Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Heinera » Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:46 am

Justo wrote:What CFD means, when used to derive the BI, is that you can make counterfactual predicción using those functions and then perform experiments to falsify those predictions.

Yes, and now you are in the philosophical/ontological context. In the proof that the CHSH urn experiment has an upper limit of 2 for the CHSH expression, there are no counterfactual predictions. Of course when Alice tosses her coin and picks one of her two values, we can call that value "factual" and the other "counterfactual". But that's just a word game. As far as the proof goes there is no need to label them at all. They are just two numbers. We only need to assume she records the value she picks. The only actual prediction that is made, is that the CHSH expression is less or equal than 2, in the limit as N goes to infinity.


Same goes for the proof of Bell's theorem.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo » Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:25 pm

Heinera wrote:
Justo wrote:What CFD means, when used to derive the BI, is that you can make counterfactual predicción using those functions and then perform experiments to falsify those predictions.

Yes, and now you are in the philosophical/ontological context. In the proof that the CHSH urn experiment has an upper limit of 2 for the CHSH expression, there are no counterfactual predictions. Of course when Alice tosses her coin and picks one of her two values, we can call that value "factual" and the other "counterfactual". But that's just a word game. As far as the proof goes there is no need to label them at all. They are just two numbers. We only need to assume she records the value she picks. The only actual prediction that is made, is that the CHSH expression is less or equal than 2, in the limit as N goes to infinity.


Same goes for the proof of Bell's theorem.


Certainly. Perhaps you are not understanding me. I explained what CFD means when used to derive the BI. My point is that such a derivation is incorrect because no known experiment can falsify it. Yes, your theory allows you to make those counterfactual predictions but you cannot go out and perform an experiment to falsify that prediction.
Falsifiable physical predictions are based on indicative conditional "if x, then y" not on counterfactual conditionals, something like "if x was true, then y would have been true".
The BI based on CFD should be very clearly not falsifiable. You do not need to be Kurt Godel to infer that. It is the common sense of the man on the street.
The physicist Asher Peres derived a BI based on CFD in 1978 and the conclusion at which he arrived was that "unperformed experiments have no results". I agree with Peres, his silly tautological conclusion is all Bell theorem reduces to. Of course, Bell never committed such a blunder.
I supposed that Peres later learned that what he derived is not a Bell inequality.
Justo
 

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby gill1109 » Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:47 pm

Justo wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Justo wrote:What CFD means, when used to derive the BI, is that you can make counterfactual predicción using those functions and then perform experiments to falsify those predictions.

Yes, and now you are in the philosophical/ontological context. In the proof that the CHSH urn experiment has an upper limit of 2 for the CHSH expression, there are no counterfactual predictions. Of course when Alice tosses her coin and picks one of her two values, we can call that value "factual" and the other "counterfactual". But that's just a word game. As far as the proof goes there is no need to label them at all. They are just two numbers. We only need to assume she records the value she picks. The only actual prediction that is made, is that the CHSH expression is less or equal than 2, in the limit as N goes to infinity.


Same goes for the proof of Bell's theorem.


Certainly. Perhaps you are not understanding me. I explained what CFD means when used to derive the BI. My point is that such a derivation is incorrect because no known experiment can falsify it. Yes, your theory allows you to make those counterfactual predictions but you cannot go out and perform an experiment to falsify that prediction.
Falsifiable physical predictions are based on indicative conditional "if x, then y" not on counterfactual conditionals, something like "if x was true, then y would have been true".
The BI based on CFD should be very clearly not falsifiable. You do not need to be Kurt Godel to infer that. It is the common sense of the man on the street.
The physicist Asher Peres derived a BI based on CFD in 1978 and the conclusion at which he arrived was that "unperformed experiments have no results". I agree with Peres, his silly tautological conclusion is all Bell theorem reduces to. Of course, Bell never committed such a blunder.
I supposed that Peres later learned that what he derived is not a Bell inequality.

It seems that your only objection to CFD and to Peres is their use of English. Perhaps we should just ban the phrase "counterfactual definiteness". Or anyone who uses it should define it explicitly. I define it *relative to a mathematical model*. Not "relative to reality".

There is a huge and valuable literature which uses the term, without people getting mixed up or misled. To start with, read Judea Pearl's book "Causality" or any of the later popularization.

Neither morality, nor law, nor physical experimentation, are meaningful if we are never allowed to imagine what would have happened if things in the past had been different from what they actually were. It would have been wrong to hang nazi "war criminals" at Nurenberg.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby gill1109 » Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:21 am

Justo wrote:Now Minkwe found what could be a theoretical loophole in Bell's derivation, i.e., theorem (4). He found reasons to doubt that Bell's derivation describes the results of real experiments. He observed what seems to be a doubtful assumption that De Baere already observed in 1984 and probably the Bell establishment never paid any attention or those who know simply know and don't bother to explain because have more important things to do.
Well, I don't have more important things to do, so I bother to explain it in section 4.2 of our paper.

De Baere's (1984) objection was not new, even then. It had been earlier made, for instance by Lochak. And Bell had previously adequately answered these earlier objections. Most people here agree that to prove the CHSH inequality one assumes that the probability measure rho of the hidden variables does not depend on the settings. De Baere thinks there is no mystery in QM because QM already tells us that one cannot measure spin of the same particle in several directions at the same time. De Baere already believes that QM is the last word and has no use for hidden variables theory, anyway. He takes no notice of the *physical* reasoning which Bell used to motivate the introduction of those functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda). And, as far as I am concerned, once one has those functions one has established CFD. I follow the terminology of Tsirelson here. A mathematician, like me.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo » Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:29 am

gill1109 wrote:It seems that your only objection to CFD and to Peres is their use of English. Perhaps we should just ban the phrase "counterfactual definiteness". Or anyone who uses it should define it explicitly. I define it *relative to a mathematical model*. Not "relative to reality".

There is a huge and valuable literature which uses the term, without people getting mixed up or misled. To start with, read Judea Pearl's book "Causality" or any of the later popularization.

Neither morality, nor law, nor physical experimentation, are meaningful if we are never allowed to imagine what would have happened if things in the past had been different from what they actually were. It would have been wrong to hang nazi "war criminals" at Nurenberg.


Notice that I do not disagree with Peres's conclusions about the interpretation of the inequality derived from CFD.
But let us assume that CFD makes sense and is a valid resource to derive the BI. Please read the previous post viewtopic.php?f=6&t=482&start=120#p13962. There I explain that there is no way of avoiding the irrelevance of CFD hypothesis.

The irony of all this is that you made important contributions to the Bell theorem literature through your expertise in statistical mathematics for the manipulations of experimental data without understanding the very simple physical concepts involved in the Bell theorem. Also, your 2014 paper in Statistical Science, overlooking the nonsense about CFD, makes very interesting points. I find your spreadsheet scheme particularly enlightening notwithstanding the fact that people who do not understand the theorem use it to ridicule it (for instance Marian's paper "Is the moon there...").
Justo
 

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo » Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:53 am

gill1109 wrote:
Justo wrote:Now Minkwe found what could be a theoretical loophole in Bell's derivation, i.e., theorem (4). He found reasons to doubt that Bell's derivation describes the results of real experiments. He observed what seems to be a doubtful assumption that De Baere already observed in 1984 and probably the Bell establishment never paid any attention or those who know simply know and don't bother to explain because have more important things to do.
Well, I don't have more important things to do, so I bother to explain it in section 4.2 of our paper.

De Baere's (1984) objection was not new, even then. It had been earlier made, for instance by Lochak. And Bell had previously adequately answered these earlier objections. Most people here agree that to prove the CHSH inequality one assumes that the probability measure rho of the hidden variables does not depend on the settings. De Baere thinks there is no mystery in QM because QM already tells us that one cannot measure spin of the same particle in several directions at the same time. De Baere already believes that QM is the last word and has no use for hidden variables theory, anyway. He takes no notice of the *physical* reasoning which Bell used to motivate the introduction of those functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda). And, as far as I am concerned, once one has those functions one has established CFD. I follow the terminology of Tsirelson here. A mathematician, like me.

Would you please give references to Lochak and Bell's response to see If we're talking about the same thing?
Justo
 

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:47 am

gill1109 wrote:Most people here agree that to prove the CHSH inequality one assumes that the probability measure rho of the hidden variables does not depend on the settings.

That's the fair sampling assumption. But I've already explained that this assumption is not enough to avoid the issue. In other words, this assumption is not sufficient to derive the Bell's inequality for a Bell test experiment. You must make the additional assumption that the data can be rearranged and reduced from four independent 2xN spreadsheets to a single 4xN spreadsheet.

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.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo1 » Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:53 am

minkwe wrote:That's the fair sampling assumption. But I've already explained that this assumption is not enough to avoid the issue. In other words, this assumption is not sufficient to derive the Bell's inequality for a Bell test experiment. You must make the additional assumption that the data can be rearranged and reduced from four independent 2xN spreadsheets to a single 4xN spreadsheet.


minkwe, the fair sampling assumption is a real experimental problem. It is a bug that complicates the lives of experimentalists, not of theorists. It arises because real-life detectors may have efficiencies that depend on the settings. It is important not to mix real experimental problems with theoretical problems. The discussion of only the idealized case that we are discussing is complicated enough to understand each other. Measurement (statistical) independence is a purely theoretical assumption, without that assumption, you cannot derive the Bell inequality because the problem you claim exists would really exist regarding the appearance of the same values in four different series of experiments. It is this additional assumption that De Baere called the "Reproducibility Hypothesis". I explicitly show that this assumption is not necessary and that repeated values are unavoidable if non-conspiratorial hidden variables exist.

minkwe wrote: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.

Interesting, perhaps we must see Gill's spreadsheet as an infinite number of lines from which we extrac N rows, but I do not know. I really believe that Gill ,being and expert in statistics, will not comment a silly error at this point. Let us wait and see what he says.
Justo1
 

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Heinera » Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:42 pm

minkwe wrote: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.

(BTW, I understand minkwe has blocked me, so he probably won't see this answer. I really can't blame him. I would do exactly the same if I had lost every argument with another person over a five year period. It must be excruciating.)
Last edited by Heinera on Fri Aug 20, 2021 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Aug 20, 2021 3:21 pm

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote: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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:32 pm

Justo1 wrote:minkwe, the fair sampling assumption is a real experimental problem. It is a bug that complicates the lives of experimentalists, not of theorists. It arises because real-life detectors may have efficiencies that depend on the settings. It is important not to mix real experimental problems with theoretical problems.

Exactly! That's why I already granted that the samples were fair. But the point is that all the discussion about superderminism, conspiracy, non locality, freedom, etc etc, only come in through the fair sampling assumption. There is no way for any of those machinations to affect anything except by causing



Interesting, perhaps we must see Gill's spreadsheet as an infinite number of lines from which we extract N rows, but I do not know. I really believe that Gill ,being and expert in statistics, will not comment a silly error at this point. Let us wait and see what he says.

Going to infinite sets does nothing to help. The point is that the distribution from which you are sampling changes if you sample without replacement. Therefore the samples are not independent. The samples in a proper Bell test experiment are independent.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 20, 2021 9:19 pm

Justo1 wrote:De Baere called the "Reproducibility Hypothesis".

Thanks for mentioning De Baere. I had not heard of his paper before. It's a fascinating read, especially his treatment of spin-0 to spin-1 to spin 1/2 decay experiment.

However, you have not addressed the "Reproducibility assumption" in section 4. You say:

After the experiment has been run for a sufficiently long time, the values of λ are supposed to be randomly and uniformly repeated for the different settings used in the experiment. This constitutes a statistical regularity assumption that Willy De Baere [33] termed the reproducibility hypothesis.

As I explained in detail above, the issue is not simply one of fair sampling. Even if the probability distributions are the same, there is still an implicit assumption that the data can be reordered. It can't. You don't address that.

Randomly and uniformly does not resolve it. It compounds it. It's equivalent to the assumption that 8-1 degrees of freedom is equivalent to 4-1 degrees of freedom in the Bell test experiments. That assumption is false, as already explained.

The upper bounds for S are tightly coupled to the independence (or degrees of freedom) of selecting columns of data for the calculation of expectation values. 8-1 degrees of freedom (completely independent columns) gives an upper bound of 4. 4-1 degrees of freedom (cyclic dependence of columns) gives an upper bound of 2.

It is impossible to reduce four independent 2xN spreadsheets into a single 4xN spreadsheet, as explained.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby gill1109 » Fri Aug 20, 2021 9:45 pm

Justo wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Justo wrote:I mostly agree with what you say. Owed to its very nature a counterfactual statement is not (at least directly and surely in Bell's case) falsifiable. However, even if assume that CFD is consistent with experiments (as Gill does), I have argued that it is irrelevant for the BI.

OK, but with my mathematical definition of CFD there can be no BI if A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) are not mathematically well defined. In fact there would not even be a paper by Bell in 1964, because that was what he assumed. I agree with you that the proof of the inequality does not need to further rely on any CFD than that. (And I'm pretty sure Richard agrees with us here.)


CFD does mean that those functions are well defined. What CFD means, when used to derive the BI, is that you can make counterfactual predicción using those functions and then perform experiments to falsify those predictions.
Basically is that, of course, there are personal interpretations that some people use, for instance, that there exist elements of physical reality and staff like that mostly irrelevant concerning Bell theorem.

In a mathematical sense, CFD and Hidden Variables are equivalent. Mathematical models *represent* reality. It is a common mistake to confuse reality for mathematical models which describe some aspects of it. The Eiffel Tower in reduced scale and built out of match sticks is not the Eiffel Tower.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo1 » Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:16 am

minkwe wrote:It is impossible to reduce four independent 2xN spreadsheets into a single 4xN spreadsheet, as explained.


I agree, if you don't assume that, the inequality cannot be derived. However you did not show that it is impossible. In science you just can't say that something is impossible by simply declaring it. Yes, you can say that it is a dubious assumption or that it lacks proof. De Baere correctly noticed that it is a necessary additional assumption. I have shown that it is not an independemnt hypothsis in section 4.2 of the paper "A note on Bell's theorem logial consistency"

In othrer words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Carl Sagan). In my opinion rigorous science is just common sense.
Ironically sometimes even mathematicians trained in rigorous thinking can't apply common sense. It happened to Godel, he did not want to die of poissonig and died of inanition.
Justo1
 

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo » Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:54 am

gill1109 wrote: Mathematical models *represent* reality. It is a common mistake to confuse reality for mathematical models which describe some aspects of it. The Eiffel Tower in reduced scale and built out of match sticks is not the Eiffel Tower.

Yes, but they have to represeny it correctly. You cannot just throw the matches on the table and claim that it correctly represent the Eiffel Tower
Likewise you cannot falsify a theoretical prediction by an experiment that bears no relation to it. Furthermore, I also explained that, even assuming CFD is correct, it is irrelevant for the physical implications for the same reasson that Boole's theorem is correct but irrelevant regarding Bell's analysis.
As I told minkwe before, this is just common sense, you don't need to understand Andrew Wiles's proof to be able to see it.
Justo
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:20 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby gill1109 » Sat Aug 21, 2021 5:55 am

Justo wrote:
gill1109 wrote: Mathematical models *represent* reality. It is a common mistake to confuse reality for mathematical models which describe some aspects of it. The Eiffel Tower in reduced scale and built out of match sticks is not the Eiffel Tower.

Yes, but they have to represeny it correctly. You cannot just throw the matches on the table and claim that it correctly represent the Eiffel Tower
Likewise you cannot falsify a theoretical prediction by an experiment that bears no relation to it. Furthermore, I also explained that, even assuming CFD is correct, it is irrelevant for the physical implications for the same reasson that Boole's theorem is correct but irrelevant regarding Bell's analysis.
As I told minkwe before, this is just common sense, you don't need to understand Andrew Wiles's proof to be able to see it.

Boole’s theorem is Bell’s theorem! Bell’s theorem is elementary probability theory. Simple, true, maths.

More precisely: the mathematical content of Bell’s theorem is the forwards implication of Boole’s, Vorob’ev’s and Fine’s theorem giving necessary and sufficient conditions for a LHV theory to reproduce a set of observed correlations.

Bell showed that LHV implies BI. Boole et al. showed that LHV implies BI and vice versa. The hard part of the proof is BI implies LHV.

In any case, the subtle part is to give physical motivation for LHV in the context of stringent Bell-type experiments.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby minkwe » Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:49 am

Justo1 wrote:Yes, you can say that it is a dubious assumption or that it lacks proof. De Baere correctly noticed that it is a necessary additional assumption. I have shown that it is not an independemnt hypothsis in section 4.2 of the paper "A note on Bell's theorem logial consistency"


Sorry, I read your paper again and you definitely do not address it there. Unless you haven't understood the problem. The use of equivalent sets of variables does not address the issue. The need to reorder the data only goes away if you have only one equivalent class for everything in which case you don't have a "variable" at all. Anything more than one equivalent class and you are stuck. Please read the argument again.

Your papers keep focusing on the fair sampling assumption, which is already granted. It's not just the reproducibility of values that is at issue. It's the possibility to reproduce the sequence during data analysis. The derivation assumes that four independent 2xN spreadsheets resulting form the same probability distribution of "hidden variables" can be reordered and reduced to a single 4xN spreadsheet. That's the assumption. Don't you see that trying to prove that the distributions of hidden variables is the same across the independent spreadsheets, misses the point?

Also, note the subtlety that we don't expect the sequence to repeat during the experiment. All that is needed, is the possibility of reordering the resulting data. Without that possibility, the derivation can't proceed.

The cyclic dependence between pairs prevents that possibility. This is Vorobs theorem.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:46 am

gill1109 wrote:Boole’s theorem is Bell’s theorem! Bell’s theorem is elementary probability theory. Simple, true, maths.

False, try again.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Justo » Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:57 am

minkwe wrote:
Justo1 wrote:Yes, you can say that it is a dubious assumption or that it lacks proof. De Baere correctly noticed that it is a necessary additional assumption. I have shown that it is not an independemnt hypothsis in section 4.2 of the paper "A note on Bell's theorem logial consistency"


Sorry, I read your paper again and you definitely do not address it there. Unless you haven't understood the problem. The use of equivalent sets of variables does not address the issue. The need to reorder the data only goes away if you have only one equivalent class for everything in which case you don't have a "variable" at all. Anything more than one equivalent class and you are stuck. Please read the argument again.

You papers keep focusing on the fair sampling assumption, which is already granted. It's not just the reproducibility of values that is at issue. It's the possibility to reproduce the sequence during data analysis. The derivation assumes that four independent 2xN spreadsheets resulting form the same probability distribution of "hidden variables" can be reordered and reduced to a single 4xN spreadsheet. That's the assumption. Don't you see that trying to prove that the distributions of hidden variables is the same across the independent spreadsheets, misses the point?

Also, note the subtlety that we don't expect the sequence to repeat during the experiment. All that is needed, is the possibility of reordering the resulting data. Without that possibility, the derivation can't proceed.

The cyclic dependence between pairs prevents that possibility. This is Vorobs theorem.


Dear @minkwe, it was a nice discussion. Thank you for trying to follow my arguments. I guess there is nothing left to be discussed :roll:
Justo
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2021 8:20 am

Re: Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theor

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 21, 2021 8:22 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Boole’s theorem is Bell’s theorem! Bell’s theorem is elementary probability theory. Simple, true, maths.

False, try again.

If I had a penny for each dishonest, deluded, or uninformed Bell-believer I have had to deal with over the past fourteen years, then I would have been a very rich man by now! :)
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library