Thoughts about Bell, Bohm, Christian, et al.

[Schmelzer]

Yes! I propose a variant which matches more closely to the physical situation than the one Bell chose, and despite your claims that it is "no problem at all", I show that it does not work as Bell and you think it does. That you finally admit it does not work is a big acheivement.

Sorry, nobody thinks your nonsensical variants "work". There is no achievement necessary to understand this. Garbage in, garbage out. Instead, Bell's theorem works, nicely.

You don't get the simple point that as the time I can take any before the actual choices are made and observations done. This gives functions and a probability distribution .

I get the point that the derivation only works if time is fixed so that all the terms correspond to exactly the same time. But you don't get the point that this is what your argument implies.

It doesn't imply such nonsense. Ok, I rewrite the formula indicating the times where the different things may happen:



All these times may be different.

You don't get the point that I already told you you could make the derivation work with fixed time.

Fine, that means you acknowledge that Bell's theorem works Seems, you don't get the point that what matters here is a moment where the results of the possible measurements are predefined, and not the times when decisions are made what to measure or the actual measurements are done. This is what it means that the results of the measurements - of all possible ones - are predetermined.

[minkwe]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&p=4467#p4467

[FrediFizzx]

Another thing really amazing is that QM can't even beat Bell's inequality and the Bell fanatics refuse to see that when everything is equal. It is pure math; nothing physical can violate it.

[Schmelzer]

I encourage you to study both epr-simple, and epr-clocked before you make nonsensical claims about them.

You think your " epr-clocked" is so important that I will search for link to it? If you provide links, I usually take a short look at them to see if the same old errors are yet present, but, sorry, only if this is one click away.

The predictions of QM have been verified experimentally for years now, yet it has been more than 50 years since Bell's derivation, and yet nobody has found a way to do a so-called "loophole-free" experiment.

Of course, such a thing is very difficult. A test of one theory is easy, a loophole-free falsification of a whole large class of theories is something of a much higher standard, no wonder that it takes time.

I have just proved to you that there is no such thing as a "loophole-free" test of Bell's theorem, because the derivation itself makes it impossible due to it's nonsensical assumptions. There is a double standard, whether you like to admit it or not.

1) Bell's inequality cannot be derived if 0 outcomes are allowed.
2) Bell's inequality cannot be derived unless counterfactual outcomes are allowed.
3) Bell's inequality cannot be derived unless all outcomes are measured at the same time.
4) Therefore, Bell's inequalities do not apply to averages from experiments/simulations in which 0 outcomes are present.
5) Therefore, Bell's inequalities do not apply to averages from experiments/simulations in which counterfactual outcomes are not absent
6) Therefore, Bell's inequalities do not apply to averages from experiments/simulations in which are measured at different times

You want to argue (1 & 4) while at the same time refusing to see that (2 & 5) and (3 & 6) follow from the same logic.

No double standard at all. Allowing 0 as an additional outcome, as well as allowing pink unicorns as an additional outcome, is simply about another experiment. You may prove other theorems about these other experiments - essentially this has been done, the tests used in real experiment are different ones, CHSH and so on. But with 0 as an outcome simply formula (1) does not hold, thus, it is invalid as a counterexample.

(2) is simply wrong, because what is necessary to prove the result is predetermination, and it is derived using the EPR argument, and the outcomes are, of course, not counterfactual. (3) is false for the same reason - once the measurement results have to be predetermined (as follows from the EPR argument) it does not matter at which time they are measured. Thus, the "analogy" exists only if one ignores the known important differences.

It is probably time to go back and read Schulz's response to your comment on his paper.

LOL. Bell-refuters of the world, unite!

[Schmelzer]

BTW, anyone who is clueless enough to think time is no problem at all, should try to derive Bell's inequality (following Bell's derivation from page 406) starting from:

A simple exercise.

First, we observe that if at time we measure B in direction a, this cannot influence the measurements at A, but predefines their value as A=-B_a. This holds independent of the moment when the decision is made which direction to measure, and of the moment then the result is measured. Thus,

Similarly for B. Then, we recognize that the particular value of is also irrelevant, so that we are back to the formulas (1), (2) of Bell's paper and can proceed as done there.

[FrediFizzx]

BTW, anyone who is clueless enough to think time is no problem at all, should try to derive Bell's inequality (following Bell's derivation from page 406) starting from:

A simple exercise.

First, we observe that if at time we measure B in direction a, this cannot influence the measurements at A, but predefines their value as A=-B_a. This holds independent of the moment when the decision is made which direction to measure, and of the moment then the result is measured. Thus,

Similarly for B. Then, we recognize that the particular value of is also irrelevant, so that we are back to the formulas (1), (2) of Bell's paper and can proceed as done there.

None of the above really matters at all. Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing physical can violate the inequality. Not even QM.

[minkwe]

Fred,
Never mind that your friend is trying to make an argument I've already debunked very clearly. But can't read or can't understand. Notice how he conveniently does not complete the derivation that I asked, and then proceeds to assume that all the times are equal while denying same.

He says with the left side of his mouth, while denying with the right side of his mouth that .

Please think for a just a moment. Do you believe , if ?

Why should I believe such things?

So I caught him in a lie. First he doesn't believe such things, until he finds himself in a corner then he invokes the same thing he just denied, as a way out, while at the same time denying it. First it was the claim that there is no CFD in QM. A claim that was finally retracted with a limp.

He says, "a simple exercise", but he doesn't derive the inequality from the expression, because he knows that it is impossible unless all the times are assumed to the the same like he just did. Just like he hasn't been able to derive the inequality from

When faced with a argument he can't refute, the response is either self-contradiction or "I don't care".


Though he would never admit it. It really is mind boggling and It is a waste of time trying to reason with people like this.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred,
Never mind that your friend is trying to make an argument I've already debunked very clearly. But can't read or can't understand. Notice how he conveniently does not complete the derivation that I asked, and then proceeds to assume that all the times are equal while denying same.

He says with the left side of his mouth, while denying with the right side of his mouth that .

Please think for a just a moment. Do you believe , if ?

Why should I believe such things?

So I caught him in a lie. First he doesn't believe such things, until he finds himself in a corner then he invokes the same thing he just denied, as a way out, while at the same time denying it. First it was the claim that there is no CFD in QM. A claim that was finally retracted with a limp.

He says, "a simple exercise", but he doesn't derive the inequality from the expression, because he knows that it is impossible unless all the times are assumed to the the same like he just did. Just like he hasn't been able to derive the inequality from

When faced with a argument he can't refute, the response is either self-contradiction or "I don't care".

Though he would never admit it. It really is mind boggling and It is a waste of time trying to reason with people like this.

Yeah, I was wondering about the time thing myself since Joy's model has A and B detection exactly at the same time. Glad you answered that. Thanks.

[minkwe]

Hi Fred,
A and B at the same time is a problem experimentally. But the even bigger problem is AiBi at a different time from AjBj.

Imagine the two particles tumbling in concert as they move apart, at a given frequency, such that their vectors maintain a fixed relationship to each other. Then would be time dependent. If they are measured at the same time, then the relationship would hold since .

But that relationship does not hold if . If I would do an experiment in which I measured each particle at a different time, the results can neither confirm nor refute the relationship.

In Bells derivation he makes use of the relationship in order to convert the product under the integral into [tex-]A(..)A(..)[/tex] . This can only be done if either the hidden variables are not time dependent, or the measurement times are exactly the same.

Even worse, Bell does the factorisation:

if you add time dependencies to lambda, you get

Of course in this case, it would seem the factorization proceeds as usual, until you notice that must be the same accross all terms for the factorization to be possible:

Ilja understands that this doesn't work, so he tries a mathematical trick, of forcing everything to be dependent on , forgetting that you cannot eliminate differences that way, you only hide them. For example, take a function, and two realizations of that function and , we can do the same trick by converting the function to depend on Note that this function can no longer reproduce the two separate results, for that we will have to create two separate functions . Only then can we reproduce the results. Similarly, we can simply convert our functions to functions of t_0 without changing them to new functions which must be different in each instance. Anything less is equivalent to assuming that there is no time dependency in the first place therefore


cannot be factorized either. Therefore Bell's derivation does not proceed. The only way to proceed is to not allow time dependent hidden variables, or to insist that all measurements must be made at exactly the same time.
The ensembles of used to calculate the correlations must be identical for each term. If is time dependent, that means everything must be done at the same times, which is not a problem for counterfactual outcomes which are fully theoretical. But impossible for actual experiments.

[Joy Christian]

...since Joy's model has A and B detection exactly at the same time.

Because mine is a theoretical model, where simultaneity of measurement events observed by Alice and Bob is taken for granted, just as in quantum mechanics.

Michel is talking about a different issue. In practice, in any actual experiment, one can never observe events A and B exactly at the same time, especially if they are occurring at a space-like separated distance. In practice there will always be a non-local time window, which may be minimised to a great degree, but can never be eliminated. Bell's derivation of his inequalities, on the other hand, implicitly assumes that the non-local time window can be eliminated for all practical purposes.

[Schmelzer]

He says with the left side of his mouth, while denying with the right side of his mouth that .

Nonsense. I have used the EPR argument to show that even if .

Please think for a just a moment. Do you believe , if ?

Why should I believe such things?

So I caught him in a lie. First he doesn't believe such things, until he finds himself in a corner then he invokes the same thing he just denied, as a way out, while at the same time denying it. First it was the claim that there is no CFD in QM. A claim that was finally retracted with a limp.

A nice propaganda technique. One uses unclear formulated statements, which allow different interpretations. Like "there is CFD in QM", which allows for two interpretations: "In some special situations, some experimental outcomes are CFD in QM" (trivially true, for repeating the same experiment), and "all experimental outcomes are CFD in QM" (not true).

What is done here is even worse - it is one question if the result depends on the time of measurement, given a fixed value , which I can prove to be wrong using the same EPR argument as Bell to show that it is predefined, and that is the parameter which predefines this. And another if the function which describes the predetermination depends on how (at which time) the are defined. Of course, a coordinate transformation will also lead to a modification of the functions, .

He says, "a simple exercise", but he doesn't derive the inequality from the expression, because he knows that it is impossible unless all the times are assumed to the the same like he just did.

No, because it was simpler to refer simply to (1) (2) then to make the replacements in the formula itself. Less tex code to write. But, ok, given the identities I have proven, and the observation that is irrelevant I have made, I can rewrite your equation as



and proceed like Bell from p.17.

Just like he hasn't been able to derive the inequality from

No, this is completely different, because in this case you have no base for proving it.

When faced with a argument he can't refute, the response is either self-contradiction or "I don't care".

No, "I don't care" I write if there is no need to refute it, because even if that would be true it would be irrelevant. As the claim that one cannot derive the BI from simple expressions of type without additional assumptions.

[minkwe]

...since Joy's model has A and B detection exactly at the same time.

Because mine is a theoretical model, where simultaneity of measurement events observed by Alice and Bob is taken for granted, just as in quantum mechanics.

Michel is talking about a different issue. In practice, in any actual experiment, one can never observe events A and B exactly at the same time, especially if they are occurring at a space-like separated distance. In practice there will always be a non-local time window, which may be minimised to a great degree, but can never be eliminated. Bell's derivation of his inequalities, on the other hand, implicitly assumes that the non-local time window can be eliminated for all practical purposes.

Exactly right Joy. This is the lesson I was trying to teach Gill from my epr-clocked simulation, but he did not get it, instead deciding to write junk in R, removing the essential features and claim it was my simulation. He still has my name attached to the junk, claiming it is the "essential-core" even though I've explained to him otherwise.

[Joy Christian]

Exactly right Joy. This is the lesson I was trying to teach Gill from my epr-clocked simulation, but he did not get it, instead deciding to write junk in R, removing the essential features and claim it was my simulation. He still has my name attached to the junk, claiming it is the "essential-core" even though I've explained to him otherwise.

This is one of the standard strategies employed by Gill. Whenever he is unable to find a flaw in an argument, he replaces it with a straw-man, which he then knocks down with a great pomp, thus giving a false impression that he has discredited the original argument. A deceitful but effective strategy, which has served him well.

[FrediFizzx]

He says with the left side of his mouth, while denying with the right side of his mouth that .

Nonsense. I have used the EPR argument to show that even if .

He says, "a simple exercise", but he doesn't derive the inequality from the expression, because he knows that it is impossible unless all the times are assumed to the the same like he just did.

No, because it was simpler to refer simply to (1) (2) then to make the replacements in the formula itself. Less tex code to write. But, ok, given the identities I have proven, and the observation that is irrelevant I have made, I can rewrite your equation as



and proceed like Bell from p.17.

Just like he hasn't been able to derive the inequality from

No, this is completely different, because in this case you have no base for proving it.

When faced with a argument he can't refute, the response is either self-contradiction or "I don't care".

No, "I don't care" I write if there is no need to refute it, because even if that would be true it would be irrelevant. As the claim that one cannot derive the BI from simple expressions of type without additional assumptions.

None of the above matters. Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing physical can violate it. Not even QM.

So it is quite ridiculous to "play" by Bell's "rules" and conditions for physics.

[Joy Christian]

None of the above matters. Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing physical can violate it. Not even QM.

Aha... but that is true only if you believe that there is no magic in our world; I mean a real heart-stopping, head-turning voodoo in our world. The Bell-believers think that there IS such a voodoo in our world. And quantum mechanics uses this voodoo to do the logically and mathematically impossible. Quantum mechanics uses this voodoo to violate Bell inequalities! I mean, you poke a niddle in a stuffed doll here, and a limb goes flying on the Alpha Centauri there. That's what the Bell-believers believe. And you have to take hats off to them, for discovering such an extraordinary thing about our world. Surely, they are the true and only geniuses on our planet.

[minkwe]

None of the above matters. Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing physical can violate it. Not even QM.
So it is quite ridiculous to "play" by Bell's "rules" and conditions for physics.

Fred, somebody seemed to agree with you, until it was convenient to argue the opposite of what he previously agreed:

A counterexample would be a counterexample even if it would not have any relation to Nature. And the conditions which the counterexample has to fulfill to be a counterexample are defined and fixed forever by Bell's theorem. Pure mathematics, no Nature involved.

Now he throws a hissy-fit when it is pointed out that the conditions laid out in Bell's theorem work mathematically but are nonsense when translated into physics and what is possible in nature. What is intriguing, is that people who think like this, also think they can develop viable physical theories Who are they kidding, themeselves A person who claims , while at the same time saying the function can be time dependent, is not qualified or honest enough to develop any physical theories, or even any theories whatsoever. How in the universe can be true at the same time as , and still have a function that is time dependent How clueless does a person have to be to believe such garbage? One can only imagine what other garbage is hidden in the other so-called "theories" being developed with this kind of "rigor"

Like de Raedt said in the paper I quoted earlier:

These inequalities derive from the rules of arithmetic and the non negativity of some functions only. A violation of these inequalities is at odds with the commonly accepted rules of arithmetic or, in the case of quantum theory, with the commonly accepted postulates of quantum theory ... A violation of the EBBI cannot be attributed to influences at a distance.

And as Rosinger says in his follow-up paper:

It was shown in [1], cited in the sequel as DRHM, that upon a correct use of the respective statistical data, the celebrated Bell inequalities cannot be violated by quantum systems. This paper presents in more detail the surprisingly elementary, even if rather subtle related basic argument in DRHM
...

The inequalities (17) are purely mathematical. In particular, their proof depends in absolutely no way on anything else, except the mathematical properties of the set Z of positive and negative integers, set seen as a linearly ordered ring, [9]. As for the inequalities (16), they are a direct mathematical consequence of the inequalities (17), and thus again, their proof depends in absolutely no way on anything else, except the mathematical properties of the set R of real numbers, set seen as a linearly ordered field, [9]. It is, therefore, bordering on the amusing tinted with the ridiculous, when any sort of so called “physical” meaning or arguments are enforced upon these inequalities - be it regarding their proof, or their connections with issues such as realism and locality in physics - and are so enforced due to a mixture of lack of understanding of rather elementary and quite obviously simple mathematics

[FrediFizzx]

Like de Raedt said in the paper I quoted earlier:

These inequalities derive from the rules of arithmetic and the non negativity of some functions only. A violation of these inequalities is at odds with the commonly accepted rules of arithmetic or, in the case of quantum theory, with the commonly accepted postulates of quantum theory ... A violation of the EBBI cannot be attributed to influences at a distance.

And as Rosinger says in his follow-up paper:

It was shown in [1], cited in the sequel as DRHM, that upon a correct use of the respective statistical data, the celebrated Bell inequalities cannot be violated by quantum systems. This paper presents in more detail the surprisingly elementary, even if rather subtle related basic argument in DRHM
...

The inequalities (17) are purely mathematical. In particular, their proof depends in absolutely no way on anything else, except the mathematical properties of the set Z of positive and negative integers, set seen as a linearly ordered ring, [9]. As for the inequalities (16), they are a direct mathematical consequence of the inequalities (17), and thus again, their proof depends in absolutely no way on anything else, except the mathematical properties of the set R of real numbers, set seen as a linearly ordered field, [9]. It is, therefore, bordering on the amusing tinted with the ridiculous, when any sort of so called “physical” meaning or arguments are enforced upon these inequalities - be it regarding their proof, or their connections with issues such as realism and locality in physics - and are so enforced due to a mixture of lack of understanding of rather elementary and quite obviously simple mathematics

Something else that is really amazing (and sad) is that Bell didn't even realize his own mistake that QM can't even violate the inequality. What kind of smoke and mirrors is that?

[minkwe]

Something else that is really amazing (and sad) is that Bell didn't even realize his own mistake that QM can't even violate the inequality. What kind of smoke and mirrors is that?

It is amazing. He removed the speck from von Neumann's eye forgetting he had a log in his own eye. His paper against von Neumann was published after his Bell's theorem paper, and still he did not realize his mistake, which was essentially the same thing von Neumann had messed up about! Here is what he said about von Neumann's proof:

http://www.mugur-schachter.net/docsuplo ... s_doc2.pdf

Thus the formal proof of von Neumann does not justify his informal conclusion: "...". It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made.

This is exactly the problem we have have with Bell's theorem: It is not the objective measurable predictions of QM which ruled out hidden variables. It is the arbitrary assumption that a particular relationship between results of actual and counterfactual measurements , either of which might be made on a given occasion, but only one of which can in fact be made (ie, it is impossible to do the experiment).

It is amazing indeed that Bell did not see he was making the same mistake in his own no-go theorem. He continued the mistake for decades after the original paper and probably never realized it, or maybe he did but it was too late? I don't know

[Schmelzer]

What is intriguing, is that people who think like this, also think they can develop viable physical theories Who are they kidding, themeselves A person who claims , while at the same time saying the function can be time dependent, is not qualified or honest enough to develop any physical theories, or even any theories whatsoever.

Obviously an attempt to discredit me personally, without even naming me, probably in the hope that I will not see it. Let's see what this is about:

First, we observe that if at time we measure B in direction a, this cannot influence the measurements at A, but predefines their value as A=-B_a. This holds independent of the moment when the decision is made which direction to measure, and of the moment then the result is measured. Thus,

Similarly for B. Then, we recognize that the particular value of is also irrelevant, so that we are back to the formulas (1), (2) of Bell's paper

So, you note that the formula is not followed by a ? Thus, the formula is an invention, a defamation.
What I have said, and what remains correct, is that the particular value of is irrelevant. That means, if I have the formula

and it appears sufficient to prove Bell's theorem, because all I have to do is to follow what Bell has done with

I can reach the same result starting with

The parameter is simply an irrelevant modification of (2) of Bell's paper. Of course, this does not mean at all that or similar nonsense. Moreover, this has been already explained:

What is done here is even worse - it is one question if the result depends on the time of measurement, given a fixed value , which I can prove to be wrong using the same EPR argument as Bell to show that it is predefined, and that is the parameter which predefines this. And another if the function which describes the predetermination depends on how (at which time) the are defined. Of course, a coordinate transformation will also lead to a modification of the functions, .

After this clarification has been posted, I have to read here the following:

How in the universe can be true at the same time as , and still have a function that is time dependent How clueless does a person have to be to believe such garbage? One can only imagine what other garbage is hidden in the other so-called "theories" being developed with this kind of "rigor"

How [self-censored] has a person to be to use such defamations?

And, don't worry, if an ether theory is published in mainstream journals, you can be very sure that they do not contain much garbage. Peer review is very very careful in such cases. Publishing nonsense directly in the mainstream is quite easy, the more far away you are from the mainstream, the more rigorous peer review acts and even minor errors become sufficient for rejection.

[minkwe]

Fred, Joy, Gill, anyone, please help the clueless out of their misery and help them see that
Replacing


with


and then with


means either A, B are time-independent or everything is measured at the same times. The "simple exercise" is sufficient to prove the theorem, but nonsense physically. Time to recommend another article from a "mainstream journal" to those who believe everything in a mainstream journal is correct, then they should read this one very carefully:

Possible Experience: from Boole to Bell
K. Hess, K. Michielsen, H. De Raedt

Mainstream interpretations of quantum theory maintain that violations of the Bell inequalities deny at least either realism or Einstein locality. Here we investigate the premises of the Bell-type inequalities by returning to earlier inequalities presented by Boole and the findings of Vorob'ev as related to these inequalities. These findings together with a space-time generalization of Boole's elements of logic lead us to a completely transparent Einstein local counterexample from everyday life that violates certain variations of the Bell inequalities. We show that the counterexample suggests an interpretation of the Born rule as a pre-measure of probability that can be transformed into a Kolmogorov probability measure by certain Einstein local space-time characterizations of the involved random variables.

Europhys. Lett. 87, 60007 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.0767v2