ask your library for a copy?

Ok,thanks.

[Esail]

The first page of the Reply is accessible free of charge on
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb4
if you click on DeepDyve

[gill1109]

The first page of the Reply is accessible free of charge on
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb4
if you click on DeepDyve

I have it from my university library, I can send it to anyone who emails me. Probably it will soon also be available on sci-hub for those who don't have access to a wealthy tax-payer supported university library.

In the Netherlands, the agreement with publishers is that authors can post preprints on arXiv and also on their home webpages. They just need to add references/links to the published version. I can think of no reason whatsoever why Eugen doesn't put his re-print on a personal webpage or submit it to arXiv. In the old days, people sent postcards to authors requesting an "offprint" and every author got 100 offprints free precisely in order to distribute to their scientific colleagues. Nowadays we have electronic documents but the principle remains the same. Scientists share their work freely with fellow scientists and nobody will stop that. And it is especially important in these days of gross economic inequality that people in developing countries have access to the same work which the rich can get. Remember: most scientific research is paid for by the taxpayers of the countries where the universities are located, which have jobs for the researchers. Publishers fulfil a useful service in helping work to be distributed widely but they also have an unreasonable monopoly position ... in these days of self-publishing. And in these days when the author types their own paper in LaTeX! The publishers do PR to sell their products and do their best to keep hold of their monopoly by publishing very high-status journals like Nature. I believe that authors should not submit papers to journals like Nature: Nature won't publish a paper if it has already been shared on a preprint archive. This has to change. But clever authors know how to create a minimally different pre-publication version which they can and do put on arXiv. They only need Nature for the prestige and the PR and hence for the continuation of their research funding.

Remember, the referees of published papers, and the editors of the journals they appear in, are also supported by the taxpayers of the world; not by multinational publishing corporations.

[Justo]

The first page of the Reply is accessible free of charge on
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac0fb4
if you click on DeepDyve

I have it from my university library, I can send it to anyone who emails me. Probably it will soon also be available on sci-hub for those who don't have access to a wealthy tax-payer supported university library.

In the Netherlands, the agreement with publishers is that authors can post preprints on arXiv and also on their home webpages. They just need to add references/links to the published version. I can think of no reason whatsoever why Eugen doesn't put his re-print on a personal webpage or submit it to arXiv. In the old days, people sent postcards to authors requesting an "offprint" and every author got 100 offprints free precisely in order to distribute to their scientific colleagues. Nowadays we have electronic documents but the principle remains the same. Scientists share their work freely with fellow scientists and nobody will stop that. And it is especially important in these days of gross economic inequality that people in developing countries have access to the same work which the rich can get. Remember: most scientific research is paid for by the taxpayers of the countries where the universities are located, which have jobs for the researchers. Publishers fulfil a useful service in helping work to be distributed widely but they also have an unreasonable monopoly position ... in these days of self-publishing. And in these days when the author types their own paper in LaTeX! The publishers do PR to sell their products and do their best to keep hold of their monopoly by publishing very high-status journals like Nature. I believe that authors should not submit papers to journals like Nature: Nature won't publish a paper if it has already been shared on a preprint archive. This has to change. But clever authors know how to create a minimally different pre-publication version which they can and do put on arXiv. They only need Nature for the prestige and the PR and hence for the continuation of their research funding.

Remember, the referees of published papers, and the editors of the journals they appear in, are also supported by the taxpayers of the world; not by multinational publishing corporations.

Thank you. I looked at the first page in DeepDyve and it is enough for me.
There we can read why my claim(and apparently of everyone else in this forum and also of Bell deniers in Research Gate) about the model's nonlocality is correct. According to Muchowski:
"The fact that Bob's value is once +1 and another time -1 depending on alpha, is not a sign of nonlocality"

Although I don't find particularly clear all points of Muchowski's model, I think the above statement is absolutely clear and beyond any possible misinterpretation. Muchowski's concept of locality is different from what everyone else's, including those who reject the Bell theorem.

[Esail]

According to Muchowski:
"The fact that Bob's value is once +1 and another time -1 depending on alpha, is not a sign of nonlocality"

Although I don't find particularly clear all points of Muchowski's model, I think the above statement is absolutely clear and beyond any possible misinterpretation. Muchowski's concept of locality is different from what everyone else's, including those who reject the Bell theorem.

Justo: you wrote in your Comment:
“Therefore, Alice's choice of her apparatus setting can-not influence Bob's result unless a superluminal interaction is present. The fact that Muchowski's model allows for these kinds of “Spooky actions" renders his model nonlocal without the need for further analysis.”

My peer reviewed answer answer was and is still:
"This is a complete misunderstanding of the model. Alice’s PA setting does not influence Bob’s result but selects the photon pairs for matching events. There is no superluminal interaction"

[Joy Christian]

Alice’s PA setting does not influence Bob’s result but selects the photon pairs for matching events. There is no superluminal interaction.

This sentence by Esail is sufficient to recognize that Justo's criticism of his model is correct. The issue of nonlocality that concerned Bell has nothing to do with "superluminal interaction."
.