Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theorem

[minkwe]

@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

This is all untrue. A careful review shows that no "local realism" or other physical assumption is required to derive Bells inequality. The only assumption needed is:
* 4 functions generating numbers .
Everything else is mumbo Jumbo.

Every other derivation that purports to start from 8 functions makes an additional assumption that the 8 functions can be reduced to 4. But as explained this is not possible irrespective of what type of process the functions represent.

[FrediFizzx]

Yep, the Bell fans always choke when they have to demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" the Bell inequalities. It's freakin' impossible!
.

[Justo]

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.

I don't know what you guys are talking about anymore. Let us assume only one scenario: the one that is used in actual experiments.
I know that @minkwe says the bound for the Bell inequality in a LHV theory should be 4 and not 2. We already discussed that and I supposed that we agree that we disagree on that point.
Bun now you go further and claim that the bound according to QM is not . That is the same as saying that

That means you are denying QM as well as the Bell inequality. I am completely lost here.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

I don't know what you guys are talking about anymore. Let us assume only one scenario: the one that is used in actual experiments.
I know that @minkwe says the bound for the Bell inequality in a LHV theory should be 4 and not 2. We already discussed that and I supposed that we agree that we disagree on that point.
But now you go further and claim that the bound according to QM is not . That is the same as saying that

That means you are denying QM as well as the Bell inequality. I am completely lost here.

Yep, you are lost. We are not saying that at all. We are saying that they are not using Bell's inequalities to show "violation". They are using a different inequality with a higher bound.
.

[Justo]

Guys, you have the ability to turn complex what is very simple. There is only one experiment which result is predicted by two different theories, QM and LHV. QM makes a precise prediction on which we all agree. On the other hand LHV predicts an upper bound on which we desagree. End of the story.

[FrediFizzx]

Guys, you have the ability to turn complex what is very simple. There is only one experiment which result is predicted by two different theories, QM and LHV. QM makes a precise prediction on which we all agree. On the other hand LHV predicts an upper bound on which we desagree. End of the story.

What is so complex about QM and the experimenters using a different inequality with a higher bound? They certainly can't use the Bell inequalities to show "violation" because it is mathematically impossible to do that! Very simple. That the Bell fanatics don't or won't or can't understand that is simply mind boggling. Plus Joy's LHV models predict the same as QM. What's the conclusion? Bell was wrong. He screwed up. Now, that is the end of the story. QED
.

[gill1109]

Guys, you have the ability to turn complex what is very simple. There is only one experiment which result is predicted by two different theories, QM and LHV. QM makes a precise prediction on which we all agree. On the other hand LHV predicts an upper bound on which we disagree. End of the story.

I agree with you, Justo.

Joy's LHV models predict the same as QM. What's the conclusion? Bell was wrong. He screwed up. Now, that is the end of the story.

I disagree with the claim that Joy’s models, or your recent models, are LHV models. Unless we change the meaning of the word “local”.

Joy writes in https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997/

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 does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. 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.

I think Joy is saying that we need to rethink our notions of “locality” and “realism”. This is metaphysics. Philosophy of science. Not mathematics. Not proven or disproven by illustrative computer simulations.

I think that Bell’s work already challenged metaphysical assumptions about locality and realism. Hence it should also challenge mathematical “implementations” of those notions. If the words “local” and “real” should start to mean something different, then mathematics and mathematical physics will have to be refashioned. The ball game has changed. The goal posts have been moved.

[gill1109]

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!

Fred, what do you mean by "independent"? Both in QM and in LHV and in experiments, the four correlations in the CHSH expression "S" are calculated separately. In QM and in LHV the expressions used to calculate them share some common elements. For instance, in LHV the functions A, B and rho are the same functions in each of the four expressions. In the QM calculations for Bell's EPR-B thought experiment, one uses the same quantum state. In Tsirelson's derivation of the Tsirelson bound one allows any quantum state on the tensor product of two Hilbert spaces of arbitrary dimension and two arbitrary measurements with only two outcomes on Alice's side, two arbitrary measurements with only two outcomes on Bob's side.

People don't "switch to a different inequality". They use different theories, or they use different data, to calculate the same quantity "S". In different situations one can derive different bounds on "S". For instance, given four arbitrary streams of pairs of binary outcomes, the only thing one can say about "S" is that it lies between -4 and 4. If that data is however generated by an LHV model according to the usual definitions, the mean value of S will be between -2 and 2. With the use of probability theory, one can also say something about the probability that it, for instance, exceeds 2 by at least any fixed amount. That probability is exponential small in the number of trials in the smallest sub-experiment.

Fred and Joy's recent simulations generate a value of "S" approximately equal to 2 sqrt 2 when N is large. Their simulation model therefore cannot be a LHV model according to the usual definitions. They are free to redefine what "local hidden variables" means and then call their model an LHV model, if they want to, but it will confuse a lot of people to do so. Just like Hossenfelder, Palmer and Hance recently propose redefining "statistical independence". They are allowed to do so, of course, but it does confuse people.

PS.

This is all untrue. A careful review shows that no "local realism" or other physical assumption is required to derive Bells inequality. The only assumption needed is:
* 4 functions generating numbers .
Everything else is mumbo Jumbo.

To derive the Bell CHSH inequality you need four functions generating numbers +/-1 and a probability distribution.

To claim that it says something about what you would expect to see in real experiments, you need physical arguments linking those functions and that probability measure to physical reality. This is the bit which Michel calls "mumbo jumbo". That is not an argument, it is just an admission that you don't follow somebody else's argument, so you use some disparaging comments about it to ridicule the person making the argument. It's sometimes called an argument "ad hominem". It is not proper to use ad hominem arguments in science. They are not actually arguments at all. They are school playground techniques; they are all about getting and asserting power, by getting the rabble on your side.

Another example is calling people who disagree with you "fanatics". Wen you resort to name-calling you are actually admitting that you don't actually have a scientific argument.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Richard

Richard wrote:
To claim that it says something about what you would expect to see in real experiments, you need physical arguments linking those functions and that probability measure to physical reality. This is the bit which Michel calls "mumbo jumbo". "

I regard myself as a neutral here, especially since my retrocausal method is not a standard line of reasoning (despite a Feynman diagram line for a positron having a backwards time arrow). And Bell's theorem strictures are irrelevant to my retrocausal calculations.

In a simulation, vectors a and b and local hidden variables (LHV) are controlled and an assumption is made that LHVs ought to be distributed in the simulation in a way that all possible LHVs are fairly attainable. That is, a fair and reasonable set of LHVs are simulated. This is how I learned from Chantal how to generate vectors randomly on a sphere, though later I have only used the simpler 2D simulations.

In a real experiment, only vectors a and b can be, and are, controlled and correlations are calculated for each unique θ, where θ = a - b. In a real experiment there is no control over the LHV except for an assumption that the LHVs would fairly cover the expected range of such values as they would certainly do in a fair simulation.

IMO, in superdeterminism, in a real experiment, the distribution of LHVs surely has to be peculiar. Are there statistical distributions of LHVs postulated for superdeterminism?
My own impression of superdeterminism is based on a block universe. A particle setting off into the future of a fixed and block universe already has its destination pre-ordained. Surely this must limit the distribution of LHVs available?

Anyway, to stop myself digressing further, my point is how can there be limits on the correlation for a real experiment when the LHVs are not known? Well, in a real experiment as the number of pairs of particles tends to infinity, the distribution of LHVs used by nature will tend to the same target distribution of LHVs in a fair simulation. So in a large and real experiment the same correlation limits will apply to the real experiment as to the theoretical simulation. Since I do not know the fair distribution in nature for superdeterminism, I assume the 0.707 correlation can be achieved in a simulation by what will look like data pruning. Or a very peculiar set of LHVs used.

[Joy Christian]

I think Joy is saying that we need to rethink our notions of “locality” and “realism”.

I thought you were an Englishman. But, evidently, you cannot read simple English. Perhaps you are living in the Netherlands for too long.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Another example is calling people who disagree with you "fanatics". Wen you resort to name-calling you are actually admitting that you don't actually have a scientific argument.

There is nothing derogatory about the term "fanatics". It just means you are a Bell fan to the infinite degree. You may call us, LHV fanatics, if you wish.
.

[local]

Gill is a hypocrite who has no problem calling local realists "quantum c****pot".

https://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014

[FrediFizzx]

Gill is a hypocrite who has no problem calling local realists "quantum c****pot".

https://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014

Welcome back, local. Yeah, we know all about that. It's the ton of nonsense Gill spews that bugs me. I'm going to do some examples soon.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred and Joy's recent simulations generate a value of "S" approximately equal to 2 sqrt 2 when N is large. Their simulation model therefore cannot be a LHV model according to the usual definitions. They are free to redefine what "local hidden variables" means and then call their model an LHV model, if they want to, but it will confuse a lot of people to do so. Just like Hossenfelder, Palmer and Hance recently propose redefining "statistical independence". They are allowed to do so, of course, but it does confuse people.

More freakin' nonsense from the master nonsense maker. Didn't I give you a warning about that?
.

[FrediFizzx]

People don't "switch to a different inequality". They use different theories, or they use different data, to calculate the same quantity "S". In different situations one can derive different bounds on "S". For instance, given four arbitrary streams of pairs of binary outcomes, the only thing one can say about "S" is that it lies between -4 and 4. If that data is however generated by an LHV model according to the usual definitions, the mean value of S will be between -2 and 2. With the use of probability theory, one can also say something about the probability that it, for instance, exceeds 2 by at least any fixed amount. That probability is exponential small in the number of trials in the smallest sub-experiment.

More nonsense.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Joy's LHV models predict the same as QM. What's the conclusion? Bell was wrong. He screwed up. Now, that is the end of the story.

I disagree with the claim that Joy’s models, or your recent models, are LHV models. Unless we change the meaning of the word “local”. ...

Again, more nonsense.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Guys, you have the ability to turn complex what is very simple. There is only one experiment which result is predicted by two different theories, QM and LHV. QM makes a precise prediction on which we all agree. On the other hand LHV predicts an upper bound on which we desagree. End of the story.

What is so complex about QM and the experimenters using a different inequality with a higher bound? They certainly can't use the Bell inequalities to show "violation" because it is mathematically impossible to do that! Very simple. That the Bell fanatics don't or won't or can't understand that is simply mind boggling. Plus Joy's LHV models predict the same as QM. What's the conclusion? Bell was wrong. He screwed up. Now, that is the end of the story. QED
.

Justo never responded to this. The Bell fans always give up when they get shot down. Except one fanatic that we know.
.

[Justo]

Fred, I did not respond because I don't understand what you said and you did not understand what I said.Looks like we're living in different universes.
I don't see two inequalities, I see two predictions made by two different theories, one is an equality and the other is an ineqquality.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, I did not respond because I don't understand what you said and you did not understand what I said.Looks like we're living in different universes.
I don't see two inequalities, I see two predictions made by two different theories, one is an equality and the other is an ineqquality.

I understand perfectly well what you said. It's nonsense because Bell's theory is proven nonsense. And you seem somewhat intelligent so I doubt very much you don't understand what I said. It's simple. You just don't want to accept the truth of some simple mathematical facts because you are brainwashed somehow. I even showed you an example from Wikipedia of how you are being deceived by yourself. It is quite amazing.
.

[Justo]

What you are doing is called prejudice. You assume that I am not sincere and that my attitude is one of denial before what for you seems to be an evident truth.
I am disappointed to learn that, given your attitude, it does not make sense to discuss anything with you.
I have absolutely no personal interest to pursue a blind defense of the consistency of the Bell theorem. I am mostly neutral with respect to Joy's claims because he writes in a language I do not understand, i.e, GA.