Curiosity wrote:gill1109 wrote:Even experimenters who do a GHZ experiment have to use probability and statistics, since one does not observe perfect correlations in the lab. Theory may say that some probability is zero, but at best, with experiment, you can only show that it seems to be very small. You'll never engineer that state, and those measurements, perfectly. "Behind" the GHZ argument "without probability" there is actually a generalized Bell inequality, which is tested in a GHZ experiment.
That was exactly the reason we moved from Bell's 1964 three correlation inequality to the 1969 CHSH four correlation inequality. Bell's 1964 argument needed an assumption of perfect anti-correlation in certain circumstances. When you experimentally test that, you will find the anti-correlation is not perfect.
Physicists, statisticians and probabilists have to work together and speak one another's languages
My point is that the purely theoretical argument of GHZ does not need statistics or probability. This is an important point because GHZ theoretical argument is so simple that an error should be easily and unambiguously detected if there is one.
Experiments are complicated and are a different issue.
Joy Christian claims to have disproved the Bell theorem. I believe that besides having disproved the theorem it is also important to point out where it went wrong. He also has done that. I am not saying that I agree with his proofs/disproofs. I am only pointing out that it is important to explain where it went wrong.
In the GHZ case, he also claims that his model reproduces the quantum predictions. In my opinion, it will be good for his claim to be taken seriously, that he explains, as he did for the Bell's theorem case, where the GHZ reasoning went wrong. If he could explain that, it would motivate people to analyze his proof.
I am just trying to make an objective and unbiased point. I don't want to be a rodent.
You are making a very good point, Curiosity.
Regarding Joy Christian’s arguments, indeed he claims to have a counter example to Bell’s theorem; and he claims to have explained where Bell’s argument goes wrong. I have published analyses and refutations of both claims. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504 and https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/1/61. He not only claims to have disproved Bell’s theorem, he also claims to have disproved a famous theorem from algebra called the Hurwitz theorem. He has never shown us where the established proofs of the Hurwitz theorem go wrong. In my opinion, he is not very reliable in matters of mathematics and logic. His physics insight may be strong, and his originality and perseverance is in no doubt.
