Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

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

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:00 am

Mikko wrote:OOPS, seems I misunderstood "each measurement". Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.

And how many such measurements from the same pair of particles is done in EPRB experiments?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:52 pm

Mikko wrote:
Ben6993 wrote:my view is that the electron is only in spacetime at the two interactions (creation of the pair and measurement)

Note however that the presence of the electron at the measurement (as well as its absence at other measurements) does depend on the matter content of other spacetime events.

Of course. Have you read "Bertlmann's socks"? That's the whole point. Please study it carefully. Chapter 16 of "Speakable and unsoeakable". Chapter 13 is also very relevant. Please carefully distinguish experiment and theory. Remember Bohr's insistence of distinguishing what we do in the lab (macroscopic world, classical and operational description) from what we think is going on.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Xray » Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:39 pm

minkwe wrote:
Mikko wrote:Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.

And how many such measurements from the same pair of particles is done in EPRB experiments?


Nobel Award on its way to minkwe for the best one-sentence demolition of an established theory in the history of science

News just to hand
Xray
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:48 pm

Xray wrote:
minkwe wrote:
Mikko wrote:Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.

And how many such measurements from the same pair of particles is done in EPRB experiments?


Nobel Award on its way to minkwe for the best one-sentence demolition of an established theory in the history of science

News just to hand

How many measurements are done in a Gedankenexperiment? How many measurements did Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen do in their 1935 paper? (I believe it is the most cited paper in physics of the last century. Certainly the most cited paper of Einstein).

The EPR paper is a collection of words printed in ink on that stuff made from trees which we call paper. The EPR experiment is not an experiment, it is an idea. Excited neurons in our brains.

A theory is a way to imagine what is going on behind the scenes in a real experiment. If you have a LHV theory (formulas on paper? formulas in your mind?), you can imagine things which have no direct experimental counterpart. If you think of two mathematical functions A and B, if you imagine a value of lambda, you can now imagine the values of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) for all a and b, simultaneously. This does not mean that you are imagining an experiment in which spin is measured in all directions simultaneously.

BTW just saw some nice stuff on wikipedia (so it must be true): " Later work by Eberhard showed that the key properties of local hidden variable theories which lead to Bell's inequalities are locality and counter-factual definiteness. Any theory in which these principles apply produces the inequalities. Arthur Fine subsequently showed that any theory satisfying the inequalities can be modeled by a local hidden variable theory." ie - according to wikipedia, according to Eberhard and Fine we have more or less equality between LHV, CFD, and "satisfying all inequalities". I should have cited those two gentlemen in my paper.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Xray » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:56 pm

could Mikko minkwe gill1109 answer this

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=62&start=60#p2778

Xray
Xray
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:20 pm

Xray wrote:could Mikko minkwe gill1109 answer this

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=62&start=60#p2778

Xray

Have given an answer at that location.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:54 am

Here's my answer from the other location because the answers are equally relevant in this thread,
Xray wrote:
gill1109 thank you

now you and I and everyone can set an example like this to make a lot more progress

Reference Watson's equation (12) - To ALL - specially laureate minkwe, Gordon Watson, gill1109

Equation (12) has a question mark in it but what if we did the LHS of (12) as a thought experiment - what would you say about (12) then ?
"I'd say that it would deliver the Bell inequalities."
Xray wrote:
and because LHS of Equation (12) is all over the place in text-books and papers - so is Bell 1964 based on LHS of (12) as a thought experiment?

Who knows what excuses they'll invent for Bell's error? In my confident opinion: "No! It is based on sloppy maths!"
Xray wrote:
If the answer is yes - why would they do that ?

I answered No - so not applicable to me.
Xray wrote:
because no actually real experiment could check it could they ?

Correct! So, in that you do not expect any sensible physicist to test a physically unrealistic thought-experiment in any way (it's unphysical, remember): then they must have thought the maths was correct; independent of ANY thought or critical analysis -- but (no doubt) influenced by their training in quantum mysteries.

Hence my belief that Bell's theorem is based on "sloppy maths" --- with this added support for my view:

Bell was supposedly studying EPRB; YET nowhere in EPRB is there any clue that you can --

1. Test a single pristine particle-pair TWICE. (?)

2. Test a single pristine particle-pair THRICE: ie, to deliver Bell's theorem and his erroneous 1964:(15). (?)

3. Test a single pristine particle-pair FOUR TIMES: ie, to deliver Bell-CHSH-Peres and their erroneous LHS of my (12)! (?)

4. Further: EPR had no such crazy expectations either; yet Bell is supposedly modelling them too.(?)

I therefore conclude: Bell and his supporters continue to believe such fantasies as 1., 2., 3., due to their acceptance of "repeatedly sloppy maths"; either their own or that of others!

PS: Look at the names in Paragraph #14. Checkout some of the corresponding (appearing to be copycat) maths throughout the Bellian literature.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:18 am

It is only Gordon Watson and possibly one or two others who think that deriving the CHSH inequality comes down to testing a single pristine particle pair four times. I would say that Watson's critique of Bell is a "straw-man attack". Invent some travesty of Bell's reasoning and show that it's silly.

Well it's not so difficult to do that. Bell is subtle. And one needs to have some understanding of probability and statistics, and the difference between theory and experiment, and the difference between mathematical models and reality. However some people think that raising this kind of subtleties is just creating as smoke-screen of words to hide a nasty smell. OK. Discussion closed. No communication is possible.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Xray » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:18 pm

gill1109 wrote:It is only Gordon Watson and possibly one or two others who think that deriving the CHSH inequality comes down to testing a single pristine particle pair four times. I would say that Watson's critique of Bell is a "straw-man attack". Invent some travesty of Bell's reasoning and show that it's silly.

Well it's not so difficult to do that. Bell is subtle. And one needs to have some understanding of probability and statistics, and the difference between theory and experiment, and the difference between mathematical models and reality. However some people think that raising this kind of subtleties is just creating as smoke-screen of words to hide a nasty smell. OK. Discussion closed. No communication is possible.


gill1109

I had hoped that your GOOD FAITH commitment would hold for more than one day or so.

Is Gordon Watson's equation (12) too much for you to refute and thus educate us all here and now?

That would be your case on LHS of Watson's (12)? Is that correct?

With Watson, minkwe, "reputable experimenters" (plus who else?) on the RHS of Watson's equation (12).

And while I am on the subject before you close all discussion here please point to any other specific Paragraphs and Equations from Watson's essay that you have demolished

One-liner clinchers like minkwe's award winning entry would be nice

Xray
Xray
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:51 pm

There is nothing to refute in Watson's equation (12). He states two arithmetic trivialities. What is there to be refuted?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Gordon Watson » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:30 am

Xray wrote:
gill1109 wrote:It is only Gordon Watson and possibly one or two others who think that deriving the CHSH inequality comes down to testing a single pristine particle pair four times. I would say that Watson's critique of Bell is a "straw-man attack". Invent some travesty of Bell's reasoning and show that it's silly.

Well it's not so difficult to do that. Bell is subtle. And one needs to have some understanding of probability and statistics, and the difference between theory and experiment, and the difference between mathematical models and reality. However some people think that raising this kind of subtleties is just creating as smoke-screen of words to hide a nasty smell. OK. Discussion closed. No communication is possible.


gill1109

I had hoped that your GOOD FAITH commitment would hold for more than one day or so.

Is Gordon Watson's equation (12) too much for you to refute and thus educate us all here and now?

That would be your case on LHS of Watson's (12)? Is that correct?

With Watson, minkwe, "reputable experimenters" (plus who else?) on the RHS of Watson's equation (12).

And while I am on the subject before you close all discussion here please point to any other specific Paragraphs and Equations from Watson's essay that you have demolished

One-liner clinchers like minkwe's award winning entry would be nice

Xray


gill1109 wrote:There is nothing to refute in Watson's equation (12). He states two arithmetic trivialities. What is there to be refuted?


Dear gill1109,

Well may you ask: "What is there to be refuted?" :o

For your "good-faith" commitment is certainly refuted: in tatters (under your typical repetitive DIY self-demolition policy). :roll:

So this may well be my final response to your pointless/senseless avoidance and gaming. :D

….

However, for Xray's benefit, let me answer on gill1109's behalf the question that gill1109 (again, typically) avoided. And let's amplify the consequences of gill1109's position re EPRB!

Xray asks:

"That would be the gill1109 case on LHS of Watson's (12)? Is that correct?" YES! So let's have your follow-through questions on the consequences of gill1109's position:

"So: independent of any other considerations (eg, independent of the illogic of testing particle-pairs MORE THAN ONCE IN REAL QUANTUM EXPERIMENTS), the arithmetic trivialities cannot be distinguished on mathematical grounds alone, correct?" YES!

"BUT we have one experiment, EPRB-based, and two RELATED arithmetic trivialities: gill1109 with a bound of ±2, Watson and minkwe with a bound of ±4, correct?" YES!

"So: many repetitions of EPRB-based tests that matched the outcomes predicted by QM theory, Watson's theory and minkwe's predictions would provide a rational basis for distinguishing fact from error here, correct?" YES!

"And such experiments (matching the QM, Watson and minkwe predictions) exceed gill1109's bound of ±2, correct?" YES!

"And such experiments (matching the QM, Watson and minkwe predictions) eliminate loop-hole escape-routes for desparates and others, correct?" YES; because Watson's theory (at the least) delivers commonsense local realistic results, independent of any loopholes!

"So gill1109 cannot match a mathematical triviality to EPRB-based tests, correct?" YES!

"And gill1109 has no loophole escape-routes because they have been closed by experiments that match QM theory, Watson's theory, +++, correct?" YES!

"And gill1109, to arrive at his erroneous bounds of ±2, requires each EPRB-based particle-pair to be PHYSICALLY tested 4 (FOUR) times, correct?" Well, in the interests of good-faith, let's leave gill1109 to answer that question about PHYSICAL EPRB-based tests! [Are you there gill1109?] :?:

"And, refuting his good-faith claims, gill1109 will not admit his error despite QM experiments, QM theory, Watson's theory and minkwe repudiating his arithmetic, correct?" THAT is my understanding, yes! [Are you there gill1109] :?:

"WHAT THE FLICK?" WTF indeed!

"So good-faith Posers pose good questions, correct?" Very much so!

So keep it up!

HTH; Gordon Watson
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:08 am

Gordon Watson wrote:"And gill1109, to arrive at his erroneous bounds of ±2, requires each EPRB-based particle-pair to be PHYSICALLY tested 4 (FOUR) times, correct?" Well, in the interests of good-faith, let's leave gill1109 to answer that question about PHYSICAL EPRB-based tests! [Are you there gill1109?] :?:

No, Gill does not require each EPRB-based particle-pair to be PHYSICALLY tested 4 (FOUR) times.

Yes he is still here.

He just gave a talk at the Växjö conference, the slides are here: [link to derogatory comment removed]. The 10th slide is about Gordon Watson but he kept it anonymous.

BTW the phrase "typical repetitive DIY self-demolition policy" seems to me to be contrary to the rules of good behaviour on this forum. If you don't understand me, just ignore me. Stick to the math and the physics. Leave the character-assassination out of it, please.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:11 am

So can we now move on from Gordon's equation (12)? I have no problem with that equation.
Last edited by gill1109 on Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:23 am

gill1109 wrote:...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014...

Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014...

Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.

We are all quantum c****pot, in one very meaningful sense, and one should wear that appelation as a badge of honour.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:34 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014...

Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.

We are all quantum c****pot, in one very meaningful sense, and one should wear that appelation as a badge of honour.

We are all individuals.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:41 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 said "...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014 ..."
Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.

We are all quantum c****pot, in one very meaningful sense, and one should wear that appelation as a badge of honour.

We are all individuals.

Exactly, Joy! That is something we can both agree to, I think.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby minkwe » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:54 am

gill1109 wrote:He just gave a talk at the Växjö conference, the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014. The 10th slide is about Gordon Watson but he kept it anonymous.



Slide #20 is also funny, as it shows the lack of understanding that a cosine curve which plots the DIFFERENCE between Alice and Bob's angles vs the correlation, means in fact that Alice and Bob's angles have been varied, otherwise you would get a single point.

Slide #5 is my favorite. The whole thing looks to me like a classified ad, so you could easily ask what he is selling. Who knows, hopefully it was more interesting than is apparent from the slides alone.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:58 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:He just gave a talk at the Växjö conference, the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014. The 10th slide is about Gordon Watson but he kept it anonymous.



Slide #20 is also funny, as it shows the lack of understanding that a cosine curve which plots the DIFFERENCE between Alice and Bob's angles vs the correlation, means in fact that Alice and Bob's angles have been varied, otherwise you would get a single point.

Slide #5 is my favorite. The whole thing looks to me like a classified ad, so you could easily ask what he is selling. Who knows, hopefully it was more interesting than is apparent from the slides alone.


I had better improve the wording of slide #20. Seems some readers are misunderstanding the point here.

A lot of people liked the talk a great deal! It led to a lot of good discussion with people who think that Bell got it completely wrong. There are a lot of such people at this conference.

I am already getting requests for t-shirts.

But this is all getting rather off-topic and Michel is getting rather personal. If anyone wants to start a new topic about my slides, go ahead. But they may get updated from time to time.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem

Postby Ben6993 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:23 am

Hi Richard

Thanks for posting your Vaxjo slides and notes so quickly.

Hope you are not relying on sales of the t shirts to pay for any particular expenses!
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 68 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library