Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theorem

[minkwe]

Dear @minkwe, it was a nice discussion. Thank you for trying to follow my arguments. I guess there is nothing left to be discussed

You are not going to try defending what you argue in section 4.2? I don't believe it addresses the problem I described.

[Justo]

@minkew, all I have to say is in section 4.2. I can't do better than that, sorry to let you down. Thank you for reading it.

[FrediFizzx]

@minkew, all I have to say is in section 4.2. I can't do better than that, sorry to let you down. Thank you for reading it.

Well, then allow me to give you a clue... NOTHING, not even QM can exceed the bound on the inequalities. It is very simple math.
.

[Justo]

@minkew, all I have to say is in section 4.2. I can't do better than that, sorry to let you down. Thank you for reading it.

Well, then allow me to give you a clue... NOTHING, not even QM can exceed the bound on the inequalities. It is very simple math.
.

I agree with you that it is very simple math.

[FrediFizzx]

8-)

@minkew, all I have to say is in section 4.2. I can't do better than that, sorry to let you down. Thank you for reading it.

Well, then allow me to give you a clue... NOTHING, not even QM can exceed the bound on the inequalities. It is very simple math.
.

I agree with you that it is very simple math.

It is quite mind boggling that Bell fanatics don't understand that simple fact.
.

[FrediFizzx]

8-)

@minkew, all I have to say is in section 4.2. I can't do better than that, sorry to let you down. Thank you for reading it.

Well, then allow me to give you a clue... NOTHING, not even QM can exceed the bound on the inequalities. It is very simple math.
.

I agree with you that it is very simple math.

It is quite mind boggling that Bell fanatics don't understand that simple fact.
.

So...., how does QM and the experiments seem to exceed the bounds of the inequalities? Simple, they don't use the Bell inequalities but a different inequality with a higher bound.
.

[gill1109]

8-)

Well, then allow me to give you a clue... NOTHING, not even QM can exceed the bound on the inequalities. It is very simple math.
.

I agree with you that it is very simple math.

It is quite mind boggling that Bell fanatics don't understand that simple fact.
.

So...., how does QM and the experiments seem to exceed the bounds of the inequalities? Simple, they don't use the Bell inequalities but a different inequality with a higher bound.

Fred, what you say seems to me a bit strange. Experimenters don't "use" Bell inequalities. They do an experiment, get data, compute four correlations. Then they can investigate whether or not various inequalities are satisfied. For instance, Tsirelson's inequality. Occasionally, experimentalists have announced that they have violated Tsirelson's inequality by finding a value of "S" far in excess of 2 times the square root of 2, and highly statistically significant too. See for instance https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401148 for work by colleagues of mine in Leiden. They predict that "S" = 16/5 and they did an experiment which confirmed it.

Obviously, if you compute correlations by the usual formulas, each of the four correlations lies between -1 and +1, hence S cannot be larger than 4. But that inequality is not particularly interesting.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.
.

If anyone can demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" or exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities, go for it! I will show you where your mistake is.
.

[Justo]

@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.
.

If anyone can demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" or exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities, go for it! I will show you where your mistake is.
.

I don't know about the experiments, but that QM violates the inequality for certain settings is standard textbook calculation. At least if by the Bell inequality you mean the prediction of the mean of four series of experiments performed with 4 different settings.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.
.

If anyone can demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" or exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities, go for it! I will show you where your mistake is.
.

I don't know about the experiments, but that QM violates the inequality for certain settings is standard textbook calculation. At least if by the Bell inequality you mean the prediction of the mean of four series of experiments performed with 4 different settings.

Well, go ahead and demonstrate the "textbook" explanation here and I will show you where their mistake is. Don't be lazy now.
.

[Justo]

I really don't want to do that. Why don't you just tell us where textbooks are wrong.

[FrediFizzx]

I really don't want to do that. Why don't you just tell us where textbooks are wrong.

Ok, Justo strikes out. Anybody else? You can always scan or take pictures of the textbook section and put them up on a cloud drive somewhere then we can discuss.
.

[Justo]

I really don't want to do that. Why don't you just tell us where textbooks are wrong.

Ok, Justo strikes out. Anybody else? You can always scan or take pictures of the textbook section and put them up on a cloud drive somewhere then we can discuss.
.

Well, what about this: let be the singlet state and , then all you need is

Do you mean the above result is wrong?

[FrediFizzx]

I really don't want to do that. Why don't you just tell us where textbooks are wrong.

Ok, Justo strikes out. Anybody else? You can always scan or take pictures of the textbook section and put them up on a cloud drive somewhere then we can discuss.
.

Well, what about this: let be the singlet state and , then all you need is

Do you mean the above result is wrong?

No. Justo strikes out again. Ok, we will start with this squealapedia page because it is an easy one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_th ... equalities

For the last equation in that section, they have made each of the 4 expectation value elements of the CHSH formula independent so the bound is actually 4 not 2. See... I told you they switch to an inequality with a higher bound!
.

[minkwe]

Well, what about this: let be the singlet state and , then all you need is

Do you mean the above result is wrong?

It is correct if used as a prediction of the results for each term in my scenario 2, for which the upper bound is 4.

It is wrong if used as a prediction for my scenario 3 or 4, for which the upper bound is 2. I've shown that Bells inequality boils down to scenario 4, if the data can be reordered. But I've also explained why the data can't be reordered. Therefore, there are two strikes against Bells theorem:

* To obtain an upper bound of 2, the data must be reordered then you end up with a 4xN spreadsheet and the correct QM prediction for it does not violate it.
* But it is not possible to reorder anyway, so the inequality can't be derived to begin with.

Finally, the above analysis has already granted the fair sampling assumption. Therefore any other discussion about locality, conspiracy, superderminism, freedom, or other considerations, is irrelevant as they only apply inasmuch as they affect the distributions of lambda.

[Justo]

I really don't want to do that. Why don't you just tell us where textbooks are wrong.

Ok, Justo strikes out. Anybody else? You can always scan or take pictures of the textbook section and put them up on a cloud drive somewhere then we can discuss.
.

Well, what about this: let be the singlet state and , then all you need is

Do you mean the above result is wrong?

No. Justo strikes out again. Ok, we will start with this squealapedia page because it is an easy one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_th ... equalities

For the last equation in that section, they have made each of the 4 expectation value elements of the CHSH formula independent so the bound is actually 4 not 2. See... I told you they switch to an inequality with a higher bound!
.

That is not true if you accept standard QM formalism. So when you say that QM gives a different bound you are not talking about what the physical community calls quantum theory. It is not that they changed to a different inequality, you changed to a different theory.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.
.

If anyone can demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" or exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities, go for it! I will show you where your mistake is.
.

The experiments confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics. They disagree with the predictions of local realism. Notice the section of the previously mentioned Wikipedia page where the CHSH inequality is derived. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Derivation_of_the_classical_bound It is derived using some physical assumptions, called nowadays “local hidden variables” or “local realism”. The experiments show that local realism has to be discarded. Neither you, Fred, nor Michel, have shown us an error in the derivation, on Wikipedia, of the CHSH inequality. Of course you are both free to disagree with the physical assumptions which were used. Plenty of people argue that those assumptions should be jettisoned. Not because they have a problem with quantum mechanics but because they are looking for a theory “behind QM” which reproduces its predictions and which lends itself better to future theories of quantum gravity. See for instance viewtopic.php?f=6&t=486#p14021

[minkwe]

That is not true if you accept standard QM formalism. So when you say that QM gives a different bound you are not talking about what the physical community calls quantum theory. It is not that they changed to a different inequality, you changed to a different theory.

Actually you are wrong. QM does not care about any inequalities. The people claiming violation are the ones using QM predictions from scenario 2 to claim violation of scenario 4. They are using the wrong inequality for comparison. This is what Fred is saying.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.
.

If anyone can demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" or exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities, go for it! I will show you where your mistake is.
.

The experiments confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics. They disagree with the predictions of local realism. Notice the section of the previously mentioned Wikipedia page where the CHSH inequality is derived. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Derivation_of_the_classical_bound It is derived using some physical assumptions, called nowadays “local hidden variables” or “local realism”. The experiments show that local realism has to be discarded. Neither you, Fred, nor Michel, have shown us an error in the derivation, on Wikipedia, of the CHSH inequality. Of course you are both free to disagree with the physical assumptions which were used. Plenty of people argue that those assumptions should be jettisoned. Not because they have a problem with quantum mechanics but because they are looking for a theory “behind QM” which reproduces its predictions and which lends itself better to future theories of quantum gravity. See for instance viewtopic.php?f=6&t=486#p14021

And Gill strikes out with a bunch of mumbo jumbo nonsense instead of a demonstration! Try again.
.