Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theorem

[Heinera]

In your Statistical Science Paper, you make an equivalent additional assumption that four 2xN independent samples can be randomly drawn from a single 4xN spreadsheet without replacement. But this assumption is wrong for a similar reason. Sampling without replacement does not yield independent subsets. This can be easily seen by asking 4 people to take turns randomly picking two numbers from a set of 8 numbers without replacement. The last person to pick will wonder what you are smoking because they have no choice.

This simply shows that you have no understanding of statistics whatsoever. You also seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of a limit as N goes to infinity. When N is large, in the thousands or tens of thousands, replacement or no replacement makes no practical difference. The last person to pick will not wonder what somebody is smoking. He will wonder why he's bothering at all because he knows that his pick, even if he has no choice, will only have a iota influence on his average.

He's not going to see your post so not sure why you want to post this nonsense. And now he will see it in the quote and probably ignore it anyways.
.

Well, I'm not posting specifically for minkwe to read. There are other dimwits on this forum too, you know.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

I don't assume it. I know that you are not sincere, etc. After almost 10 years of this we know. Been around the block a few times. You give it all away when you don't accept simple math laid before you. It is mathematically impossible for anything to exceed the bound on the Bell inequalities. Do you accept that simple evident truth?
.

[Justo]

Sorry, for me is evident exactly the opposite. The difference is I don't assume your dishonesty.

[FrediFizzx]

Sorry, for me is evident exactly the opposite. The difference is I don't assume your dishonesty.

??? What is dishonest about stating a simple mathematical fact? If you think the opposite, then you don't even belong in these discussions.
.

[Joy Christian]

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.

I don't assume it. I know that you are not sincere, etc. After almost 10 years of this we know. Been around the block a few times. You give it all away when you don't accept simple math laid before you. It is mathematically impossible for anything to exceed the bound on the Bell inequalities. Do you accept that simple evident truth?

Now, now, Fred, Justo, you guys are talking past each other. Justo, I find you one of the most reasonable Bell-believers I have come across, so let me try to explain what Fred is saying.

It is true that within quantum mechanics one can derive Tsirel'son's bounds on the CHSH correlator (i.e., a sum of four expectation values) and those bounds are +/-2\/2, not 2. My GA model predicts exactly the same bounds because those bounds have nothing to do with quantum entanglement or nonlocality. They are simply the geometrical signatures of the physical space we live in. It is most unfortunate that most physicists do not know the language of geometric algebra otherwise they would have appreciated what I am saying a very long time ago.

For a simple derivation of Tsirel'son's bounds within my GA model please see Section IX of my paper published in IEEE Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

Ok, so what about the Bell-CHSH type inequalities? Well, they have nothing to do with physics. What Fred is saying is a painfully obvious fact. Nothing can "violate" a mathematical inequality such as the Bell-CHSH inequality. Absolutely nothing. That obviously includes both quantum mechanics and experimental data. So what about the Tsirel'son's bounds? Well, they do not "violate" Bell-CHSH inequalities but exceed them. Do you see what I am saying? This is what Fred is saying in different words.

Does exceeding the Bell-CHSH inequalities rule out local realism? Obviously not, for several reasons. First, my GA model is manifestly local-realistic and comprehensively predicts exactly the same predictions as quantum mechanics. Second, Bell-CHSH inequalities can be derived without any assumptions of locality or realism, in several different ways. I have done so myself in one of my papers without using GA: See Section 4.2 of my Royal Society paper, for example: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526.

.

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah Justo, don't listen to Gill as he going to lead you completely astray.
.

[Justo]

Yeah Justo, don't listen to Gill as he going to lead you completely astray.
.

Actually, I don't listen to him. I disagree with him completely. I agree with Joy about the absurdity of the counterfactual definiteness assumption of which Richard Gill is an enthusiast promoter. I still can't understand how a mathematician trained in logical and rigorous thinking can defend such an absurdity.
Even more, I mathematically proved the irrelevance of CFD in the sense he uses it in this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00343. That caused a personal demeaning attack on me by him in another forum and I decided to withdraw from it because he is one of the administrators of that forum.
I further agree with Joy that he shows some kind of sociopath behavior. But I am not like him and I recognize he is a respectable academic apart from his personal questionable behavior.

[FrediFizzx]

@Justo Well, that is good but I would sure like to know why you think something could exceed the bound on the Bell inequalities? It is mathematically impossible.
.

[Justo]

@Justo Well, that is good but I would sure like to know why you think something could exceed the bound on the Bell inequalities? It is mathematically impossible.
.

I really don't understand you. I don't know what you mean by the Bell inequality. I thought we all agree that the bound predicted by QM is .You must be calling Bell inequality to something else. I call Bell inequality to the prediction of a set of 4 different series of experimenrs. Tsirelson showed that QM predicts a bound 2.8.....According to Bell LHV predict 2. And according to you is 4. So I don't know what you are talking about. Please tell me so I can know.
Joy previously said nothing violates it but exceeds it. I don't know the difference between violate and exceed.
There is an obvious nomenclature problem here, what is the mathematical CHSH inequality? What is it good for when discussing the prediction of a physical experiment?

[minkwe]

@Justo Well, that is good but I would sure like to know why you think something could exceed the bound on the Bell inequalities? It is mathematically impossible.
.

I really don't understand you. I don't know what you mean by the Bell inequality. I thought we all agree that the bound predicted by QM is .You must be calling Bell inequality to something else. I call Bell inequality to the prediction of a set of 4 different series of experimenrs. Tsirelson showed that QM predicts a bound 2.8.....According to Bell LHV predict 2. And according to you is 4. So I don't know what you are talking about. Please tell me so I can know.
Joy previously said nothing violates it but exceeds it. I don't know the difference between violate and exceed.
There is an obvious nomenclature problem here, what is the mathematical CHSH inequality? What is it good for when discussing the prediction of a physical experiment?

Are there two different people called "Justo" posting to this forum? Because you and I just had a long discussion about this topic and it's like you completely forgot. Let me remind you. During that discussion, I explain to you that the upper bound for four seires of experiments was 4 not 2 and that you could not derive the inequality with an upper bound of 2 starting from 4 separate series of experiments without making a false assumption.

[Justo]

Of course, that is what I believed and what I said, according to you the bound is 4. According to us(Bell fans) the bound is 2. It should be crystal clear that we disagree. Why are you surprized?
But Joy and Fred now are telling me that nothing exceeds the bound 2. What are we talking about?

[gill1109]

Yeah Justo, don't listen to Gill as he going to lead you completely astray.
.

Actually, I don't listen to him. I disagree with him completely. I agree with Joy about the absurdity of the counterfactual definiteness assumption of which Richard Gill is an enthusiast promoter. I still can't understand how a mathematician trained in logical and rigorous thinking can defend such an absurdity.
Even more, I mathematically proved the irrelevance of CFD in the sense he uses it in this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00343. That caused a personal demeaning attack on me by him in another forum and I decided to withdraw from it because he is one of the administrators of that forum.
I further agree with Joy that he shows some kind of sociopath behavior. But I am not like him and I recognize he is a respectable academic apart from his personal questionable behavior.

Justo, I have the impression that you misunderstand the sense in which I use the term CFD. I use it in the mathematical sense used by Boris Tsirelson in his Citizendium article and used in that same sense by other mathematicians. And in the mathematical sense used in the present-day theory of causality (pioneered and popularized by Judea Pearl). I see it as identical to a mathematical property which I called "realism" in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208187, No time loophole in Bell's theorem; the Hess-Philipp model is non-local. R.D. Gill, G. Weihs, A. Zeilinger, M. Zukowski. PNAS 2002, 99: 14632-14635. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.182536499

Please let me know if you think there is anything wrong in that paper.

I think that you use the term CFD in a different sense. You argue that in that sense it is useless. Please let me know where you think that I use it in your sense.

I'm sorry if you felt my attack on your comments in another forum to be personally demeaning. I hope you agree that scientists are allowed, even supposed, to combat one another's ideas if they feel those ideas are wrong. Writing "he shows some kind of sociopath behavior" is an example of personally demeaning comments which have no place in scientific debate. You may think what you like and say it in private to your friends but not publish it. When a scientist publishes a remark like that they are the one who lose the respect of their peers.

In the heat of passionate debate we all say things which are better not kept on record. We're all human, after all. To err is human, to forgive is divine.

[FrediFizzx]

Of course, that is what I believed and what I said, according to you the bound is 4. According to us(Bell fans) the bound is 2. It should be crystal clear that we disagree. Why are you surprised?
But Joy and Fred now are telling me that nothing exceeds the bound 2. What are we talking about?

Sorry, but that is NOT what Joy and I are telling you. It is mathematically impossible to exceed the bound on any of the Bell inequalities by anything. Even QM and the experiments can't do it. They just use an inequality with a higher bound. It is very simple. They are cheating! When they say they have "violated" the Bell inequalities.
.

[Justo]

Of course, that is what I believed and what I said, according to you the bound is 4. According to us(Bell fans) the bound is 2. It should be crystal clear that we disagree. Why are you surprised?
But Joy and Fred now are telling me that nothing exceeds the bound 2. What are we talking about?

Sorry, but that is NOT what Joy and I are telling you. It is mathematically impossible to exceed the bound on any of the Bell inequalities by anything. Even QM and the experiments can't do it. They just use an inequality with a higher bound. It is very simple. They are cheating! When they say they have "violated" the Bell inequalities.
.

Still I do not understand, are you callling Bell inequality to an expression with a higher bound? If you take that bound to 4 then of course that nothing can surpass that value. Is that it?

[FrediFizzx]

Of course, that is what I believed and what I said, according to you the bound is 4. According to us(Bell fans) the bound is 2. It should be crystal clear that we disagree. Why are you surprised?
But Joy and Fred now are telling me that nothing exceeds the bound 2. What are we talking about?

Sorry, but that is NOT what Joy and I are telling you. It is mathematically impossible to exceed the bound on any of the Bell inequalities by anything. Even QM and the experiments can't do it. They just use an inequality with a higher bound. It is very simple. They are cheating! When they say they have "violated" the Bell inequalities.
.

Still I do not understand, are you calling Bell inequality to an expression with a higher bound? If you take that bound to 4 then of course that nothing can surpass that value. Is that it?

The Bell inequalities have dependencies built into it. If those dependencies are not there anymore then the bound does go to 4 for Bell-CHSH. That is what QM and the experiments do. Remove the dependencies. IOW, they never actually use the Bell inequalities to show a "violation" which is cheating. Now, let's go back to the demonstration,

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

At the end of the last term in that section they should have < 4 instead of > 2. Here is why. In the last of the 4 terms, a is not the same as the a in the first term. It may have the same value but it happened at a different time so it can't be the same a. The same with the b's, a primes and b primes. The dependency is broken and those 4 terms are independent so the bound is 4 not 2. Does that help?
.

[FrediFizzx]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

[Justo]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

[FrediFizzx]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

Well, it is still true that NOTHING can "violate" the Bell inequalities. I hope you understand it now. Do you understand why the first string of 4 terms is junk physics?
.

[Joy Christian]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

But do you now understand the point? The first inequality above can never be violated by anything. The second inequality is what the experimentalists inevitably use and claim that they have "violated" the first inequality. That is cheating.

A different way to say the same thing is to say that the first inequality cannot be derived without assuming the additivity of expectation values: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf
.

[Heinera]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

But do you now understand the point? The first inequality above can never be violated by anything. The second inequality is what the experimentalists inevitably use and claim that they have "violated" the first inequality. That is cheating.

A different way to say the same thing is to say that the first inequality cannot be derived without assuming the additivity of expectation values: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf
.

I can of course derive the Bell inequalities without using the expression



Bell used it in his 1964 paper. That does not mean it is the only way to derive the theorem. So many amateurs go straight to his terse original paper, thinks they found a mistake, and thus declare the entire theorem false. Bell was a brilliant mind, but at that point in time not a very good pedagogue. In the almost 60 years that have passed a lot of other brilliant minds has of course come up with a lot of other (and more accessible) proofs.