Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

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

Is this new version of the CHSH inequality by Richard Gill valid? Please see paper linked.

Yes
3
33%
No
6
67%
 
Total votes : 9

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby minkwe » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:24 pm

So you have no response. Too bad.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:24 pm

minkwe wrote:So you have no response. Too bad.

I have no *new* response. It seems to me that you haven't understood the statement of Theorem 1. Can you read what it says? Do you not believe it?

Too bad if you don't. There's nothing much more I can say. The proof is in the appendix of the paper. Pretty elementary probabilty.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:53 pm

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. Now that is really amusing!
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:46 pm

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.


Where do you get this (to me, seemingly) totally crazy idea, Fred? What the hell do you mean by "my version of CHSH", anyway? I am still not aware of having done anything terribly original in this paper. The main novelty is to carefully distinguish between finite N averages and infinite N limits, and even there, I am just redoing something I did 15 years ago, but in a more simple context (no memory effects). No controversy about it.

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).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:04 pm

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
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby minkwe » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:35 pm

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).

The pitfall of this technique is that 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
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:37 am

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.
Last edited by gill1109 on Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:39 am

Well, we could have a long discussion as to who is in denial: Karl Hess and Walter Philip (RIP), or yours truly. Start a new thread if you really want to discuss http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3583v1.pdf

But the rules of this forum are to be scientific, objective. Talk about the content. The maths and the physics. Not about the psychology of your opponents, please.

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
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:32 pm

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.


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.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:03 pm

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.


OK, seems we are home then. My intention was to prove Bell's theorem. What you say is not criticism but affirmation. You confirm that if local hidden variables existed, then equation (6) couldn't be true. Yet equation (6) is predicted by quantum mechanics.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby Mikko » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:56 am

So far 3 votes "yes", 6 votes "no", total 9: not statistically significant.
Mikko
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:39 am

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

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby Mikko » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:49 am

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.
Mikko
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:08 am

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.


Indeed. If they cared about the truth then there would have been: 0 votes "yes", 15 votes "no", total 15 votes.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:27 am

You mean there are still six "don't knows" somewhere? 15 = 6 + 3 + 6, I believe.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:46 pm

There are probably millions of "don't knows" and millions of "don't cares" :-)

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!
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby gill1109 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:49 pm

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!


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.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:13 am

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.

I'm sorry, but that fred2.csv file is bogus. It is not how you have defined <A_j B_j>. The first fred.csv file was how you have everything defined in your paper and the result was 0.72. Not a violation. Try again but it is pointless because nothing will violate your CHSH expression the way you have defined everything. Here is the Excel file.

download/Nequal100GillCHSH.xlsx

And... THIS IS SHOUTING! All caps. And I understand perfectly well all the "distinctions" and also understand basic math. The diffent distinctions make no difference to the fact that nothing can violate your version of CHSH.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Is this new version of the CHSH inequality valid?

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:53 am

This is going around in circles so I am locking this topic. Start a new thread if you wish.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library