87 posts
• Page **4** of **5** • 1, 2, 3, **4**, 5

Richard,

I'm poor, and wont pay you a single dime for anything even if I were Rich (pun intended) so forget about money. If that is all that interests you, you may as well ignore me completely. Secondly, so long as you keep discussing this in your own thread, I will keep responding. If it is off-topic for me, it is off-topic for you and Heinera too. We are not just talking about coincidence time loophole. Your LG theory does not apply just to coincidence time. Your paper says that:

| E(AC′|ΛAC′) + E(AD′|ΛAD′)| + |E(BC′|ΛBC′) − E(BD′|ΛBD′)|≤ 4 - 2δ

You clearly define delta in your paper, and it is not just about coincidence time. It is the relation of the common part to its constituents. It is what I call the degree of disjointedness. You don't have to like it but look at equation (10). For disjoint sets, delta is zero, for a single set delta is 1. It is your paper.

Heinera,

Both you and Richard claim QM/non-locality/non-realism/statistical error can violate the above theorem but LHV can not. The challenge quite simply is to produce the non-local/non-real/statistical dataset which demonstrates the violation. Richard claims to have written the simulation, we will see if it holds up. We will calculate delta from his dataset, and obtain the appropriate upper bound using his theorem. Hopefully for Richard, his claim will hold up because all his papers and claims are at stake.

I'm poor, and wont pay you a single dime for anything even if I were Rich (pun intended) so forget about money. If that is all that interests you, you may as well ignore me completely. Secondly, so long as you keep discussing this in your own thread, I will keep responding. If it is off-topic for me, it is off-topic for you and Heinera too. We are not just talking about coincidence time loophole. Your LG theory does not apply just to coincidence time. Your paper says that:

| E(AC′|ΛAC′) + E(AD′|ΛAD′)| + |E(BC′|ΛBC′) − E(BD′|ΛBD′)|≤ 4 - 2δ

You clearly define delta in your paper, and it is not just about coincidence time. It is the relation of the common part to its constituents. It is what I call the degree of disjointedness. You don't have to like it but look at equation (10). For disjoint sets, delta is zero, for a single set delta is 1. It is your paper.

Heinera,

Both you and Richard claim QM/non-locality/non-realism/statistical error can violate the above theorem but LHV can not. The challenge quite simply is to produce the non-local/non-real/statistical dataset which demonstrates the violation. Richard claims to have written the simulation, we will see if it holds up. We will calculate delta from his dataset, and obtain the appropriate upper bound using his theorem. Hopefully for Richard, his claim will hold up because all his papers and claims are at stake.

Last edited by minkwe on Tue May 06, 2014 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

- minkwe
**Posts:**1151**Joined:**Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

gill1109 wrote:One can duplicate theses lines as often as one likes and add some lines with "non-coincidence" particle pairs, so as to get any gamma you like.

Huh? Didn't you say there was only one theorem in your paper, equation (11). Why are you now talking about gamma. We are interested in delta, not gamma.

- minkwe
**Posts:**1151**Joined:**Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

minkwe wrote:Heinera,

Both you and Richard claim QM/non-locality/non-realism/statistical error can violate the above theorem but LHV can not. The challenge quite simply is to produce the non-local/non-real/statistical dataset which demonstrates the violation. Richard claims to have written the simulation, we will see if it holds up. We will calculate delta from his dataset, and obtain the appropriate upper bound using his theorem. Hopefully for Richard, his claim will hold up because all his papers and claims are at stake.

Ok, so let us try this again: I can produce a non-local hidden variable model that beats the CHSH inequality by a safe margin; in fact it gives the same value for the inequality as QM does. It uses no data rejection, no loopholes.

And furthermore, all the four correlations can be computed on the same set of hidden variables. No disjoint sets.

Would that be of interest?

- Heinera
**Posts:**767**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:Heinera,

Both you and Richard claim QM/non-locality/non-realism/statistical error can violate the above theorem but LHV can not. The challenge quite simply is to produce the non-local/non-real/statistical dataset which demonstrates the violation. Richard claims to have written the simulation, we will see if it holds up. We will calculate delta from his dataset, and obtain the appropriate upper bound using his theorem. Hopefully for Richard, his claim will hold up because all his papers and claims are at stake.

Ok, so let us try this again: I can produce a non-local hidden variable model that beats the CHSH inequality by a safe margin; in fact it gives the same value for the inequality as QM does. It uses no data rejection, no loopholes.

And furthermore, all the four correlations can be computed on the same set of hidden variables. No disjoint sets.

Would that be of interest?

Please proceed. We will use Richard's LG theorem to calculate the appropriate bound and we will see if your non-local model holds up. If it is calculated on the same set then delta will be zero and the upper bound will be 2. But no need to explain just provide the dataset and we'll see.

- minkwe
**Posts:**1151**Joined:**Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Dear All,

Just to let you know:

I have formally submitted two data files of angular momentum vectors to Richard Gill, which I believe meet his 10,000 Euros Challenge.

Wish me luck,

Joy

Just to let you know:

I have formally submitted two data files of angular momentum vectors to Richard Gill, which I believe meet his 10,000 Euros Challenge.

Wish me luck,

Joy

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Good luck.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1978**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

The R script http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 creates two sets of directions of angular momentum. They are called e_0 and e_90. According to the comments, *both* are "Alice's directions", and in both cases, Bob's directions are the opposite directions to Alice's. However, the challenge requires *one* set of directions for Alice and *one* set of directions for Bob. So in its present state this does not constitute a legal submission.

PS it is not for me to suggest how to fix JJC's program, but maybe he means that the two sets of Alice's directions e_0 and e_90 in http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 should be glued together to form one big set? If so we are ready for the next step

PS it is not for me to suggest how to fix JJC's program, but maybe he means that the two sets of Alice's directions e_0 and e_90 in http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 should be glued together to form one big set? If so we are ready for the next step

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:The R script http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 creates two sets of directions of angular momentum. They are called e_0 and e_90. According to the comments, *both* are "Alice's directions", and in both cases, Bob's directions are the opposite directions to Alice's. However, the challenge requires *one* set of directions for Alice and *one* set of directions for Bob. So in its present state this does not constitute a legal submission.

PS it is not for me to suggest how to fix JJC's program, but maybe he means that the two sets of Alice's directions e_0 and e_90 in http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 should be glued together to form one big set? If so we are ready for the next step

This is false. My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.

If I wear a green shirt today instead of the red shirt I wore yesterday, would I become a different person? e_0 and e_90 vectors are one and the same N vectors, one and the same e, sometimes wearing a green shirt and sometimes wearing a red shirt. Thus my submission is a perfectly legitimate submission, fully abiding the rules of your challenge.

I have won your challenge fair and square.

To explain to people who actually have some understanding of physics and of my model based on rotations, when we rotate the measurement axes a and b by a relative angle of 90 degrees, that rotation is also relative to the e vectors, or the angular momentum vectors. They too are thus rotated by 90 degrees, relative to the two axes. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is elementary physics. Since they are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to the two measurement axes, they "look" rotated by 90 degrees to the two measurement axes. Since in my proposed experiment we are supposed to calculate the components of the e vectors with respect to the two axes, we take the components of the e vectors wearing a green shirt (read 0 degrees rotation), namely e_0, and the components of the e vectors wearing a red shirt (read 90 degrees rotation), namely e_90, to calculate the respective correlations. One and the same vectors, wearing different shirts. What is so difficult about that? Thus to call my submission "not a legal submission" is simply cheating (or perhaps not understanding the basic, elementary physics of relative rotations).

I have won your challenge. It is time for you to come clean and acknowledge my victory.

For the programmers, the angular momentum vectors e are defined in my submission as e = rbind(x,y), where x and y are their x and y components. Thus e = rbind(x,y) and e = rbind(y,x) define one and the same vectors e, but rotated by 90 degrees.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.

The submission is not legitimate. Read the text of the challenge. It was composed and agreed jointly by JJC and RDG. I can't submit anything to adjudicators if there is nothing to adjudicate.

Wonderful that the model is perfect. Fix the submission then.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.

The submission is not legitimate. Read the text of the challenge. It was composed and agreed jointly by JJC and RDG. I can't submit anything to adjudicators if there is nothing to adjudicate.

Wonderful that the model is perfect. Fix the submission then.

You are simply cheating.

I have read the text of your challenge. As I explained above, my submission abides the rules of your challenge fully. There is nothing illegal about my submission.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Richard Gill wrote:The challenge is to create two computer files named, for instance, "AliceDirections.txt" and "BobDirections.txt". They should be posted on internet. It is a matter of complete indifference to me how they are created.

Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.

The submission is not legitimate. Read the text of the challenge. It was composed and agreed jointly by JJC and RDG. I can't submit anything to adjudicators if there is nothing to adjudicate.

Wonderful that the model is perfect. Fix the submission then.

You are simply cheating.

I have read the text of your challenge. As I explained above, my submission abides the rules of your challenge fully. There is nothing illegal about my submission.

Submit two files as per the text of the challenge (one for Alice one for Bob) and we will call in the adjudicators. You R script talks about four files.

- Code: Select all
`e_00 <- rbind(x, y) ## 2 x N matrix; N columns of e_00 represent the x`

## and y coordinates of points on an approximate circle: Alice's observed

## directions of angular momentum. Bob's observed directions are -e_00.

e_90 <- rbind(y, x) ## 2 x N matrix; N columns of e_90 represent the x

## and y coordinates of points on an approximate circle: Alice's observed

## directions of angular momentum. Bob's observed directions are -e_90.

Just tell me which two are the submission.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Submit two files as per the text of the challenge (one for Alice one for Bob) and we will call in the adjudicators. You R script talks about four files.

Just tell me which two are the submission.

OK, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have revised my submission slightly: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531. Please note that I have added some explanation in the preamble to make things clearer. In particular, please note that there are only two sets of the angular momentum directions, e for Alice and -e for Bob. The R script above presents only two files, not four.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Do you mean that e_00 and e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Alice?

And -e_00 and -e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Bob?

There are also some comment lines in the pre-amble but these are not implemented in the code.

"e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0" is not even grammatical.

I think you need help from an R programmer and that R programmer had better not be me, for obvious reasons! Or study one of the many splendid books about R, for instance "The Art of R Programming" by Norman Matloff. You can find free (and legal) copies on internet.

And -e_00 and -e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Bob?

There are also some comment lines in the pre-amble but these are not implemented in the code.

"e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0" is not even grammatical.

- Code: Select all
`# e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0 ;`

# e = rbind(y,x) if x < 0 & y > 0 ;

# e = rbind(x,y) if x < 0 & y < 0 ;

# e = rbind(y,x) if x > 0 & y < 0 .

I think you need help from an R programmer and that R programmer had better not be me, for obvious reasons! Or study one of the many splendid books about R, for instance "The Art of R Programming" by Norman Matloff. You can find free (and legal) copies on internet.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Do you mean that e_00 and e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Alice?

And -e_00 and -e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Bob?

No. Please read what I have written:

Joy Christian wrote:If I wear a green shirt today instead of the red shirt I wore yesterday, would I become a different person? e_0 and e_90 vectors are one and the same N vectors, one and the same e, sometimes wearing a green shirt and sometimes wearing a red shirt...

To explain to people who actually have some understanding of physics and of my model based on rotations, when we rotate the measurement axes a and b by a relative angle of 90 degrees, that rotation is also relative to the e vectors, or the angular momentum vectors. They too are thus rotated by 90 degrees, relative to the two axes. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is elementary physics. Since they are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to the two measurement axes, they "look" rotated by 90 degrees to the two measurement axes. Since in my proposed experiment we are supposed to calculate the components of the e vectors with respect to the two axes, we take the components of the e vectors wearing a green shirt (read 0 degrees rotation), namely e_0, and the components of the e vectors wearing a red shirt (read 90 degrees rotation), namely e_90, to calculate the respective correlations. One and the same vectors, wearing different shirts. What is so difficult about that? Thus to call my submission "not a legal submission" is simply cheating (or perhaps not understanding the basic, elementary physics of relative rotations)...

For the programmers, the angular momentum vectors e are defined in my submission as e = rbind(x,y), where x and y are their x and y components. Thus e = rbind(x,y) and e = rbind(y,x) define one and the same vectors e, but rotated by 90 degrees.

See also the following comments in the preamble of http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531:

- Code: Select all
`# e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0 ;`

# e = rbind(y,x) if x < 0 & y > 0 ;

# e = rbind(x,y) if x < 0 & y < 0 ;

# e = rbind(y,x) if x > 0 & y < 0 .

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:See also the following comments in the preamble of http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531:

- Code: Select all
`# e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0 ;`

# e = rbind(y,x) if x < 0 & y > 0 ;

# e = rbind(x,y) if x < 0 & y < 0 ;

# e = rbind(y,x) if x > 0 & y < 0 .

Yes I saw those comments and I remarked that they hadn't been implemented in the subsequent code. Please fix the code. Maybe you need help from an R expert.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

I am reproducing here what Michel Fodje wrote elsewhere, because (1) his observations are relevant for all realizable physical experiments, and (2) they beautifully spell out elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics that the vast majority of the Bell-believers among us seem to be incapable of understanding:

minkwe wrote:1 - If you measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on a different particle pair, the A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.

2 - If you measure the same particle at a (A,B), and exactly the same particle again at (A,B'), then A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.

3 - The only way to measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on the same particle, and make sure the A in (A,B) and the A in (A,B') are the same (and each outcome is the same in each pair), is to measure the same particle pair, simultaneously at (A, A', B, B'), an impossibility. Therefore a genuine experiment testing S <= 2 is impossible.

4 - If the probability of obtaining H for a coin is 0.75, the probability of the counter-factual H outcome for the same coin cannot be 0.75 too. It must be 0.25.

5 - No 4xN spreadsheet can violate the S <= 2. It doesn't matter where you get your data to put in the spreadsheet, from LHV/QM/non-local model/non-real model/statistical error etc.

6 - The correct inequality for 4 different 2XN spreadsheets is S<= 4, it doesn't matter where you get your data to put in the spreadsheet, from LHV/QM/non-local model/non-real model/statistical error etc. 4 *different* 2xN spreadsheets can easily violate S <= 2, because that inequality does not apply to such data. It is a mathematical error to even compare them.

7 - It is utter nonsense to compare an inequality derived from a 4xN spreadsheet, with data in the form of 4 different 2xN spreadsheets, even if your 4 *different* 2xN spreadsheets are randomly sampled from a single 4xN spreadsheet. What determines the upper bound is the degrees of freedom in the data, not the degrees of freedom in the original spreadsheet you randomly sampled from.

8 - These inequalities have nothing to do with physics, they are mathematical tautologies about real numbers and degrees of freedom. Please read the Rosinger paper carefully. Their violation points to a mathematical error in their application. Nothing can violate them.

9 - No EPRB experiment will ever be done which produces a 4xN spreadsheet, as it must if it purports to *test* the S <= 2 relationship. As long as they keep producing 4 *different* 2XN spreadsheets, the appropriate inequality is S <= 4, and it will never be violated.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:I am reproducing here what Michel Fodje wrote elsewhere, because (1) his observations are relevant for all realizable physical experiments, and (2) they beautifully spell out elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics that the vast majority of the Bell-believers among us seem to be incapable of understanding

Interesting that you should do that, because these arguments prove which the challenge which you agreed to try to win is actually unwinnable, and that your experiment can never succeed. Possibly the reason why no one so far showed much interest in doing it (or at least, no one maintained any interest in doing it for very long). I was wondering for a long, long time why you didn't realise that.

Regarding elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics, there are also some elementary facts from probability and statistics which also need to be taken into account. Michel Fodje is apparently unware of them and does not know the relevant literature, either. Please study "Speakable and Unspeakable" chapters 13 and 16. Required reading for all Bell-deniers in spe.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Interesting that you should do that, because these arguments prove the challenge which you agreed to try to win is actually unwinnable, and that your experiment can never succeed.

We shall see.

Your statement actually proves what I wrote above: "... Michel Fodje ... beautifully spells out elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics that the vast majority of the Bell-believers among us seem to be incapable of understanding:"

gill1109 wrote:Please study "Speakable and Unspeakable" chapters 13 and 16. Required reading for all Bell-deniers in spe.

Please study them yourself.

Let me remind you that I know this subject far better than you think you do. Let me also remind you that I learned about Bell's theorem partly from Bell himself, not to mention from the foremost living authority on the subject, namely Abner Shimony, under whom I wrote my PhD thesis. You would, in fact, benefit from reading Bell's last and most insightful paper, which was written just months before he died, and it is not included in the first edition of his book.

More importantly, the mistake Bell made in the very first equation of his famous 1964 paper persists throughout the Bell literature today, and, with Michel, I conclude that you are simply incapable of seeing it. It is your loss, not mine.

PS: I have explained Bell mistake in great detail on my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:You would, in fact, benefit from reading Bell's last and most insightful paper, which was written just months before he died, and it is not included in the first edition of his book.

Why would you imagine that I only know the first edition? I know the paper you refer to very well, almost by heart in fact; Chapter 24 in the second edition. Michel would benefit greatly from it. Chapters 13 and 16 are splendid, and he (and you) badly need to study them. Michel would benefit also from Chapter 14 on the delayed choice two slit experiment.

You seem not to realise, JJC, that among the supervisors of my supervisors of my supervisors were ... de Vries, Korteweg, van der Waals ... Leibniz, Calvin. That is quite a lot of accumulated wisdom which I inherited. I went to the same college as Sir R. A. Fisher and John Venn. Was taught by Stephen Hawking, among other physicists. By John H Conway, among other mathematicians. By the last living collaborators and direct followers of R A Fisher (A.W. Edwards). By Sir David Kendal and Sir Peter Whittle. Incidentally, my mother was one of Alan Turing's computers at one of the "out-stations" of Bletchley Park. My father was an experimental physicist.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1943**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:You seem not to realise, JJC, that among the supervisors of my supervisors of my supervisors were ... de Vries, Korteweg, van der Waals ... Leibniz, Calvin. That is quite a lot of accumulated wisdom which I inherited. I went to the same college as Sir R. A. Fisher and John Venn. Was taught by Stephen Hawking, among other physicists. By John H Conway, among other mathematicians. By the last living collaborators and direct followers of R A Fisher (A.W. Edwards). By Sir David Kendal and Sir Peter Whittle. Incidentally, my mother was one of Alan Turing's computers at one of the "out-stations" of Bletchley Park. My father was an experimental physicist.

Pity that you have learned nothing form these great people you mention. It is a real shame.

I too can drop names, but I won't bother.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2370**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

87 posts
• Page **4** of **5** • 1, 2, 3, **4**, 5

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: Gordon Watson and 8 guests