Heinera wrote:@FrediFizzx, is there a way to delete my account on this forum? I see no such option in the User Control Panel.
Heinera wrote:@FrediFizzx, is there a way to delete my account on this forum? I see no such option in the User Control Panel.
Justo wrote: The only way I can make sense of what you are saying is that since A and B are measured in
different laboratories when you take the product AB, A and B were generated in different events.
If you assume that then the Bell inequality cannot be derived.
When we derive the Bell inequality we must assume A and B in the product AB were generated in the same event therefore both have the same value of the hidden variable.
You must assume that in a theoretical derivation.
Whether that is possible in a real experiment is another problem.
We must make sure that the theoretical derivation makes sense.
What you call "fair sampling" is in fact "statistical independence" already touched upon in 2)
local wrote:Justo wrote: The only way I can make sense of what you are saying is that since A and B are measured in
different laboratories when you take the product AB, A and B were generated in different events.
Yes, of course they were generated in two different measurement events, both acting on the single source pair emission event.If you assume that then the Bell inequality cannot be derived.
It can be derived for separated measurements but its violation in that case implies violation of special relativity (see below).When we derive the Bell inequality we must assume A and B in the product AB were generated in the same event therefore both have the same value of the hidden variable.
You are confusing the source event (emission) with the measurement events.You must assume that in a theoretical derivation.
Not at all. In this paper, Graft demonstrates how to derive the quantum prediction in the cases of a) joint measurement (one event), and b) separated (marginal) measurements (two events).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808Whether that is possible in a real experiment is another problem.
For separated measurements in EPRB, the joint prediction cannot apply unless Luders projection is invoked. But that violates special relativity for space-like separation. Gill covers his ears and babbles when he hears this. Passion at a distance is immune to relativity, don't you know?We must make sure that the theoretical derivation makes sense.
For sure! Also that it is applied only to appropriate physical scenarios. The joint prediction cannot apply to EPRB absent projection that violates relativity.What you call "fair sampling" is in fact "statistical independence" already touched upon in 2)
You are off-base here. Fair sampling is something that can apply to a single side's detector (e.g., at some angles the efficiency is lower), while statistical independence must refer to both sides. Fair sampling cannot be reduced to statistical independence.
local wrote:Justo wrote: The only way I can make sense of what you are saying is that since A and B are measured in
different laboratories when you take the product AB, A and B were generated in different events.
Yes, of course they were generated in two different measurement events, both acting on the single source pair emission event.
local wrote:Justo wrote: If you assume that then the Bell inequality cannot be derived.
It can be derived for separated measurements but its violation in that case implies violation of special relativity (see below).
local wrote:Justo wrote: When we derive the Bell inequality we must assume A and B in the product AB were generated in the same event therefore both have the same value of the hidden variable.
You are confusing the source event (emission) with the measurement events.
local wrote:Justo wrote:You must assume that in a theoretical derivation.
Not at all. In this paper, Graft demonstrates how to derive the quantum prediction in the cases of a) joint measurement (one event), and b) separated (marginal) measurements (two events).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808
local wrote:Justo wrote: Whether that is possible in a real experiment is another problem.
For separated measurements in EPRB, the joint prediction cannot apply unless Luders projection is invoked. But that violates special relativity for space-like separation. Gill covers his ears and babbles when he hears this. Passion at a distance is immune to relativity, don't you know?
local wrote:We must make sure that the theoretical derivation makes sense.
For sure! Also that it is applied only to appropriate physical scenarios. The joint prediction cannot apply to EPRB absent projection that violates relativity.
local wrote:Justo wrote:What you call "fair sampling" is in fact "statistical independence" already touched upon in 2)
You are off-base here. Fair sampling is something that can apply to a single side's detector (e.g., at some angles the efficiency is lower), while statistical independence must refer to both sides. Fair sampling cannot be reduced to statistical independence.
gill1109 wrote: The problem with Graft’s ideas is that his way of thinking leads to predictions which are not observed in experiments.
Justo wrote: PS. I suggest you open a new thread if you want to discuss quantum predictions because that is a different topic.
Joy Christian wrote: So what is Gill's claim? It is that an event-by-event numerical simulation of the singlet correlations -cos(a, b) is impossible without exploiting loopholes or succumbing to nonlocality. He has gone to extreme lengths to undermine anything that threatens this claim. You can say this is Gill's theory or challenge.
local wrote:Justo wrote: PS. I suggest you open a new thread if you want to discuss quantum predictions because that is a different topic.
Shove that where the sun doesn't shine. You don't tell me what to do, and you don't get private threads here. Use PM for private conversations. If you don't like what I post then either ignore it or go whine to the forum admin. Nothing is stopping minkwe from responding to you if he chooses to do so.
First you say it is important that the theoretical derivation makes sense and then you upbraid me for discussing that. You cannot ask classical theory to do something that even QM cannot. Fred makes the same point in a different way. Discussing the minute details of something that is moot is indeed dancing on a pinhead. Don't become another Gill!
Justo wrote: I am not telling you what to do. I am only saying that the discussion of quantum predictions is another topic and that Graft's paper may well deserve its own thread. I don't see why you have to get offended by that.
What I said at the beginning is that Adenier's claim is widespread. Many Bell believers (for instance, Gill) understand the Bell linequality as Adenier did but conclude that the inequality is correct. I agree with Adenier and Joy Christian that the Bell inequality is meaningless understood in that way.
local wrote:That's fine. Your posts are interesting and stimulating. They've inspired me to review your publications, which are also interesting and stimulating.
Justo wrote:1) You talk about the domain of the functions A and B are different from the domain of their products.
The only way I can make sense of what you are saying is that since A and B are measured in
different laboratories when you take the product AB, A and B were generated in different events.
If you assume that then the Bell inequality cannot be derived.
When we derive the Bell inequality we
must assume A and B in the product AB were generated in the same event therefore both have the same value of the hidden variable. You must assume that in a theoretical derivation. Whether that is possible in a real experiment is another problem.
You also seem to contend that we only measure two discrete values -1 and +1. That is another theoretical assumption that is confirmed by experiment.
3) You start with 8 spreadsheets. This unnecessarily complicates the analysis because according to point 1) if we assume that we already know coincident events
your 8 spreadsheets can be reduced to only 4 spreadsheets. As explained in 1) if we do not assume that we can "pair" the different measurements de inequality cannot be derived.
What you call "fair sampling" is in fact "statistical independence" already touched upon in 2)
minkwe wrote:Justo wrote:You also seem to contend that we only measure two discrete values -1 and +1. That is another theoretical assumption that is confirmed by experiment.
For the contrived example I provided above, you would also only measure two discrete values -1 and +1. The point is that there exists many scenarios where some lambdas will be unmeasurable at certain angles. The physical situation strongly suggests this to be the case in EPRB and it would make sense that the unmeasurable regions correspond to the transition between -1 and +1.
Justo wrote:Measurement events in each laboratory must correspond to the same source event. If you can't do that, then you cannot test the Bell inequality.
gill1109 wrote:Justo wrote:Measurement events in each laboratory must correspond to the same source event. If you can't do that, then you cannot test the Bell inequality.
You can do that. Experimenters do do that.
Justo wrote:3) You start with 8 spreadsheets. This unnecessarily complicates the analysis because according to point 1) if we assume that we already know coincident events
your 8 spreadsheets can be reduced to only 4 spreadsheets. As explained in 1) if we do not assume that we can "pair" the different measurements de inequality cannot be derived.
Thus to be able to derive the Bell inequality we must have only 4 spreadsheets, each for a possible product of AB as shown in the table of my other paper debunking "counterfactual definiteness"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00343
minkwe wrote:Justo wrote:Maybe I wasn't clear, your 4 spreadsheets in that paper are essentially the same as my 8 spreadsheets. It doesn't change anything. You are still making the same assumptions implicitly. To see this, start from my 8 spreadsheets
Then combine the outcomes from the same particle pairs (same lambdas) into 4 3xN spreadsheet
It is even easier to illustrate my proof using this version now you have to rearrange a 3xN spreadsheet instead of a 2xN one. There is no way to make the match while simultaneously making match .
Justo wrote:That is correct I am implicitly assuming that it is possible to accommodate data such that match , etc., in other words I assume that the four different experiments(spreadsheets) share the same domain of hidden variables.
That I recognize as a possible loophole in the derivation and include the subsection "4.2 A Possible Loophole" to justify it.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests