No spooky action at a distance

[gill1109]

...
I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.

Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.

A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.

"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.
.

“Long term relative frequency” is English. You could also say “long run”. How many times something happened divided by the total number of trials. In the limit as that number becomes very large. What is the physical meaning of the probabilities predicted by quantum mechanics? Most physicists think that it means that if you repeat the preparation and measurement many times, then the relative frequency with which the outcome of interest occurs should be the same as the probability of that outcome which you can calculate with Born’s law. Do you agree?

My challenges, now and in the past, are “rigged” so as to be, according to most mathematicians’ and physicists’ understanding, impossible to win. But if Bell’s theorem is false, then you should be able to win the challenge. Be my guest, have another try!

[gill1109]

Fred, don't worry about what Gill and Heinera are saying. Just try to produce the cosine curve as you have done before. Because

(-1)*P[(1, -1); a, b] + (-1)*P[(-1, 1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(-1, -1); a, b] + (+1)*P[(1, 1); a, b] = - cos(a.b),

so the relative frequencies are necessarily satisfied if you are able to produce the usual cosine curve predicted by the singlet state.

Joy, of course but not exactly what I am talking about here. Haven't you already done that?

Yes, we have done all of this before. But I thought you were trying to program the model that started this thread and Gill and Heinera were trying to distract you from that task.

***

I wasn't trying to program the model yet. The "challenge" means you have to model Nature and has nothing to do with Bell. Bell's case has already been shot down is the point I am making.
.

I’m challenging Esail, who started this thread, to program his model, so that anybody can test whether or not *he* has found a counterexample to Bell’s theorem. Of course, anybody else can try, as well. What are you all waiting for? A classical computer network which can exhibit quantum correlations between outcomes of measurements made at distant and not communicating nodes, on being presented with exogenously determined, unpredictable, settings, will revolutionize science and get the programmer a Nobel prize. Heinera has written out the joint probabilities of outcomes given settings which need to be realized.

It’s been done in the quantum optics lab with lasers, crystals, glass fibers, photodetectors. Now do it with ordinary laptops and ordinary digital wireless connections. You can simulate the machines on a small computer network with one ordinary PC. We can check afterwards that you are not cheating. It’s necessary that you simulate randomness using ordinary pseudo RNGs with save seed, set seed, restore seed facilities, so we can e.g. just change Alice’s 10th setting, and check that Bob’s 10th outcome does not change. I think that’s a reasonable demand. Does anyone object?

[FrediFizzx]

...
I may try to program it up in Mathematica. Doesn't look too hard. You could probably do it easily in R also. But I doubt it will match Nature as far as event by event outcomes go even though it may match what quantum mechanics can predict. That last part is all that is needed to bust Bell's case.
.

Exactly. QM doesn’t tell us how to predict individual outcomes. It even says nothing at all about how they arise. It just tells us which outcomes there can be, with which probabilities. So it does tell us long term relative frequencies.

A successful local hidden variables theory must reproduce either exactly or to a good approximation the long term relative frequencies. It would not necessarily help us predict individual outcomes in practice, since the hidden variables are hidden, presumably, in the sense that we are not able to fix them in advance.

"long term relative frequencies" Is that some kind of gibberish to justify your rigged "Bell" challenge? Please explain what that means exactly.
.

“Long term relative frequency” is English. You could also say “long run”. How many times something happened divided by the total number of trials. In the limit as that number becomes very large. What is the physical meaning of the probabilities predicted by quantum mechanics? Most physicists think that it means that if you repeat the preparation and measurement many times, then the relative frequency with which the outcome of interest occurs should be the same as the probability of that outcome which you can calculate with Born’s law. Do you agree?

My challenges, now and in the past, are “rigged” so as to be, according to most mathematicians’ and physicists’ understanding, impossible to win. But if Bell’s theorem is false, then you should be able to win the challenge. Be my guest, have another try!

You are not doing Bell's so called "theorem" with your "challenge". You are doing Gill's "theorem" which is about modelling the experiments. Bell's junk physics theory has been shot down already more than once. It is not hard to disprove what Bell claimed as his "theorem". It is easy to match the quantum mechanics predictions with a local theory. You actually don't even need hidden variables to do it.
.

[Heinera]

It is easy to match the quantum mechanics predictions with a local theory. You actually don't even need hidden variables to do it.
.

Yes, and it's called "Quantum Mechanics"

[FrediFizzx]

It is easy to match the quantum mechanics predictions with a local theory. You actually don't even need hidden variables to do it.
.

Yes, and it's called "Quantum Mechanics"

So, you agree that quantum mechanics is local. Wonderful!
.

[Heinera]

It is easy to match the quantum mechanics predictions with a local theory. You actually don't even need hidden variables to do it.
.

Yes, and it's called "Quantum Mechanics"

So, you agree that quantum mechanics is local. Wonderful!
.

Indeed. You just can't do it with hidden variables, aka "realism". It's local realism that doesn't work, not "local".

[FrediFizzx]

It is easy to match the quantum mechanics predictions with a local theory. You actually don't even need hidden variables to do it.
.

Yes, and it's called "Quantum Mechanics"

So, you agree that quantum mechanics is local. Wonderful!
.

Indeed. You just can't do it with hidden variables, aka "realism". It's local realism that doesn't work, not "local".

Baloney. It works with or without hidden variables.
.

[Heinera]

Indeed. You just can't do it with hidden variables, aka "realism". It's local realism that doesn't work, not "local".

Baloney. It works with or without hidden variables.
.

Hahaha! What do you think realism means?

[FrediFizzx]

Indeed. You just can't do it with hidden variables, aka "realism". It's local realism that doesn't work, not "local".

Baloney. It works with or without hidden variables.
.

Hahaha! What do you think realism means?

Quantum mechanics is about REAL probability factors that are about REAL physical events. But more baloney from you. You agree that quantum mechanics is local. That is all we need.
.

[Heinera]

Hahaha! What do you think realism means?

Quantum mechanics is about REAL probability factors that are about REAL physical events.

Nope, that's not what it means.

You agree that quantum mechanics is local. That is all we need.
.

I think pretty much every physicist believes that. It's hidden variables they don't believe in.

[FrediFizzx]

Hahaha! What do you think realism means?

Quantum mechanics is about REAL probability factors that are about REAL physical events.

Nope, that's not what it means.

You agree that quantum mechanics is local. That is all we need.
.

I think pretty much every physicist believes that. It's hidden variables they don't believe in.

More baloney. What is the title of this thread?

Arguing about realism is like arguing about religion. That is what realism means to me. Of course part of it; there is more to it. The ultimate realistic theory would model Nature and predict the correct event by event outcomes. Nature does it. QM doesn't do it. Something is missing from QM. Ah yes..., must be a hidden variable or more. It's pretty silly not to realize that.
.

[Joy Christian]

Nature does it. QM doesn't do it. Something is missing from QM.

That is the point. But the followers of Bell's bogus theorem do not seem to get it.

Every Bell-test experiment is crying out and telling us that Nature produces the singlet correlations by averaging the products of individual measurement results observed by Alice and Bob. But quantum mechanics does not predict individual measurement results. It is a statistical theory based on ensembles of large numbers of similar events and can predict only expectation values, probabilities, and relative frequencies. What does that mean? That means that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of Nature. Every Bell-test experiment proves that. And yet, the followers of Bell flaunt the experiments as proving c****pot like nonlocality and nonreality. How deluded one has to be to interpret the Bell-test experiments that incorrectly?

***

[gill1109]

Nature does it. QM doesn't do it. Something is missing from QM.

That is the point. But the followers of Bell's bogus theorem do not seem to get it.

Every Bell-test experiment is crying out and telling us that Nature produces the singlet correlations by averaging the products of individual measurement results observed by Alice and Bob. But quantum mechanics does not predict individual measurement results. It is a statistical theory based on ensembles of large numbers of similar events and can predict only expectation values, probabilities, and relative frequencies. What does that mean? That means that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of Nature. Every Bell-test experiment proves that. And yet, the followers of Bell flaunt the experiments as proving c****pot like nonlocality and nonreality. How deluded one has to be to interpret the Bell-test experiments that incorrectly?

***

It is not a question of following the opinion of some person called John Bell. There is a mathematical theorem informally stated by John Bell and since then expressed in formal mathematical terms by many scholars, that certain QM predictions (which have since then been observed in the most stringent conditions in lab experiments) are incompatible with the conjunction of locality, freedom, and no conspiracy.

Of course, both our human intuition and our inherited modern understanding of physics tells us that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of nature. Hence today's deep thinkers and non-conformists in physics either go for superdeterminism (Gerard 't Hooft, Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Palmer, Jarek Duda) or for non-locality (Bohmian mechanics, and more recently the theories of such people as Ilja Schmelzer or Robert Close).

Of course, the mathematical fact I referred to might be wrong. It does happen that people discover loopholes in previously accepted great theorems. Read Imre Lakatos's book "conjectures and refutations" for beautiful examples from analysis.

Many people have claimed that Bell's arguments are wrong or have even claimed to have found an explicit counterexample to his theorem. So far I never saw a convincing disproof of Bell's theorem. I see new attempts, several times a year. They never seem to catch on. I think that the only way they would make an impression would be if they were accompanied by a convincing computer simulation. But so far I have not seen a successful computer simulation of a "loophole free" Bell experiment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be delighted if such evidence would be forthcoming. It would be wonderful to see the overthrow of the scientific establishment. I hope it will happen in my lifetime.

[Joy Christian]

This is not new. Joy Christian described a local realistic model for Bell type phenomena more than ten years ago.

The observed strong correlations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics per see, or with superdeterminism, or nonlocality, or nonreality, or conspiracy, or backward causation for that matter. They are simply local-realistic manifestations of the geometry and topology of the physical space we live in. I have repeatedly demonstrated this fact for the past thirteen years. My papers on the subject are now officially published in respectable journals. It is only a matter of time that this fact will be recognized more widely.

***

[FrediFizzx]

...
That is the point. But the followers of Bell's bogus theorem do not seem to get it.

Every Bell-test experiment is crying out and telling us that Nature produces the singlet correlations by averaging the products of individual measurement results observed by Alice and Bob. But quantum mechanics does not predict individual measurement results. It is a statistical theory based on ensembles of large numbers of similar events and can predict only expectation values, probabilities, and relative frequencies. What does that mean? That means that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of Nature. Every Bell-test experiment proves that. And yet, the followers of Bell flaunt the experiments as proving c****pot like nonlocality and nonreality. How deluded one has to be to interpret the Bell-test experiments that incorrectly?

***

It is not a question of following the opinion of some person called John Bell. There is a mathematical theorem informally stated by John Bell and since then expressed in formal mathematical terms by many scholars, that certain QM predictions (which have since then been observed in the most stringent conditions in lab experiments) are incompatible with the conjunction of locality, freedom, and no conspiracy.

Of course, both our human intuition and our inherited modern understanding of physics tells us that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of nature. Hence today's deep thinkers and non-conformists in physics either go for superdeterminism (Gerard 't Hooft, Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Palmer, Jarek Duda) or for non-locality (Bohmian mechanics, and more recently the theories of such people as Ilja Schmelzer or Robert Close).

Of course, the mathematical fact I referred to might be wrong. It does happen that people discover loopholes in previously accepted great theorems. Read Imre Lakatos's book "conjectures and refutations" for beautiful examples from analysis.

Many people have claimed that Bell's arguments are wrong or have even claimed to have found an explicit counterexample to his theorem. So far I never saw a convincing disproof of Bell's theorem. I see new attempts, several times a year. They never seem to catch on. I think that the only way they would make an impression would be if they were accompanied by a convincing computer simulation. But so far I have not seen a successful computer simulation of a "loophole free" Bell experiment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be delighted if such evidence would be forthcoming. It would be wonderful to see the overthrow of the scientific establishment. I hope it will happen in my lifetime.

Again, you are simply mixing up Bell's so called "theorem" with Gill's "theorem". Please provide an online reference other than your own that describes Bell's "theorem" like you mention above. The experiments merely confirm the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics. They have nothing to do with deciding about locality, freedom and no conspiracy.
.

[Joy Christian]

It is not a question of following the opinion of some person called John Bell. There is a mathematical theorem informally stated by John Bell and since then expressed in formal mathematical terms by many scholars, that certain QM predictions (which have since then been observed in the most stringent conditions in lab experiments) are incompatible with the conjunction of locality, freedom, and no conspiracy.

There no such theorem. The so-called Bell's theorem is a politically and sociologically sustained belief system. In any event, there exists a definitive counterexample to the "theorem."

***

[gill1109]

It is not a question of following the opinion of some person called John Bell. There is a mathematical theorem informally stated by John Bell and since then expressed in formal mathematical terms by many scholars, that certain QM predictions (which have since then been observed in the most stringent conditions in lab experiments) are incompatible with the conjunction of locality, freedom, and no conspiracy.

There no such theorem. The so-called Bell's theorem is a politically and sociologically sustained belief system. In any event, there exists a definitive counterexample to the "theorem."

It is true that theorems do sustain belief systems, and belief systems *are* by their very nature political and sociological.

There exist numerous published claimed counterexamples to Bell's theorem. There also exist many published formulations of the theorem in various degrees of mathematical formality and under varying sets of assumptions. The amusing thing, from a sociological point of view, is that each counter-example is supported uniquely by its originator. There is no community which together supports one counterexample. At least the flat earth society is an organisation. In the same way, every year somebody submits a proof that pi is a rational number, but there is no community of "rationalists" who together stand behind one particular proof. Karl Hess has complained about this phenomenon. He hoped that many people would adopt his "counterexample". Unfortunately, though numerous people support the attempt to find a counterexample, nobody actually adopted the Hess and Philipp model. The problem was that problematic mathematical issues were identified in it, and published in peer-reviewed journals too. Which of course was also the fate of Joy Christian's claimed counter-example.

Google Scholar has half a dozen citations of Christian's IEEE Access paper. Three are by himself and one is by me. The other two are by an author called Marek Czachor who has some interesting papers, one for instance entitled "Quantum Structure in Competing Lizard Communities". Perhaps we should discuss his latest work https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04097

Arithmetic loophole in Bell's theorem: An overlooked threat for entangled-state quantum cryptography, Marek Czachor; Katedra Fizyki Teoretycznej i Informatyki Kwantowej, Politechnika Gda´nska, 80-233 Gda´nsk, Poland.

Bell's theorem is supposed to exclude all local hidden-variable models of quantum correlations. However, an explicit counterexample shows that a new class of local realistic models, based on generalized arithmetic and calculus, can exactly reconstruct rotationally symmetric quantum probabilities typical of two-electron singlet states. Observable probabilities are consistent with the usual arithmetic employed by macroscopic observers, but counterfactual aspects of Bell's theorem are sensitive to the choice of hidden-variable arithmetic and calculus. The model is classical in the sense of Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Bell: elements of reality exist and probabilities are modeled by integrals of hidden-variable probaility densities. Probability densities have a Clauser-Horne product form typical of local realistic theories. However, neither the product nor the integral nor the representation of rotations are the usual ones. The integral has all the standard properties but only with respect to the arithmetic that defines the product. Certain formal transformations of integral expressions one finds in the usual proofs à la Bell do not work, so standard Bell-type inequalities cannot be proved. The system we consider is deterministic, local-realistic, rotationally invariant, observers have free will, detectors are perfect, so is free of all the canonical loopholes discussed in the literature.

[Joy Christian]

Google Scholar has [only] half a dozen citations of Christian's IEEE Access paper.

That is correct, but not surprising. The paper has been published for less than a year.

One of my papers published in 1997 had no citations for several years. Today it has 74: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?clus ... as_sdt=0,5

One of the citations to my paper is by Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS.

The wheels of science often turn slowly.

***

[FrediFizzx]

...
It is not a question of following the opinion of some person called John Bell. There is a mathematical theorem informally stated by John Bell and since then expressed in formal mathematical terms by many scholars, that certain QM predictions (which have since then been observed in the most stringent conditions in lab experiments) are incompatible with the conjunction of locality, freedom, and no conspiracy.

Of course, both our human intuition and our inherited modern understanding of physics tells us that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of nature. Hence today's deep thinkers and non-conformists in physics either go for superdeterminism (Gerard 't Hooft, Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Palmer, Jarek Duda) or for non-locality (Bohmian mechanics, and more recently the theories of such people as Ilja Schmelzer or Robert Close).

Of course, the mathematical fact I referred to might be wrong. It does happen that people discover loopholes in previously accepted great theorems. Read Imre Lakatos's book "conjectures and refutations" for beautiful examples from analysis.

Many people have claimed that Bell's arguments are wrong or have even claimed to have found an explicit counterexample to his theorem. So far I never saw a convincing disproof of Bell's theorem. I see new attempts, several times a year. They never seem to catch on. I think that the only way they would make an impression would be if they were accompanied by a convincing computer simulation. But so far I have not seen a successful computer simulation of a "loophole free" Bell experiment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be delighted if such evidence would be forthcoming. It would be wonderful to see the overthrow of the scientific establishment. I hope it will happen in my lifetime.

Again, you are simply mixing up Bell's so called "theorem" with Gill's "theorem". Please provide an online reference other than your own that describes Bell's "theorem" like you mention above. The experiments merely confirm the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics. They have nothing to do with deciding about locality, freedom and no conspiracy.
.

No other references yet to your definition of Bell's so-called "theorem". So, it must indeed just be Gill's messed up "theorem".
.

[Esail]

Here is a spec for a program calculating conditional probabilities:

HV model for the singlet state

Program for Spin1:
1. Theory
• Boundary conditions: photon pairs 0 ° / 90 ° and 90 ° / 0 ° in equal shares.
• Photons A and B of a pair have the same property Lambda
• Set polarizer PA to alpha and polarizer PB to beta
• (alpha and beta between 0 and 180°)
• Polarizer A selects A-photons with p-state alpha
• This selection means a selection of the associated B-photons in p-state alpha+pi/2
• Polarizer B selects B-photons with p-state and polarization beta.
2. CountA := countB := 0
3. n:=1000
4. deltaA := beta – alpha -pi/2

photon pair 0°/90°
5. deltaB := beta – pi/2
6. For i= 0,n,1
7. Lambda := i/n
8. Call Hit(ResultB,deltaB,lambda,countB,1)
9. If ResultB=1 then
10. Call Hit(ResultA,deltaA,lambda,countA,1)
11. End loop 6

photon pair 90°/0°
12. deltaB := beta
13. For i= 0,n,1
14. Lambda := i/n
15. Call Hit(ResultB,deltaB,lambda,countB,-1)
16. If ResultB=1 then
17. Call Hit(ResultA,deltaA,lambda,countA,-1)
18. End Loop 13

19. Conditional Probability P = CountA / CountB


Program for Spin1/2:
20. Theory
• Boundary conditions:
particle pairs with spin 0 ° / 180 ° and 180 ° / 0 ° in equal shares.
• Particles A and B of a pair have the same property Lambda
• Set SGA (Stern Gerlach A) to alpha and SGB to beta
• (alpha and beta between 0 and 180°)
• SGA selects A-particles with p-state alpha
• This selection means a selection of the associated B-particles in p-state alpha+pi
• SGB selects B-particles with p-state and spin beta.

21. CountA := CountB := 0
22. n:=1000
23. deltaA := beta/2 – alpha/2 -pi/2

particle pair spin 0°/180°
24. deltaB := beta/2 - pi/2
25. For i= 0,n,1
26. Lambda := i/n
27. Call Hit(ResultB,deltaB,lambda,countB,1)
28. If ResultB=1 then
29. Call Hit(ResultA,deltaA,lambda,countA,1)
30. End loop 25

particle pair spin 180°/0°
31. deltaB := beta/2
32. For i= 0,n,1
33. Lambda := i/n
34. Call Hit(ResultB,deltaB,lambda,countB,-1)
35. If ResultB=1 then
36. Call Hit(ResultA,deltaA,lambda,countA,-1)
37. End Loop 32

38. Conditional Probability P = CountA / CountB





a. Subroutine: Hit(Result,delta,lambda,count,ind)
b. Result=-1
c. If delta <0 then delta = delta+pi
d. If ind=1 then
e. If 0<delta<pi/2 or pi<delta<3/2pi then
f. If lambda <cos2 (delta) Then set Result := 1 and count := count + 1
g. Exit
h. Else
i. If lambda >sin2 (delta) Then set Result := 1 and count := count + 1
j. Exit

k. If ind= -1 then
l. If 0<delta<pi/2 or pi<delta<3/2pi then
m. If lambda > cos2 (delta) Then set Result := 1 and count := count + 1
n. Exit
o. Else
p. If lambda <sin2 (delta) Then set Result := 1 and count := count + 1
q. Exit
r. end