gill1109 wrote:One can duplicate theses lines as often as one likes and add some lines with "non-coincidence" particle pairs, so as to get any gamma you like.
minkwe wrote:Heinera,
Both you and Richard claim QM/non-locality/non-realism/statistical error can violate the above theorem but LHV can not. The challenge quite simply is to produce the non-local/non-real/statistical dataset which demonstrates the violation. Richard claims to have written the simulation, we will see if it holds up. We will calculate delta from his dataset, and obtain the appropriate upper bound using his theorem. Hopefully for Richard, his claim will hold up because all his papers and claims are at stake.
Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:Heinera,
Both you and Richard claim QM/non-locality/non-realism/statistical error can violate the above theorem but LHV can not. The challenge quite simply is to produce the non-local/non-real/statistical dataset which demonstrates the violation. Richard claims to have written the simulation, we will see if it holds up. We will calculate delta from his dataset, and obtain the appropriate upper bound using his theorem. Hopefully for Richard, his claim will hold up because all his papers and claims are at stake.
Ok, so let us try this again: I can produce a non-local hidden variable model that beats the CHSH inequality by a safe margin; in fact it gives the same value for the inequality as QM does. It uses no data rejection, no loopholes.
And furthermore, all the four correlations can be computed on the same set of hidden variables. No disjoint sets.
Would that be of interest?
gill1109 wrote:The R script http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 creates two sets of directions of angular momentum. They are called e_0 and e_90. According to the comments, *both* are "Alice's directions", and in both cases, Bob's directions are the opposite directions to Alice's. However, the challenge requires *one* set of directions for Alice and *one* set of directions for Bob. So in its present state this does not constitute a legal submission.
PS it is not for me to suggest how to fix JJC's program, but maybe he means that the two sets of Alice's directions e_0 and e_90 in http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 should be glued together to form one big set? If so we are ready for the next step
Joy Christian wrote:My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.
The submission is not legitimate. Read the text of the challenge. It was composed and agreed jointly by JJC and RDG. I can't submit anything to adjudicators if there is nothing to adjudicate.
Wonderful that the model is perfect. Fix the submission then.
Richard Gill wrote:The challenge is to create two computer files named, for instance, "AliceDirections.txt" and "BobDirections.txt". They should be posted on internet. It is a matter of complete indifference to me how they are created.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:My model is perfect. There is nothing to be fixed. I have made a legitimate submission and won your challenge. That's right. I declare myself a winner.
The submission is not legitimate. Read the text of the challenge. It was composed and agreed jointly by JJC and RDG. I can't submit anything to adjudicators if there is nothing to adjudicate.
Wonderful that the model is perfect. Fix the submission then.
You are simply cheating.
I have read the text of your challenge. As I explained above, my submission abides the rules of your challenge fully. There is nothing illegal about my submission.
e_00 <- rbind(x, y) ## 2 x N matrix; N columns of e_00 represent the x
## and y coordinates of points on an approximate circle: Alice's observed
## directions of angular momentum. Bob's observed directions are -e_00.
e_90 <- rbind(y, x) ## 2 x N matrix; N columns of e_90 represent the x
## and y coordinates of points on an approximate circle: Alice's observed
## directions of angular momentum. Bob's observed directions are -e_90.
gill1109 wrote:Submit two files as per the text of the challenge (one for Alice one for Bob) and we will call in the adjudicators. You R script talks about four files.
Just tell me which two are the submission.
# e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0 ;
# e = rbind(y,x) if x < 0 & y > 0 ;
# e = rbind(x,y) if x < 0 & y < 0 ;
# e = rbind(y,x) if x > 0 & y < 0 .
gill1109 wrote:Do you mean that e_00 and e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Alice?
And -e_00 and -e_90 are, together, one set of angular momenta for Bob?
Joy Christian wrote:If I wear a green shirt today instead of the red shirt I wore yesterday, would I become a different person? e_0 and e_90 vectors are one and the same N vectors, one and the same e, sometimes wearing a green shirt and sometimes wearing a red shirt...
To explain to people who actually have some understanding of physics and of my model based on rotations, when we rotate the measurement axes a and b by a relative angle of 90 degrees, that rotation is also relative to the e vectors, or the angular momentum vectors. They too are thus rotated by 90 degrees, relative to the two axes. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is elementary physics. Since they are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to the two measurement axes, they "look" rotated by 90 degrees to the two measurement axes. Since in my proposed experiment we are supposed to calculate the components of the e vectors with respect to the two axes, we take the components of the e vectors wearing a green shirt (read 0 degrees rotation), namely e_0, and the components of the e vectors wearing a red shirt (read 90 degrees rotation), namely e_90, to calculate the respective correlations. One and the same vectors, wearing different shirts. What is so difficult about that? Thus to call my submission "not a legal submission" is simply cheating (or perhaps not understanding the basic, elementary physics of relative rotations)...
For the programmers, the angular momentum vectors e are defined in my submission as e = rbind(x,y), where x and y are their x and y components. Thus e = rbind(x,y) and e = rbind(y,x) define one and the same vectors e, but rotated by 90 degrees.
# e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0 ;
# e = rbind(y,x) if x < 0 & y > 0 ;
# e = rbind(x,y) if x < 0 & y < 0 ;
# e = rbind(y,x) if x > 0 & y < 0 .
Joy Christian wrote:See also the following comments in the preamble of http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531:
- Code: Select all
# e = rbind(x,y) if x > 0 & y > 0 ;
# e = rbind(y,x) if x < 0 & y > 0 ;
# e = rbind(x,y) if x < 0 & y < 0 ;
# e = rbind(y,x) if x > 0 & y < 0 .
minkwe wrote:1 - If you measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on a different particle pair, the A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.
2 - If you measure the same particle at a (A,B), and exactly the same particle again at (A,B'), then A in (A,B) can be different from the A in (A,B') without any mistake or cheating.
3 - The only way to measure (A,B), (A',B), (A,B'), (A,B') on the same particle, and make sure the A in (A,B) and the A in (A,B') are the same (and each outcome is the same in each pair), is to measure the same particle pair, simultaneously at (A, A', B, B'), an impossibility. Therefore a genuine experiment testing S <= 2 is impossible.
4 - If the probability of obtaining H for a coin is 0.75, the probability of the counter-factual H outcome for the same coin cannot be 0.75 too. It must be 0.25.
5 - No 4xN spreadsheet can violate the S <= 2. It doesn't matter where you get your data to put in the spreadsheet, from LHV/QM/non-local model/non-real model/statistical error etc.
6 - The correct inequality for 4 different 2XN spreadsheets is S<= 4, it doesn't matter where you get your data to put in the spreadsheet, from LHV/QM/non-local model/non-real model/statistical error etc. 4 *different* 2xN spreadsheets can easily violate S <= 2, because that inequality does not apply to such data. It is a mathematical error to even compare them.
7 - It is utter nonsense to compare an inequality derived from a 4xN spreadsheet, with data in the form of 4 different 2xN spreadsheets, even if your 4 *different* 2xN spreadsheets are randomly sampled from a single 4xN spreadsheet. What determines the upper bound is the degrees of freedom in the data, not the degrees of freedom in the original spreadsheet you randomly sampled from.
8 - These inequalities have nothing to do with physics, they are mathematical tautologies about real numbers and degrees of freedom. Please read the Rosinger paper carefully. Their violation points to a mathematical error in their application. Nothing can violate them.
9 - No EPRB experiment will ever be done which produces a 4xN spreadsheet, as it must if it purports to *test* the S <= 2 relationship. As long as they keep producing 4 *different* 2XN spreadsheets, the appropriate inequality is S <= 4, and it will never be violated.
Joy Christian wrote:I am reproducing here what Michel Fodje wrote elsewhere, because (1) his observations are relevant for all realizable physical experiments, and (2) they beautifully spell out elementary facts of logic, arithmetic, and physics that the vast majority of the Bell-believers among us seem to be incapable of understanding
gill1109 wrote:Interesting that you should do that, because these arguments prove the challenge which you agreed to try to win is actually unwinnable, and that your experiment can never succeed.
gill1109 wrote:Please study "Speakable and Unspeakable" chapters 13 and 16. Required reading for all Bell-deniers in spe.
Joy Christian wrote:You would, in fact, benefit from reading Bell's last and most insightful paper, which was written just months before he died, and it is not included in the first edition of his book.
gill1109 wrote:You seem not to realise, JJC, that among the supervisors of my supervisors of my supervisors were ... de Vries, Korteweg, van der Waals ... Leibniz, Calvin. That is quite a lot of accumulated wisdom which I inherited. I went to the same college as Sir R. A. Fisher and John Venn. Was taught by Stephen Hawking, among other physicists. By John H Conway, among other mathematicians. By the last living collaborators and direct followers of R A Fisher (A.W. Edwards). By Sir David Kendal and Sir Peter Whittle. Incidentally, my mother was one of Alan Turing's computers at one of the "out-stations" of Bletchley Park. My father was an experimental physicist.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests