minkwe wrote:So you have no response. Too bad.
FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, and you have proven that NOTHING can violate your version of CHSH. Not even quantum theory. So what you have done in Chapter 9 is completely useless for anyone.
gill1109 wrote:I am wondering if maybe you are one of those people who don't understand the technique of proving something by assuming the opposite of what you want to prove, and then deriving a contradiction? (I know a lot of very clever experimental physicists who belong to this category, you would be in good company).
FrediFizzx wrote:http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6&start=50#p139
On page 3 you define <AB> = (1/N)Sum_j=1 to n(A_j B_j). With that definition and the definition that A, A', B and B' are + or - 1, your expression for CHSH can not be violated by anything including QM. Now, I would suggest that you pick different definitions. But it may not be possible and still have it come out right.
minkwe wrote:... you can't be sloppy in clearly specifying all your assumptions, miss just one and your proof goes up in flames. I know a lot of clever mathematicians and physicists who thought they had proven something this way only to be shown a hidden assumption which turned out to be false. Some of them are still in denial. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3583v1.pdf
gill1109 wrote:You are referring to a mathematical lemma. That is not "how I define CHSH for experimental data". I am just marshalling my soldiers. Summarizing some elementary mathematical facts. You should now read on, and see what comes out of this. In particular, notice the definition of <AB>_{obs}.FrediFizzx wrote:http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6&start=50#p139
On page 3 you define <AB> = (1/N)Sum_j=1 to n(A_j B_j). With that definition and the definition that A, A', B and B' are + or - 1, your expression for CHSH can not be violated by anything including QM. Now, I would suggest that you pick different definitions. But it may not be possible and still have it come out right.
FrediFizzx wrote:It doesn't matter if it is <A_j B_j> or <A_j B_j>_obs or <A_j B_j>_lim. None of them will make your eq. (6) true. I know what your intentions are in that paper but your math doesn't support your intentions. Again, I am just offering some constructive criticism here.
Mikko wrote:So far 3 votes "yes", 6 votes "no", total 9: not statistically significant.
Joy Christian wrote:Mikko wrote:So far 3 votes "yes", 6 votes "no", total 9: not statistically significant.
Truth value has nothing to do with statistical significance. What is false is false, regardless of votes.
You can find the truth here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784. See the last equation on the last page.
Mikko wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Mikko wrote:So far 3 votes "yes", 6 votes "no", total 9: not statistically significant.
Truth value has nothing to do with statistical significance. What is false is false, regardless of votes.
You can find the truth here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784. See the last equation on the last page.
The voting results so far don't refute the hypothesis that voters don't care about the thruth but simply toss a coin.
FrediFizzx wrote:But for one more time; nothing can violate <AB> + <A'B> + <AB'> - <A'B'> =< 2 , not even quantum theory. As Michel pointed out several messages ago, the true CHSH is of the form <A1B1> + <A2B2'> + <A3'B3> - <A4'B4'> which has an upper bound of 4 and for QM an upper bound of ~= 2.82. Now that is the truth for you. And no one can get around it!
gill1109 wrote: Indeed no one can get around the truth. Shouting does not change it. The counterexample to your statements is
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/fred2.csv
I am wondering, Fred, if you have trouble with reading small letters. You ignore the subscripts in the formulas in my paper. You misquote and misunderstand what is written there. You also seem to have no comprehension of the distinction between an expectation value and an observed average.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests