FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine The original Bell inequality has the same problem. But then, of course, you NEVER will understand why Bell-CHSH is junk physics.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine The original Bell inequality has the same problem. But then, of course, you NEVER will understand why Bell-CHSH is junk physics.
The best policy is to not see that guy's posts, as Michel has so wisely adapted.
.
Justo wrote:FrediFizzx wrote: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.
minkwe wrote:Justo wrote:FrediFizzx wrote: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.
Justo, in case it is still not clear from Fred and Joy's explanation, here is a simple way to look at it:
Just because two people use the same symbol in two different expressions does not mean the two symbols represent the same thing.
In a Bell test experiment, the terms in the expression (1)
1:
DO NOT mean the same thing as the terms in the equation
2:
Rather, the terms in expression 1, mean the same thing as the terms in equation (3)
3:
When we say nothing can violate the Bell inequality, we mean that if you are consistent in your use of symbols and don't substitute values obtained under one meaning, into expressions that expect values obtained under a different meaning then you can't exceed the inequality.
If I say
1 + 1 = 2.
Everyone knows that you can't claim to violate that equation, by claiming that
1 cup of coffee + 1 cube of sugar = 1 drink.
When we do mathematics, we assume that you are using symbols consistently. That is why I take issue with the notation in your paper because it fails to distinguish notationally quite different things and then ends up conflating them and missing very important distinctions. This is not simply an issue of "notational preference"! I take a similar issue with the notation used in Gill's Statistical Science paper (See equations 4 & 6). This issue is very common among Bell believers. It's like a whole bunch of people who should know better suddenly start playing fast and loose with notation as if to pull the wool over the eyes of those not paying attention. For now, I'll assume it is an oversight and not intentional subterfuge. I'm sure Richard is about to argue that the only difference between the two equations is that one represents LR and the other represents QM. But before he does that, realize that what we are talking about does not depend on anything related to the mechanism/physical process generating the data. It has to do simply with how the terms for the expression are calculated from the data, not how the data is generated. Look at my scenarios 2 and 4 again if this last point is not clear, there was a lot going on in my argument that you may have realized. It is obvious from the bounds for my scenarios 2 and 4 that it is the method of calculating the terms from the data that determines the upper bound, not the physical process producing the outcomes. Now look at Richards equations 4 and 6. He is obviously representing different things with the same symbols and ending up getting confused. Or was it intentional? I don't know.
Therefore every intellectually honest scientist should question when notation is chosen that blurs and obscures the very differences which are responsible for differences in the upper bounds!
Bell wrote:It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made.
Bell wrote:Yet the von Neuman proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of von Neuman is not merely false but foolish.
Justo wrote:@minkwe I think I know what you mean because we have a long discussion before. However, I think that it is very hard to understand you Guys. For instance, in minkwe's eq 2 and 3 he used the same symbols to represent different things. Even though he explicitly says they are different, another person reading this for the first time will end up scratching his head.
Furthermore, both sides claim the result should be evident. minkwe and I discussed it. I claim that the experimental data (if Bell hypotheses were correct) can be reduced in such a way that the value is 2 while minkwe says that is impossible and the value should be 4. We could not reach an agreement.
If we take the upper bound to be 4 then it is evident that nothing can violate the inequality.
Justo wrote:...
But then a bunch of people rise and say, obviously what Bell assumed is incorrect because the cards were not extracted in the order he naively assumed.
That is exactly the same situation with the "only four values" issue. What Bell did in his derivation is to reorder the experimental data. Of course, one could question if that is indeed possible
...
minkwe wrote:Earlier in the thread, you said
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=482&start=80#p13877Justo wrote:...
But then a bunch of people rise and say, obviously what Bell assumed is incorrect because the cards were not extracted in the order he naively assumed.
That is exactly the same situation with the "only four values" issue. What Bell did in his derivation is to reorder the experimental data. Of course, one could question if that is indeed possible
...
Are you willing to explain what you mean by the underlined text above. At that point, it appeared you did not know if it was possible to reorder the experimental data. But now it seems you are sure that it is possible. Just curious.
Justo wrote:minkwe wrote:Earlier in the thread, you said
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=482&start=80#p13877Justo wrote:...
But then a bunch of people rise and say, obviously what Bell assumed is incorrect because the cards were not extracted in the order he naively assumed.
That is exactly the same situation with the "only four values" issue. What Bell did in his derivation is to reorder the experimental data. Of course, one could question if that is indeed possible
...
Are you willing to explain what you mean by the underlined text above. At that point, it appeared you did not know if it was possible to reorder the experimental data. But now it seems you are sure that it is possible. Just curious.
All I have to say about it I said in section four of the paper "A Note on Bell's Theorem Logical Consistency". It basically means that if non-conspiratorial hidden variables exist, then it is possible obtain an expression like A1B1-A1B2+A2B1+A2B2 with actual experimental data.
I can't say more, if you have a concrete objection to some equation on that paper I guess I could answer but I don't want to discuss generalities. We already discussed that.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Justo wrote:FrediFizzx wrote: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.
Gordon Watson wrote:I'd welcome a demonstration and more details re your claims. I trust you realise that Bell died on the horns of an unresolved dilemma?
.
Heinera wrote:Well, I'm not posting specifically for minkwe to read. There are other dimwits on this forum too, you know.
Justo wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:I'd welcome a demonstration and more details re your claims. I trust you realise that Bell died on the horns of an unresolved dilemma?
.
Can you specify what the dilemma would be?
(i) ‘I cannot say that action at a distance [AAD] is required in physics. I can say that you cannot get away with no AAD. You cannot separate off what happens in one place and what happens in another. Somehow they have to be described and explained jointly. Well, that just the fact of the situation; the Einstein program fails [sic]. ... it might be that we have to learn to accept not so much AAD, but [the] inadequacy of no AAD.’ (ii) ‘And that is the dilemma. We are led by analysing this situation to admit that in somehow distant things are connected, or at least not disconnected.’ (iii) ‘... I step back from asserting that there is AAD, I say only that you cannot get away with locality. You cannot explain things by events in their neighbourhood. But I am careful not to assert that there is AAD,’ after Bell (1990:5-6,7,13); emphasis added.
Justo wrote:Heinera wrote:Well, I'm not posting specifically for minkwe to read. There are other dimwits on this forum too, you know.
Guys, thank you for letting me hanging around here, I am really having fun . But do not misinterpret me, I respect you all. I am not Richard Gill.
Joy Christian wrote:.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.
Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.
Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.
Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, ...
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.
Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.
Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, ...
Bell's theorem is not a mathematical theorem. It is a physical argument based on many implicit and explicit assumptions. The mathematical part of Bell's theorem, namely the inequality named after him, was proved one hundred and eleven years before Bell's 1964 paper by George Boole and it has nothing to do with any EPR-Bohm type physical experiments.
One of the assumptions Bell relied on to make his outrageous claims was his assumption of the additivity of expectation values. This assumption does not hold for any hidden variable theory, and therefore Bell's argument is not a valid argument against any hidden variable theory. For a summary of explanation of this, see Section II of my third IEEE Access paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997 (open access).
Note that in his recent talk at AGACSE 2021, Prof. Anthony Lasenby cited your comment paper in IEEE Access but failed to cite or mention the fact that I have thoroughly discredited your comment paper in my above reply, which is also published in IEEE Access. This kind of discriminatory citing is an example of the institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem.
.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.
Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.
Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, ...
Bell's theorem is not a mathematical theorem. It is a physical argument based on many implicit and explicit assumptions. The mathematical part of Bell's theorem, namely the inequality named after him, was proved one hundred and eleven years before Bell's 1964 paper by George Boole and it has nothing to do with any EPR-Bohm type physical experiments.
One of the assumptions Bell relied on to make his outrageous claims was his assumption of the additivity of expectation values. This assumption does not hold for any hidden variable theory, and therefore Bell's argument is not a valid argument against any hidden variable theory. For a summary of explanation of this, see Section II of my third IEEE Access paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997 (open access).
Note that in his recent talk at AGACSE 2021, Prof. Anthony Lasenby cited your comment paper in IEEE Access but failed to cite or mention the fact that I have thoroughly discredited your comment paper in my above reply, which is also published in IEEE Access. This kind of discriminatory citing is an example of the institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem.
.
Joy, you fail to mention (again and again) that I believe I have "thoroughly discredited" paper after paper by you. Lasenby obviously believes that you failed to thoroughly discredit my comment on your IEEE Access paper on Bertlmann's socks. OK, he didn't cite your response. You didn't refer, in your talk, to my invited papers (some still under review) discrediting your four main recent publications. That's called "discriminatory citing". It is an example of your unshakable conviction that you never ever make a mistake. There is a smaller group of scientists who remain unshakable convinced that Bell was wrong. I would compare them to Covid-deniers. But obviously, you wouldn't.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests