gill1109 wrote:
Bell did not found a religion.
Neither did Marx or Christ. But the followers of Bell, Marx, and Christ did. The most damaging religion is founded by the followers of Bell. Bell would have been deeply disappointed.
.
gill1109 wrote:
Bell did not found a religion.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Bell did not found a religion.
Neither did Marx or Christ. But the followers of Bell, Marx, and Christ did. The most damaging religion is founded by the followers of Bell. Bell would have been deeply disappointed.
local wrote:It's the same well-known story. Formally the bound is 4 but the statistics converge to a bound of 2 with enough trials.
To begin, the exact meaning of the simultaneous presence of different arguments in a CHSH function must be clarified. Basically, there are two possible interpretations, the strongly objective interpretation and the weakly objective
interpretation [12, 13]:
- Strongly Objective Interpretation implies that all correlation functions are relevant to the same set of N particle
pairs, that is, all four pairs of directions are considered simultaneously relevant to each particle pair. As such
they cannot be relevant to actual experiments but rather with what result would have been obtained if measured
on the same set of N particle pairs along different directions.
- Weakly Objective Interpretation implies that each correlation function is actually to be measured on distinct
sets of N particle pairs. Each set of N particle pairs pertains to only one pair of arguments, that is, for each
pair only one joint spin measurement is executed.
minkwe wrote:The third therm appearing there can't be independent of the other two and therefore can't be weakly objective as he later claims, or as Justo claims now.
minkwe wrote:You can start with P(a,b) - P(a,c) within the weakly objective interpretation as Bell claims that he does, and then through arithmetic manipulation arrive at P(b,c) which is stitched from parts of P(a,b) and P(a,c) as Bell did. In that case, the final inequality containing P(a,b), P(a,c), and P(b,c) is not entirely weakly objective as Bell claims in his reply to critics. It can't be. What Bell's followers conveniently ignore is the fact that Bell did not take three weakly objective terms place them in a box, shake them vigorously, and out fell the inequality. He placed only two weakly objective terms in that box (if any). The third therm appearing there can't be independent of the other two and therefore can't be weakly objective as he later claims, or as Justo claims now.
gill1109 wrote: ... Now notice that the inequality you got is violated by QM predictions. ...
gill1109 wrote:Saying that his "followers" maintain "double standards" is an ad hominem argument, ie, not an argument at all. Maybe it would work in an Oxford students' debating club.
...he's not a young man anymore, so communication is slow.
There is a nice joke about New Zealand. As you approach the airport the airline hostess calls "we are now approaching Auckland. Please set your clocks back fifty years".
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... Now notice that the inequality you got is violated by QM predictions. ...
It's pure nonsense.
minkwe wrote: ... even Bell believers...
local wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... Now notice that the inequality you got is violated by QM predictions. ...
It's pure nonsense.
Yes, Fred, of course it is nonsense. The quantum mysterians want us to believe that a joint measurement can be achieved with separated measurements. They won't acknowledge that "the quantum prediction" may vary depending on the conditions of the experiment. If you have separated measurements, the joint prediction cannot be applied (Graft). If you resort to Luders projection then you violate Einstein's special relativity. The mysterians try to evade that by calling the projected information "passion". A tragic joke on science.
minkwe wrote:Actually, I disagree with the second part of that. The key question is "the statistics" of what? There are tons of simulations showing that the statistics do not converge to a bound of 2.
local wrote:minkwe wrote:Actually, I disagree with the second part of that. The key question is "the statistics" of what? There are tons of simulations showing that the statistics do not converge to a bound of 2.
Can you please cite the best one out of the tons you claim? I expect that it will simply demonstrate one of the well-known "loopholes", such as the detection or coincidence "loopholes". In the absence of these pathologies there will be convergence to 2.
gill1109 wrote:
Michel,
There are many ways to derive a mathematical formula.
Bell first of all writes down some physical hypotheses which tell him about existence of functions A, B and rho and lead him to the formula P(a, b) = integral….. Observe that B must be the negative of A because P(a, a) = -1 for all a. Now pick any a, b, c and write down formulas for P(a,b), P(a,c), and P(b,c). The same formula three times with different arguments filled in. Now do some simple algebra and calculus. Get his original three correlations inequality. That little derivation is a piece of mathematical formula manipulation. Its validity does not depend on any physical interpretation of any of the intermediate expressions.
Now notice that the inequality you got is violated by QM predictions. Notice that the QM predictions are confirmed in experiments. Conclusion: those physical hypotheses are invalid.
The three expressions P(a,b), P(a,c), and P(b,c) are not *mathematically independent* because they are built up out of some common ingredients: a probability distribution over a set containing all values of some unobserved physical variable lambda, which does not depend on the settings, and a measurement function.
Computer simulations which violate the inequality do so by violating the assumptions. They could in principle correspond to a physically reasonable explanation of the results of some experiments.
Justo is right. Moreover Bell is very clear what he is doing. The objections people raise today were also raised in the early years, and Bell answered his critics, in my opinion quite adequately,
local wrote:That's non-responsive. Not playing that game.
Justo wrote:minkwe wrote:The third therm appearing there can't be independent of the other two and therefore can't be weakly objective as he later claims, or as Justo claims now.
I show explicitly, for the CHSHS case, why Bell's derivation can be understood as weakly objective in this paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00488-z
Perhaps somebody would want to tell me where I went wrong. I can very well be mistaken. The story that is correct because it was peer reviewed is not valid for me. I'll be happy to recognize any mistake if the argument convinces me.
Marian Kupczynski told me that he was going to issue a comment on my mistakes. I told him that would welcome his criticisms explaining by mistakes. I am still waiting.
minkwe wrote:I gave you three it's very easy to pick one of them unless you just want to argue.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests