Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

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

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:58 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:There is no such thing as a CHSH urn experiment.


The delusions of the Bell deniers are now reaching comical proportions. It's like flat earthers claiming "satelites do not exist."

Just for the record, I fully agree with minkwe that "There is no such thing as a CHSH urn experiment."
.

It would be one thing to claim that the long run upper bound for the CHSH urn experiment is not 2, but 4. That would just be silly, because the experiment is so easy to perform (or simulate), even if one doesn't understand the proof.

But to claim that the experiment does not exist is beyond ridiculous.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:04 am

@Heine Doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14359#p14346
. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:26 am

gill1109 wrote:Michel, what do you mean by “independent”?
Are you using the word in its sense in elementary calculus, or in its sense in elementary statistics and probability?

Now you are pretending you don't know what I mean. I'm not interested in anything to do with settings or particles. Your proof has no settings or particles. It's just a mathematical tautology involving ONLY outcomes.

Each X, Y in your proof can be considered as the outcome of a coin toss. I already told you this previously and you decided to dodge. In that case, how many independent coin tosses are involved in Z? And how many independent coin tosses are involved in the Bell test experiment. This is exactly the same question and you understand it perfectly.

Simple answer: There are 4 independent coin tosses () in your proof
Simple answer: There are 8 independent coin tosses in a Bell test Experiment no need to play word games.

There is no such thing as a CHSH urn experiment.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:38 am

Richard, don't argue with him anymore. He has been harping his misunderstanding for nearly ten years and nothing has helped. An now he is even denying the existence of the CHSH urn experiment.

George Carlin: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:44 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Michel, what do you mean by “independent”?
Are you using the word in its sense in elementary calculus, or in its sense in elementary statistics and probability?

Now you are pretending you don't know what I mean. I'm not interested in anything to do with settings or particles. Your proof has no settings or particles. It's just a mathematical tautology involving ONLY outcomes.

Each X, Y in your proof can be considered as the outcome of a coin toss. I already told you this previously and you decided to dodge. In that case, how many independent coin tosses are involved in Z? And how many independent coin tosses are involved in the Bell test experiment. This is exactly the same question and you understand it perfectly.

Simple answer: There are 4 independent coin tosses () in your proof
Simple answer: There are 8 independent coin tosses in a Bell test Experiment no need to play word games.

There is no such thing as a CHSH urn experiment.

Michel, your simple answers, and your final conclusion, are all wrong. It seems you *won’t* read what I wrote.

No point in arguing about it, as Heinera says. Michel’s mind is closed. That’s sad.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:45 pm

It's not sad, it is an irrelevant piece of junk.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:24 am

FrediFizzx wrote:It's not sad, it is an irrelevant piece of junk.

Don’t insult Michel!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:59 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It's not sad, it is an irrelevant piece of junk.

Don’t insult Michel!

Yeah, right. I was talking about this whole thread by Heine is an irrelevant piece of junk since Bell's junk physics theory is shot down and Gill's junk theory is now shot down.
. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:49 am

Let's me just summarize the discussion so far:

Joy disagrees with everything in the first post in this thread. He has not said anything about whether he believes the statistical long term upper bound of 2 will hold.

minkwe complains there is only one urn. Doesn't matter, since the upper bound will hold no matter how many urns you have, as long as you pick the urn independently of Alice and Bob's coin tosses.

FrediFizzx claims to have found a logical error in my first post, but refuses to tell us what it is.

Anything more that could be added?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:01 am

Heinera wrote:Let's me just summarize the discussion so far:

Joy disagrees with everything in the first post in this thread. He has not said anything about whether he believes the statistical long term upper bound of 2 will hold.

minkwe complains there is only one urn. Doesn't matter, since the upper bound will hold no matter how many urns you have, as long as you pick the urn independently of Alice and Bob's coin tosses.

FrediFizzx claims to have found a logical error in my first post, but refuses to tell us what it is.

Anything more that could be added?


Oh sure..., That you Bell fanatics are finished and don't even know it. :lol:

Perhaps I should explain how the analytical definitions from the paper match up with the code? Sure, might as well. But I believe it is already explained in the paper. Here is the current version of the quaternion version of the code.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -forum3.nb
EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum3.pdf

And a link to the paper.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

So, in the paper we have the main equations (13) and (20) which may be a little confusing at first until you go thru the other definitions. Think of just one event. Then A and B will just be equal to 1 of the 3 possibilities. The other 2 possibilities at that time will be "no result". This in the code here,

outA=Sort[Catenate[{listA4,outA2,listA6}],#1[[3]]<#2[[3]]&]; (*Combine lists and sort*) (completely local)
outB=Sort[Catenate[{listB4,outB2,listB6}],#1[[3]]<#2[[3]]&]; (*Combine lists and sort*)

Next we have the definitions that correspond to the code. For A1, A2, B1 and B2. The code is this,

outA1=Select[outAa,MemberQ[#,g1]&]; (*Split outAa into outA1 and outA2*)(completely local)
outA2=Select[outAa,MemberQ[#,f1]&];
outB1=Select[outBb,MemberQ[#,g2]&]; (*Split outBb into outB1 and outB2*)(completely local)
outB2=Select[outBb,MemberQ[#,f2]&];

What they do is separate the events for pre-result outAa and outBb into A1 and B1 events that are greater than the HV process and for A2 and B2, events that are less than the HV process. Exactly like it says in the paper for eqs. (14), (15), (21) and (22). Next in the paper we have A3 and B3 eqs. (16) and (23). The code for that is,

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},listad3]!={#[[3]]}&];(completely local)
listB3=Select[outB1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},listbd3]!={#[[3]]}&];

And easy to see that it is for events from outA1 and outB1 that don't match via trial numbers via outA4 and outB4. Then of course we have A4 and B4 from eqs. (17) and (24) for which the code is,

listA4=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]=={#[[3]]}&]; (completely local)
listB4=Select[outB1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list13]=={#[[3]]}&];

Also easy to see that it is for events from outA1 and outB1 where the trial numbers do match. Perhaps we should reverse n3 and n4 to make the flow better in the paper. Then we have A5 and B5 in the paper eqs. (18) and (25) for which the code is,

(completely local)


I should mention here that A5 and B5 are recorded as the 5th element for every event in the tables for the A and B sides. And these are for use in A6 and B6 eqs. (19) and (26). Which in the code are,

Do[If[listA3[[i]][[2]]==listA3[[i]][[5]],qaaq[[i]]=1,qaaq[[i]]=Re[listA36[[i]]**listA37[[i]]]];
listA6[[i]]={listA3[[i]][[1]],qaaq[[i]]*listA3[[i]][[2]],listA3[[i]][[3]],listA3[[i]][[4]],listA3[[i]][[5]],listA3[[i]][[6]],listA3[[i]][[7]]}, {i, M}](completely local)
Do[If[listB3[[i]][[2]]==listB3[[i]][[5]],qbbq[[i]]=1,qbbq[[i]]=Re[listB36[[i]]**listB37[[i]]]];
listB6[[i]]={listB3[[i]][[1]],qbbq[[i]]*listB3[[i]][[2]],listB3[[i]][[3]],listB3[[i]][[4]],listB3[[i]][[5]],listB3[[i]][[6]],listB3[[i]][[7]]}, {i, M2}](completely local)

Yep, those two are doozies but you can see the spinorial sign changes here qaaq[[i]]*listA3[[i]][[2]] and here qbbq[[i]]*listB3[[i]][[2]]. So, "emulates" comes out of the paper description. Ok, I think that is it. Questions?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:47 am

Heinera wrote:Let's me just summarize the discussion so far:

Joy disagrees with everything in the first post in this thread. He has not said anything about whether he believes the statistical long term upper bound of 2 will hold.

minkwe complains there is only one urn. Doesn't matter, since the upper bound will hold no matter how many urns you have, as long as you pick the urn independently of Alice and Bob's coin tosses.

FrediFizzx claims to have found a logical error in my first post, but refuses to tell us what it is.

Anything more that could be added?


Joy has said that he's a physicist and couldn't care less about mathematics. His formulas are pictures, representing his physics dreams. FrediFizzx just keeps growing his spaghetti code which draws a negative cosine in ever more complicated ways. Michel's mind is made up; he's not going to study anybody's mathematics or look at anybody else's computer code, since he *knows* in advance that it will be bad physics. What these guys have in common is that they know from looking at Bell (1964) that Bell was wrong and they certainly aren't going to waste any of their time looking at works of Bell, or works of followers of Bell, which came later.

It's interesting that many Bell-deniers have a strong background in chemistry or (molecular)-biology or engineering, rather than in hardcore physics. I think this is correlated with a weaker mathematical background.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:08 am

gill1109 wrote:
Heinera wrote:Let's me just summarize the discussion so far:

Joy disagrees with everything in the first post in this thread. He has not said anything about whether he believes the statistical long term upper bound of 2 will hold.

minkwe complains there is only one urn. Doesn't matter, since the upper bound will hold no matter how many urns you have, as long as you pick the urn independently of Alice and Bob's coin tosses.

FrediFizzx claims to have found a logical error in my first post, but refuses to tell us what it is.

I don't think I ever claim that. I said this junk is irrelevant! Since Bell and Gill are shot down to pieces! :mrgreen:

Heinera wrote:Anything more that could be added?


gill1109 wrote:Joy has said that he's a physicist and couldn't care less about mathematics. His formulas are pictures, representing his physics dreams. FrediFizzx just keeps growing his spaghetti code which draws a negative cosine in ever more complicated ways. Michel's mind is made up; he's not going to study anybody's mathematics or look at anybody else's computer code, since he *knows* in advance that it will be bad physics. What these guys have in common is that they know from looking at Bell (1964) that Bell was wrong and they certainly aren't going to waste any of their time looking at works of Bell, or works of followers of Bell, which came later.

It's interesting that many Bell-deniers have a strong background in chemistry or (molecular)-biology or engineering, rather than in hardcore physics. I think this is correlated with a weaker mathematical background.

And then we have more rambling almost nonsense from the master nonsense maker.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:16 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Heinera wrote:Let's me just summarize the discussion so far:
Joy disagrees with everything in the first post in this thread. He has not said anything about whether he believes the statistical long term upper bound of 2 will hold.
minkwe complains there is only one urn. Doesn't matter, since the upper bound will hold no matter how many urns you have, as long as you pick the urn independently of Alice and Bob's coin tosses.
FrediFizzx claims to have found a logical error in my first post, but refuses to tell us what it is.

I don't think I ever claim that. I said this junk is irrelevant! Since Bell and Gill are shot down to pieces!
Heinera wrote:Anything more that could be added?

gill1109 wrote:Joy has said that he's a physicist and couldn't care less about mathematics. His formulas are pictures, representing his physics dreams. FrediFizzx just keeps growing his spaghetti code which draws a negative cosine in ever more complicated ways. Michel's mind is made up; he's not going to study anybody's mathematics or look at anybody else's computer code, since he *knows* in advance that it will be bad physics. What these guys have in common is that they know from looking at Bell (1964) that Bell was wrong and they certainly aren't going to waste any of their time looking at works of Bell, or works of followers of Bell, which came later.
It's interesting that many Bell-deniers have a strong background in chemistry or (molecular)-biology or engineering, rather than in hardcore physics. I think this is correlated with a weaker mathematical background.

And then we have more rambling almost nonsense from the master nonsense maker.

You are right to call my ramblings "almost nonsense". They contain pearls of wisdom, one cannot expect everyone to appreciate them.

You said "I said this junk is irrelevant! Since Bell and Gill are shot down to pieces!" As you know, I believe that that's where you are completely wrong.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:19 am

Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx claims to have found a logical error in my first post, but refuses to tell us what it is.
FrediFizzx wrote:I don't think I ever claim that. I said this junk is irrelevant! Since Bell and Gill are shot down to pieces! :mrgreen:
.

Well...
FrediFizzx wrote:It is all irrelevant since Joy shot it down in 2007. There is a flaw in your argument. It is up to you to find it. Time to get more up to date.
.

So, what's the flaw?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:26 am

@Heine It is up to you to find it.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:51 am

FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine It is up to you to find it.
.

Indeed, because you can't.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:04 am

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine It is up to you to find it.
.

Indeed, because you can't.

Actually, not at all interested in this irrelevant junk. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:48 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine It is up to you to find it.
.

Indeed, because you can't.

Actually, not at all interested in this irrelevant junk.

But you keep reacting to it! 8-)

Let’s get back on topic, folks. There are strictly mathematical results called, for better or for worse, Bell’s theorem. Some people say it should be called Boole’s theorem. Indeed, you can find it in his book from the 1850’s. It is legitimate to look for more pedagogical proofs than, say, Boole’s or Bell’s.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:24 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine It is up to you to find it.
.

Indeed, because you can't.

Actually, not at all interested in this irrelevant junk.

But you keep reacting to it! 8-)

Let’s get back on topic, folks. There are strictly mathematical results called, for better or for worse, Bell’s theorem. Some people say it should be called Boole’s theorem. Indeed, you can find it in his book from the 1850’s. It is legitimate to look for more pedagogical proofs than, say, Boole’s or Bell’s.

What more does one need to know other than it is mathematically impossible for anything to exceed the inequalities! You Bell fans always choke on that simple fact. It's irrelevant junk.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Pedagogical proofs of Bell's theorem

Postby Heinera » Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:32 am

FrediFizzx wrote:What more does one need to know other than it is mathematically impossible for anything to exceed the inequalities! You Bell fans always choke on that simple fact.
.

So, what inequality do you think applies to the CHSH urn experiment?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library