Another classical system that violates CHSH-Bell

[FrediFizzx]

Crowd-sourcing for Dr Christian's proposed experiment appears to be going nowhere. On the basis of that observation let us assume that the experiment is never going to be conducted absent some dramatic and undeniable failure of the "Bell Mafia" world-view. So what form might that failure take?

I think you mean crowd-funding. I don't think any kind of campaign has been started... yet. Apparently you haven't read about the two recent classical experiments that show strong correlations. The "failure" is coming... and a proper mechanical experiment will eventually be done.

[menoma]

Crowd sourcing and crowd funding are synonymous: http://tinyurl.com/ohes8vg

The experiments you cite simply suggest that Bell was violated (and, don't forget: also that the presence of entanglement was demonstrated) in certain systems defined as classical. There is nothing new here. The environments are actually at most mesoscopic. (Google: "entanglement in nanostructures" and be amazed.) The most important point: none of this shakes the foundations of Bellism in the minds of almost everyone who doesn't already believe in Anti-Bellism, and perhaps not even in the minds of many of those people, and there is no reason to assume it will. You say that the dramatic turning-point is coming. But can you suggest a single concrete form the necessary paradigm shift might take other than by the means of Dr. Christian's experiment -- which experiment, however, may well never come to pass unless preceded by a major concrete failure of Bell Establishment doctrine? And if you cannot suggest a form the trauma might take, how can you be so certain it will occur?

Also in my opinion it's rather arrogant to impute motivation to scientists whom you don't know and whose inner thoughts you have no means of accessing. By suggesting that they don't believe what they say, or that they fail to express their honest convictions out of fear of the Bell Mafia, you are accusing them of dishonesty and cowardice. Is that fair?

[FrediFizzx]

The experiments you cite simply suggest that Bell was violated (and, don't forget: also that the presence of entanglement was demonstrated) in certain systems defined as classical. There is nothing new here. The environments are actually at most mesoscopic. (Google: "entanglement in nanostructures" and be amazed.) The most important point: none of this shakes the foundations of Bellism in the minds of almost everyone who doesn't already believe in Anti-Bellism, and perhaps not even in the minds of many of those people, and there is no reason to assume it will. You say that the dramatic turning-point is coming. But can you suggest a single concrete form the necessary paradigm shift might take other than by the means of Dr. Christian's experiment -- which experiment, however, may well never come to pass unless preceded by a major concrete failure of Bell Establishment doctrine? And if you cannot suggest a form the trauma might take, how can you be so certain it will occur?

Also in my opinion it's rather arrogant to impute motivation to scientists whom you don't know and whose inner thoughts you have no means of accessing. By suggesting that they don't believe what they say, or that they fail to express their honest convictions out of fear of the Bell Mafia, you are accusing them of dishonesty and cowardice. Is that fair?

Here we go... more Bell propaganda above. Of course you are going to say it is nothing new since the experiments undermine your Bell position. But the experiments are something new as it was conjecture before them. This will lead to more and more proper classical experiments that will test Bell (which has never really been properly tested in the classical domain). The term "entanglement" is just an illusion used whenever strong correlations are present in systems with a common source.

I am more accusing "them" as being somewhat brain-dead or at least severely brainwashed. Non-local physical action at a distance is total rubbish and absurd. They should know better.

[menoma]

Noted.

[harry]

[..] why the heck would you need a simulation if you have real experiments that show that Bell was wrong?

Once more, experiments cannot show Bell right or wrong - his theorem (the physical one) is a claim about theories.
However, those experiments show that the predictions are not messed up - and the prededictions are claimed to be "classical".
Normally this implies that they were done by means of "local realistic" models.

Your logic here escapes me. I must be missing something. ???

I similarly can't follow your logic here... You do know that Bell's thereom concerns theories, right?!
Note that your emphasis on experiments instead of theory put menoma here on the wrong track.

However, and happily, on the topic of this thread we agree, as discussed earlier: at face value the existence of a valid theory that is claimed to be both "classical" and breaking Bell's inequality disproves Bell's theorem. It's a riddle to me why it didn't impact like a bomb shell!

And it's surprisingly silent here from the side of Bell theorem supporters... maybe the impact will come, just with a delay.
Time may be needed for it to sink in.

[Gordon Watson]

[..] why the heck would you need a simulation if you have real experiments that show that Bell was wrong?

Once more, experiments cannot show Bell right or wrong - his theorem (the physical one) is a claim about theories.
However, those experiments show that the predictions are not messed up - and the prededictions are claimed to be "classical".
Normally this implies that they were done by means of "local realistic" models.

Your logic here escapes me. I must be missing something. ???

I similarly can't follow your logic here... You do know that Bell's thereom concerns theories, right?!
Note that your emphasis on experiments instead of theory put menoma here on the wrong track.

However, and happily, on the topic of this thread we agree, as discussed earlier: at face value the existence of a valid theory that is claimed to be both "classical" and breaking Bell's inequality disproves Bell's theorem. It's a riddle to me why it didn't impact like a bomb shell!

And it's surprisingly silent here from the side of Bell theorem supporters... maybe the impact will come, just with a delay.
Time may be needed for it to sink in.

Harry,

Your interesting comments are still very confusing (to me, at least). Please take your time and explain yourself more clearly.

Are you signalling some sort of breakthrough in your own thinking?

That is, given your reference to "impact like a bombshell": Have you now so clearly seen the light that you are now firmly against Bell's theorem?

Regards; Gordon

[harry]

Harry,

Your interesting comments are still very confusing (to me, at least). Please take your time and explain yourself more clearly.
Are you signalling some sort of breakthrough in your own thinking?
That is, given your reference to "impact like a bombshell": Have you now so clearly seen the light that you are now firmly against Bell's theorem?

Regards; Gordon

Dear Gordon,

Throughout this thread I commented on an amazing development in the literature which Fred brought to our attention here (thanks Fred!). Currently I have nothing to add but a summary of my comments may be helpful:

The second paper was actually published in Phys. Rev. A.
[..] I agree [..] that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done??
[..]
It would be a breakthrough if someone could provide a simulation program that disproves Bell's theorem according to an independent jury such as the one Gill and Christian already provided; and that should be not too difficult (although still hard work) if these papers say what we think that they are saying.
[..]
as discussed earlier: at face value the existence of a valid theory that is claimed to be both "classical" and breaking Bell's inequality disproves Bell's theorem. It's a riddle to me why it didn't impact like a bomb shell!

On a side note, I strongly recommend a study of the papers by Jaynes and Bell to which I provided links at the top of p.4 of this thread.

[harry]

Reiterating:

[..] I agree [..] that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done?? [..]

Understanding the trick of Chowdhury et al http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981 could enable writing a computer program which would serve as test and if successful, as demonstrator. It's perhaps not necessary to understand all the theory, but just the essence of the last part: how they get from 50% correlation towards 100%.

Fred did you understand that; and if you did, can you explain it?
Or someone else?

[FrediFizzx]

Reiterating:

[..] I agree [..] that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done?? [..]

Understanding the trick of Chowdhury et al http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981 could enable writing a computer program which would serve as test and if successful, as demonstrator. It's perhaps not necessary to understand all the theory, but just the essence of the last part: how they get from 50% correlation towards 100%.

Fred did you understand that; and if you did, can you explain it?
Or someone else?

It is no trick; it is just due to the way Nature is. The best explanation I have seen to date is Joy Christian's classical local realistic model based on parallelized 3-sphere topology / geometry. Computer simulations have already been done which you can find at the link.

Why do you think it might be some sort of "trick"? Joy's S^3 model actually predicts the author's results in these two experiments as well as his model predicts the results of the quantum experiments.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
"Violation of Bell's inequality for phase singular beams"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3338
"Violation of Bell's Inequalities with Classical Shimony-Wolf States: Theory and Experiment"

[harry]

Reiterating:

[..] I agree [..] that their physics looks pretty "local realistic", with classical systems evolving over time, although in a very complex way (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done?? [..]

Understanding the trick of Chowdhury et al http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2981 could enable writing a computer program which would serve as test and if successful, as demonstrator. It's perhaps not necessary to understand all the theory, but just the essence of the last part: how they get from 50% correlation towards 100%.

Fred did you understand that; and if you did, can you explain it?
Or someone else?

It is no trick; it is just due to the way Nature is. [..]
Why do you think it might be some sort of "trick"? Joy's S^3 model actually predicts the author's results in these two experiments as well as his model predicts the results of the quantum experiments.
[..]

Sure it's the way nature is, and the way we are looking at it. From the moment that Bell introduced his theorem it has become a magician's trick of scientists on themselves, with the help of nature. I cannot follow Christian, and as here you introduced Chowdhury et al, who managed to publish their work which suggests to me that reviewers could follow it, I want to know how they did it. And to keep it as simple as possible, I only want to know how they achieved that last part.

[FrediFizzx]

What? I guess you don't follow their explanations in the paper? Well, let's go through the paper. Where in their published paper do you first get lost?

[FrediFizzx]

I cannot follow Christian, ...

For that matter, we probably should make another attempt for you to have a better understanding of Joy's model so as to better or more easily connect it to these recent experiments. We should use this paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1653
"Whither All the Scope and Generality of Bell's Theorem?"

We can now probably provide some better understanding after all the work on the simulations, etc. So where in that paper is the first part that you don't understand? Or just don't agree with?

[harry]

What? I guess you don't follow their explanations in the paper? Well, let's go through the paper. Where in their published paper do you first get lost?

Right from the start:

[..] I'm very busy and not familiar with much of what the authors discuss. But as long as nobody manages to actually translate their math in a working local realistic computer program, I'm not convinced either way - and no doubt it's the same for most people!

Therefore, instead:

Reiterating:

[..] (a bit like Sanctuary but even more complex) - is there something that we are overlooking?!
And if not, then how is the trick done?? [..]

[...] It's perhaps not necessary to understand all the theory, but just the essence of the last part: how they get from 50% correlation towards 100%.

Fred did you understand that; and if you did, can you explain it?

[FrediFizzx]

What? I guess you don't follow their explanations in the paper? Well, let's go through the paper. Where in their published paper do you first get lost?

Right from the start:

[..] I'm very busy and not familiar with much of what the authors discuss. But as long as nobody manages to actually translate their math in a working local realistic computer program, I'm not convinced either way - and no doubt it's the same for most people!

Well, if you don't understand any of that paper, I don't think I will be able to do anything here to help you have a better understanding. Sorry, I guess I was suffering from a wrong impression that you at least had some basic understanding of that paper.

[gill1109]

What? I guess you don't follow their explanations in the paper? Well, let's go through the paper. Where in their published paper do you first get lost?

Right from the start:

[..] I'm very busy and not familiar with much of what the authors discuss. But as long as nobody manages to actually translate their math in a working local realistic computer program, I'm not convinced either way - and no doubt it's the same for most people!

Well, if you don't understand any of that paper, I don't think I will be able to do anything here to help you have a better understanding. Sorry, I guess I was suffering from a wrong impression that you at least had some basic understanding of that paper.

Since Fred does understand the Chowdhury et al paper, and believes that it disproves Bell, then he can translate their mathematical-physical model into a suite of computer programmes which wins my challenge to Accardi http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137.

I'm willing to bet 5000 Euro it can't be done: will you take on this bet, Fred? We should fix a time-frame, for instance, one year. In other words I win 5000 Euro from you not only if you write a computer programme but it does not succeed, but also if you fail to deliver anything.

Please look at the middle of page 13, middle of section 7, of http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0110137v4.pdf:

We can now specify precisely a protocol for the computer experiment, which must settle the bet between Accardi and the author. In order that the supermartingale structure is present, it suffices that the settings and the outcomes are generated sequentially: Gill provides settings for trial 1, then Accardi provides outcomes for trial 1, then Gill provides settings for trial 2, Accardi outcomes for trial 2, and so on. Between subsequent trials, computers X, O and Y may communicate with one another in any way they like. Within each trial, the communications are one way only, from O to X and from O to Y; and from A to X and from B to Y. A very rough calculation from (13) shows that if both accept error probabilities of one in a million, Accardi and Gill could agree to a sample size of sixty five thousand, and a critical value +n/32, half way between the Bell expectation bound 0 and the Aspect experiment expectation +n/16 [this is based on the setting angles of Bell (1964)]. I am supposing here that Accardi plans not just to violate the Bell inequality, but to simulate the Aspect experiment with the filter settings as specified by me. I am also supposing that he is happy to rely on Bernstein’s inequality, in the opposite direction. Only twenty five thousand trials are needed when Accardi
aims for the greatest violation allowed under quantum mechanics [ie use the setting angles of CHSH], namely an expectation value of approximately +n/10 and critical value +n/20.

Here, "O" stands for the source, and "X" and "Y" stand for the two measurement stations. "A" and "B" stand for the sources of the measurement settings. Luigi Accardi / Fred Diether control the computers O, X and Y; I control A and B. The protocol is: the source O sends information to both measurement stations X and Y. I provide a setting (more precisely: my computers A and B do this) for each measurement station. The two measurement stations generate outcomes. This is repeated n times. The bet is decided by a CHSH-like quantity, just like in my bets with Christian: LHV says, when n (N) has gone to infinity, "S <= 2", QM says "S = 2 sqrt 2" or approximately 2.8, so we decide the bet for finite n by comparing the observed S to the half-way mark, 2.4. Bigger than 2.4, Luigi/Fred has won; smaller than 2.4, I have won. The sample size n = 25 000 is chosen so that each of us runs a risk of less than one in a million of losing the bet even though we are actually in the right! Of course, we can't both be right ...

You can read my paper to see exactly what variant of the famous CHSH "S" I am using. My critical quantity is essentially equal to n times (S - 2)/4 where S is the usual CHSH S. I say "essentially", because in the definitions of the four correlations I replaced the four numerators, the numbers of trials with each pair of settings, by their expectation values N/4 (settings are chosen independently and completely at random, as usual). This makes the statistical analysis a whole lot more simple and will not make any noticeable difference to the experimental results when N is as large as I propose taking it (25 000).

Luigi dropped out of the bet after he realized that he was not allowed to make use of the detection loophole.

If this experiment would be succesful then this same network of classical computers would be an evidently classical physical system which violates Bell inequalities without any superluminal communication, and without any loophole tricks. The first person who writes those computer programs not only wins 5000 Euro from me, *and* my public apologies to Joy Christian, Bryan Sanctuary, Han Geurdes, Luigi Accardi, and Karl Hess, but they *also* become world famous and win the Nobel prize and revolutionize physics ... and the Bell maffia cannot stop them, because they only have to post their programs on internet and spread the word through internet forums like this one!

Why didn't somebody do it already? They've been trying hard for 50 years and still no success ...

[FrediFizzx]

Richard, what did I tell you about posting about your bogus and rigged challenges here? You are stuck in flatland and can't understand more advanced physics apparently.

[gill1109]

Richard, what did I tell you about posting about your bogus and rigged challenges here? You are stuck in flatland and can't understand more advanced physics apparently.

I did not create these challenges. John Bell did. And the experimental quantum physics community rose to those challenges, manfully. It has taken more than 50 years but slowly they seem to be getting there. Possibly, next year will see a definitive breakthrough.

But right now, many different metaphysical options still remain open.

I understand logic. I am a mathematician. I am not a physicist. Fred, you are a physicist. We could make a great team, us two together.

But clearly, your answer tells us that you can't derive a winner to my computer challenge, from those Indian gentlemen's paper. That tells me quite enough. Bell's theorem is still alive and well; and you don't understand the Indians' work well enough to do anything constructive with it.

"Bogus" and "rigged" are not words in the vocabulary of a scientist. They are value judgements. You don't like what I say. Instead of *proving* I am wrong, you start throwing mud about. That strategy is not wise. It painfully exhibits the poverty of your *arguments*. (Well: your arguments are non-existent, so all you have recourse to is mud-throwing).

[FrediFizzx]

Posting overly repetitious content that has already been thoroughly discussed previously on the forum in your replies is spamming the forum and does not necessarily make your position any more true. Come up with something new or don't post. Oh, but you might have to learn some more physics.

[gill1109]

Posting overly repetitious content that has already been thoroughly discussed previously on the forum in your replies is spamming the forum and does not necessarily make your position any more true. Come up with something new or don't post. Oh, but you might have to learn some more physics.

I responded to personal taunts: "... bogus and rigged challenges ... You are stuck in flatland and can't understand more advanced physics". My apologies for doing this. I should have turned the other cheek.

Yes, we all might need to learn some more physics, some more mathematics, and some more politeness and tolerance.

Now, about this classical system that "violates CHSH-Bell":

(1) it doesn't violate CHSH-Bell but some proposal of a generalization thereof to continuous variables. I do not know it well and have not seen it much used. We need to find out whether it really does correspond to a Bell-type theorem for continuous variables. The physics is hard. I am not familiar with this kind of quantum optics. Maybe someone here can explain to us the basic ideas which these authors are using.

As I wrote earlier, the direct generalization of CHSH to continuous variables turns out to be identical to the corresponding no-signalling bound. Hence also to the corresponding Tsirelson bound. I know this because I did that research myself. Hence I am not so sure that there really is a "continuous variables generalized Bell-CHSH type inequality" here.

(2) as far as I can see there are no Alice and Bob in widely separated locations doing the two measurements in this paper. Hence there is no testing of locality. I am also not sure of the possibility of Alice and Bob making their measurement choices rapidly, randomly, independently.

In other words, there is no "continuous variables generalized Bell-CHSH type experiment" here.

About "bogus and rigged challenges": is this your way of saying, Fred, that you agree that it is indeed impossible to statistically significantly / systematically violate the Bell-CHSH inequality in a computer network simulation of a local hidden variables model in the context of a rigorous loophole free Bell-type experiment? In other words, you agree with Bell's proof of his theorem and my proof of my theorem? (Some simple pure maths, right?, both of them). What you don't agree with, is the conventionally assumed metaphysical implication? In that case we two are much closer to agreement than you may have realized.

This would be an important step. We can agree on some basic (elementary) mathematics. We might like to disagree on the relevance of this for physics. That would become a very interesting discussion (between a mathematician and a physicist).

[Mikko]

I responded to personal taunts: "... bogus and rigged challenges ... You are stuck in flatland and can't understand more advanced physics". My apologies for doing this. I should have turned the other cheek.

Remember: The King can do no wrong, no matter how hard he may try.