Joy Christian wrote:.
None of the above.
.
Joy Christian wrote:.
But the additivity of expectation values is an invalid assumption for any hidden variable theory, regardless of its specific characteristics such as locality or realism.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine LOL! All of what you wrote was shot down in 2007 by Joy. Maybe it is time for you to get more up to date!![]()
![]()
![]()
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine LOL! All of what you wrote was shot down in 2007 by Joy. Maybe it is time for you to get more up to date!![]()
![]()
![]()
Would you kindly inform us which of the above points he shot down? All of them, even the ones involving only trivial logic? He shot down logic?
Joy Christian wrote:.
None of the above. No proof of Bell's argument (which is not a "theorem") exists without the assumption of the additivity of expectation values. But the additivity of expectation values is an invalid assumption for any hidden variable theory, regardless of its specific characteristics such as locality or realism. Therefore Bell's argument is not valid for any hidden variable theory.
I have no time to discuss this any further. The full details of my argument can be found in my paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf.
A one-page summary of my argument can also be found in Section II of my paper published in IEEE Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9418997.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine LOL! All of what you wrote was shot down in 2007 by Joy. Maybe it is time for you to get more up to date!![]()
![]()
![]()
Would you kindly inform us which of the above points he shot down? All of them, even the ones involving only trivial logic? He shot down logic?
There is a flaw in your argument. Up to you to find it.We are way way past this nonsense so not interested in it very much.
![]()
.
FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine It is all irrelevant since Joy shot it down in 2007. There is a flaw in your argument. It is up to you to find it. Time to get more up to date.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@Heine It is all irrelevant since Joy shot it down in 2007. There is a flaw in your argument. It is up to you to find it. Time to get more up to date.
Joy's 2007 paper, original version, had measurement outcomes not taking the values +/-1. It was immediately shot down by lots of people. Later he attempted to fix that. In some later attempts he reproduced the Bertlmann's socks phenomenon: the hidden variable lambda only took the values +/-1, it was a fair coin toss, and A(a, lambda) = -B(a, lambda) = lambda for all a and each lambda. The model predicted perfect anticorrelation whatever the settings. Bell's good friend Reinhold Bertlmann wore one pink sock and one blue sock on each foot, putting them on in the morning at random. This was back in the 60's, it was Reinhold's youthful protest against conventional authority.
We now have a new try, with your help Fred, including a computer program which does not implement Joy's analytical formulas, while Joy's formulas certainly do not reproduce the singlet correlations. I asked a simple question about your code: do the k'th pair of outcomes only depend on the k'th pair of settings and the k'th realisation of the hidden variable? Yes or no?
Yes, it is indeed all irrelevant, but it is fun. And pedagogically important to understand why many people find it hard to accept Bell's simple logic and simple maths.
FrediFizzx wrote:@Justo Done that! It's shot down so not interesting at all.
.
Justo wrote:@Heinera, the urn model is interesting. As far as I know the first one to come up with the idea was no other than the novel Laureate Eugene Wigner.
It would be interesting to produce a simple model of it in an excel spreadsheet so that everyone can see it and shoot down(or not) Bell's theorem for everyone to see.
Ii is not necessary for the simulation to reproduce QM predictions. It just has to violate the bound two (modulo finite statistics).
Joy Christian wrote:Justo, the urn model is not interesting. It does not represent how the Bell-test experiments are performed. If it did, then there would be no point in performing the expensive experiments. It is extraordinary that you think anything can violate the bound of 2 on CHSH. Nothing can. And that fact makes Bell's argument ridiculously silly. Wigner, by the way, was the Ph.D. mentor of my Ph.D. mentor Shimony. But in my opinion, both of them were wrong in believing in the validity of Bell's argument.
.
Justo wrote:
Obviously, data from experiments violate it.
Joy Christian wrote:Justo wrote:
Obviously, data from experiments violate it.
Demonstrate, event by event, using only the experimental data, how experiments violate the bound of 2 on the CHSH inequality. Do this, because all the rest of what you say is nonsense.
.
Justo wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Justo wrote:
Obviously, data from experiments violate it.
Demonstrate, event by event, using only the experimental data, how experiments violate the bound of 2 on the CHSH inequality. Do this, because all the rest of what you say is nonsense.
.
Well, I don't have the data. I am not an experimentalist. I trust experts in the field. I can't say more than that. Besides, calling nonsense other's people arguments is not a very convincing argument itself. I suspect that you don't have a good counterargument.
Joy Christian wrote:Justo wrote:
Obviously, data from experiments violate it.
Demonstrate, event by event, using only the experimental data, how experiments violate the bound of 2 on the CHSH inequality. Do this, because all the rest of what you say is nonsense.
.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 172 guests