My New Challenge to All Bell-Believers

[Joy Christian]

***
Some of you are aware of my old challenge to all Bell-believers. No one has met that challenge to this day. But now I have a much simpler challenge that should be quite easy to meet.

The following is a typical table that even I --- a naive theorist --- can understand. This is the table all the Bell-test experimenters are supposed to be producing in their experiments:



I ask all Bell-believers to simply fill this table out with actual experimental data (no cheating!). I would be delighted if someone can provide data, in the exact form of the above table, for some number n of the total runs of a Bell-test experiment. Ideally, it would be nice to have the actual data for at least n =1,000. But I will be perfectly happy if you provide actual data for, say, n = 1 to 10, in the exact form of the above table. Also, you are free to keep both Alice's parameter "a" and Bob's parameter "b" at fixed values for the entire experiment, or for all runs.

That is it. That is my challenge. It should be quite easy for some of the readers of this forum to meet this challenge. I know that some of you know quite a bit about the actual experiments and the data they collect. I myself know very little about the actual experiments and the data they collect. But the above table is not difficult to understand and should be easy to fill out.

***

[FrediFizzx]

??? I don't understand what the challenge is. Just email Gregor Weihs and get the 1998 data for the above.
.

[Joy Christian]

??? I don't understand what the challenge is. Just email Gregor Weihs and get the 1998 data for the above.

No need to email anyone. The challenge is to simply fill out the table using actual data, as I have explained. No one will be able to do that, including Gregor Weihs or Alain Aspect.

The important point here is that quantum mechanics does not predict what Bell-believers demand from a local-realistic theory. Quantum mechanics does not predict the above table.

If anyone disagrees with me, then all they have to do is to fill out the table, as I have explained, using actual data, and providing a published reference to the actual experiment.

***

[FrediFizzx]

??? I don't understand what the challenge is. Just email Gregor Weihs and get the 1998 data for the above.

No need to email anyone. The challenge is to simply fill out the table using actual data, as I have explained. No one will be able to do that, including Gregor Weihs or Alain Aspect.

The important point here is that quantum mechanics does not predict what Bell-believers demand from a local-realistic theory. Quantum mechanics does not predict the above table.

If anyone disagrees with me, then all they have to do is to fill out the table, as I have explained, using actual data, and providing a published reference to the actual experiment.

***

Nobody is going to respond to that. If you want the data list like above you are going to have to ask for it from one of the experimenters. Of course QM does not predict the individual events. That is not the point of the experiments. The final results after analysis of the coincidence counts matches the QM predictions for the EPR type experiments. Or close to it.

But they do cheat when comparing to the Bell inequalities. No experiment has ever violated the inequalities. Exceed the Bell bounds, yes; violate, no. They simply shifted to an inequality with a higher bound which they never exceed that bound.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is part of the Delft dataset courtesy of Richard Gill.



The angle setting are for a, 0 = 0 and 1 = pi/2; for b, 0 = -3pi/4 and 1 = 3pi/4. Here is a link to the full dataset PDF and then a link to the Excel file the PDF was made from.

EPRsims/delft3.pdf
EPRsims/Delft.xlsx
.

[Joy Christian]

Nobody is going to respond to that.

You were wrong about that. I was absolutely certain that we will have an immediate response from a Bell-believer. Your post above shows that I was right.

Of course QM does not predict the individual events. That is not the point of the experiments.

But that is precisely the point of my challenge. Quantum mechanics does not predict individual outcomes. Quantum mechanics does not predict individual rows of my table. So what is being observed, allegedly, by the experimentalists? Have they observed violations of quantum mechanics? That is the underlying question behind my challenge, which has not yet been met fully, despite the appearance of the table above from a Bell-believer. The reference to where this data set has been published by the experimental group has not been provided. Nor do we know what kind of post-processing of data has taken place in producing the alleged, unreferenced, data set.

But they do cheat when comparing to the Bell inequalities. No experiment has ever violated the inequalities. Exceed the Bell bounds, yes; violate, no. They simply shifted to an inequality with a higher bound which they never exceed that bound.

Here I agree with you fully. Bell's "theorem" is not a mathematical theorem. It is a politically and sociologically sustained belief system. It has no scientific value for the future of physics.

***

[FrediFizzx]

The experimenters are simply observing what Nature does. Here is a link to download the raw dataset.

https://data.4tu.nl/repository/uuid:6e1 ... 60bf3c0a31

Download the zip file at the bottom of the page. You can decipher the raw dataset on your own by reading all the instructions in the paper, etc. There is nothing funny going on with table above. It is simply what the experimenters observed. I will run my own CHSH analysis on it to see what the result is.
.

[FrediFizzx]

As expected, CHSH = 2.4225.
.

[Joy Christian]

The experimenters are simply observing what Nature does. Here is a link to download the raw dataset.

https://data.4tu.nl/repository/uuid:6e1 ... 60bf3c0a31

Download the zip file at the bottom of the page. You can decipher the raw dataset on your own by reading all the instructions in the paper, etc. There is nothing funny going on with table above. It is simply what the experimenters observed. I will run my own CHSH analysis on it to see what the result is.

Ok, thanks. Let us concentrate on just one run of the experiment. Let us say the experimenters have observed, as claimed, the following results, which are borrowed from the above table:



Now I am not really concerned about whether or not the post-processing of the data is kosher and whether or not the experiment verifies the strong correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. I just want to concentrate on the above single run of the experiment and the corresponding results tabulated above. And then I want to make the following observations:

(1) Quantum mechanics does not predict the above definite results, namely A = +1 and B = +1, for the listed parameters "a" and "b", even in principle. That is the very nature of that theory. All it can predict for the listed parameters "a" and "b" is that the result A will either be equal to +1 or be equal to -1, and the result B will either be equal to +1 or be equal to -1, with the probability of both A and B turning out to be equal to +1 being 42.7%. That is the best quantum mechanics can do. It can only make probabilistic statements.

(2) Now, as you say, the "experimenters are simply observing what Nature does." So let us accept that they have indeed observed A = +1 and B = +1 for the listed parameters. How is that possible when quantum mechanics cannot predict those results even in principle? The experimenters had only 42.7% chance of observing those results and they seem to have lucked out.

(3) Can a local-realistic theory do better? Not really. And more importantly, it should not be demanded to do better. The goal of local realism is not to refute quantum mechanics or go beyond quantum mechanics in any sense, but simply to reproduce what quantum mechanics predicts, with the same probabilities, but with a more coherent philosophical grounding. In particular, a local-realistic theory can be required to provide epistemic probabilities for the possible results rather than intrinsic probabilities offered by quantum mechanics, but in no sense should it be required to go beyond quantum mechanics. In other words, a local-realistic theory should predict exactly the same probability for the results A = +1 and B = +1, namely the probability 42.7%, but without compromising locality or reality.

(4) So what am I getting at? What I am saying is that the usual demand by Bell-believers that a local-realistic theory must make a definite prediction, such as A(a, h) = +1, given the listed parameter "a" and a hidden variable h, is completely scandalous. That would be surreptitiously requiring a local-realistic theory to go beyond quantum mechanics and predict something that quantum mechanics is unable to predict. That is a grossly excessive demand. Nothing in Einstein's conception of local realism requires a local-realistic theory to accomplish that.

(5) Now some may argue that given the complete information encapsulated in the hidden variable h, and given an experimental parameter "a", the result A(a, h) = +1 must be predictable by a local-realistic theory, with certainty. But that is nonsense. Just like the prediction of weather or a result of a coin toss, in-principle-complete information does not necessarily mean that we should be able to predict the result A(a, h) = +1 with certainty in practice. It only means that, unlike in quantum mechanics, the information is actually there but we are unable to extract it to make a definite prediction. For if we could extract that information, then our predictions would go beyond those of quantum mechanics, thereby revolutionizing physics.

***

[FrediFizzx]

The Bell fans expect that if a theory is completely and thoroughly realistic, it should be able to predict the correct A and B outcomes event by event if one knows all the variables.

For me, Nature does it the same every time so if a theory can't do that, then you simply are missing some variable(s). If it was a coin toss situation, Nature wouldn't do it the same every time.
.

[Joy Christian]

The Bell fans expect that if a theory is completely and thoroughly realistic, it should be able to predict the correct A and B outcomes event by event if one knows all the variables.

A complete and realistic theory should not be required to predict something that quantum mechanics cannot predict. A local-realist theory should be expected to predict only that what quantum mechanics is able to predict.

For me, Nature does it the same every time so if a theory can't do that, then you simply are missing some variable(s). If it was a coin toss situation, Nature wouldn't do it the same every time.

Ah ... but Nature does not do it the same every time. In the above single-run data, the results A = -1 and B = -1 could have occurred instead of A = +1 and B = +1, with the same probability.

***

[FrediFizzx]

It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics at all. It only has to do with what Nature does. So forget about quantum mechanics. The solution will not be quantum mechanical.

You don't know that Nature would get -- for that event. If you know all the variables, you could predict ++ every time.
.

[Joy Christian]

It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics at all. It only has to do with what Nature does. So forget about quantum mechanics. The solution will not be quantum mechanical.

You don't know that Nature would get -- for that event. If you know all the variables, you could predict ++ every time.

There is no mismatch between what Nature does and what quantum mechanics predicts. If there were any mismatch, we would have abandoned quantum mechanics a long time ago.

What Nature does is also totally predicted and explained by my quaternionic 3-sphere model: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578. The predictions of this model match with those of quantum mechanics 100%. The model says that the strong correlations we observe in Nature are strong because of the fact that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere. If we know the orientation lambda of the 3-sphere, together with the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere, then the observations A(a, lambda) = +1 and B(b, lambda) = +1 can be predicted in principle, but not necessarily in practice, in analogy with the prediction of weather or the prediction of a result of a coin toss.

Any demand by the Bell-believers to go beyond the predictions of quantum mechanics is scandalous, misguided, unjustified, and not within the precinct of Einstein's local realism.

***

[FrediFizzx]

I wouldn't call it a mismatch. But Nature does in fact do something that QM and your GA model doesn't do and that nobody has been able to figure out completely yet. Nature outputs event by event clicks on detectors for A and B and when translated to +/-1, produces -a.b. It is good that QM and your GA model can predict the final result correctly but neither are complete until they can predict the correct event by event outcomes that Nature does in fact do to produce -a.b. That is all there is to it. It is just a matter of completeness.

I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.
.

[Joy Christian]

I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.

Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.

***

[FrediFizzx]

I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.

Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.

***

Thanks, but I am not so sure about "revolutionize" since it is just another logical step in progress. But it sure would show that QM is not a complete theory without the hidden variable(s). And kill Bell's junk physics theory for good. It will be unrefutable.
.

[YetAnotherGuest]

I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.

Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.

***

Thanks, but I am not so sure about "revolutionize" since it is just another logical step in progress. But it sure would show that QM is not a complete theory without the hidden variable(s). And kill Bell's junk physics theory for good. :D It will be unrefutable.
.

Bell's analysis is not physics. It's a simple little bit of logic and mathematics. Every physicist is allowed to do with it just whatever they like, but they can't deny it. They can't deny that in mathematics (talking about the integers) 1 + 1 = 2. It's a tautology. It applies to the real world, if we are careful. 1 apple plus 1 orange = 2 items from the fruit bowl on my dining room table.

Bohr would have ignored it. He would simply have said "I told you so". Einstein would, however, not have been so happy. Bell himself concluded as follows:

"For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory".

[Joy Christian]

The Bell fans expect that if a theory is completely and thoroughly realistic, it should be able to predict the correct A and B outcomes event by event if one knows all the variables.

Let me continue my rant against this expectation. Let us consider just two runs of the Delft experiment shown below. These two entries are from the actual observations by the Delft group:



Now, as I have stressed before, quantum mechanics does not predict the results A and B shown in the two entries considered above. Quantum mechanics predicts only 42.7% chance for the results shown in each of the two entries. My quaternionic 3-sphere model for the singlet correlations also predicts only 42.7% chance for the results shown in each of the two entries. Note that the parameters "a" and "b" are the same for both runs of the experiment. But for the 8th run of the experiment, the Delft group observed the results A = +1 and B = +1, whereas for the 19th run of the experiment they observed the results A = -1 and B = -1. We can, therefore, view the above two sets of results as a biased coin-toss between {A = +1, B = +1} and {A = -1 and B = -1}, with 42.7/42.7 chance, instead of the 50/50 chance predicted for a fair coin.

But, as you have noted, Bell-believers expect that if a theory is complete and realistic, then it should be able to predict the results A and B with certainty, for each of the two entries in the table, provided the initial conditions and a complete set of hidden variables are known in advance. However, contrary to the widespread misconception among Bell-believers, Einstein's local realism does not necessitate any such thing. It only requires us to reproduce the 42.7/42.7 chance for the two entries, as predicted by quantum mechanics. Anything beyond that is not justified. Even for a simple coin toss, in practice no one expects us to be able to predict with certainty whether the coin will land on its head or on its tail, on an event-by-event basis.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Nope. You are forgetting about the angle of the singlet particles and the hidden variable(s). You have to know ALL the variables.
.

[FrediFizzx]

I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.

Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.

***

Thanks, but I am not so sure about "revolutionize" since it is just another logical step in progress. But it sure would show that QM is not a complete theory without the hidden variable(s). And kill Bell's junk physics theory for good. It will be unrefutable.
.

Bell's analysis is not physics. It's a simple little bit of logic and mathematics. Every physicist is allowed to do with it just whatever they like, but they can't deny it. They can't deny that in mathematics (talking about the integers) 1 + 1 = 2. It's a tautology. It applies to the real world, if we are careful. 1 apple plus 1 orange = 2 items from the fruit bowl on my dining room table.

Bohr would have ignored it. He would simply have said "I told you so". Einstein would, however, not have been so happy. Bell himself concluded as follows:

"For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory".

The real problem with quantum theory is that it is not complete. If Nature does it essentially the same every time, then the event by event outcomes can be predicted if one knows all the variables. QM can't do that and be local.
.