Thoughts about Bell, Bohm, Christian, et al.

[Schmelzer]

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


with

And yet another case of falsifying formulas. Maybe you better help to find this poor guy to find the difference between this and

(Hint: search for appearences of )

I don't even ask for explaining him the difference between experimental results being measured at and being predetermined already at but measured at a later moment . That this is too difficult for him to understand, I have already accepted.

But it would be nice if he would at least not arbitrary manipulate the formulas I write, replace 2+2=4 by 2+2=5 and then laughing how stupid I am thinking that 2+2=5.

[minkwe]

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 . 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't 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.

For those who can't read or understand that their argument has been debunked already, two days ago before they made it!!! viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&start=240#p4478

Or btw, somebody does not realize the the time at which settings are picked is completely irrelevant to the argument. What matters is the time at which the particles are actually measured.

Somebody also is too full of himself not to see that:
means exactly the same thing as
since "a" is a fixed direction, is nonsensical. Therefore their blindness prevents them from seeing that such an expression only works if the function A(...) is time independent, or time is also fixed ie .

[Schmelzer]

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 .
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.

It is a prediction of standard QM that in this case holds. So, if the experiment would observe something different, QM would have been falsified and everybody would be happy about new physics to explore. Given that the two measurements are space-like separated, we can always choose a time coordinate such that the two measurements happen at the same "time". So, not only quantum theory would be falsified, relativity would be falsified too, with the different result for equal "true time" and otherwise.

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.

Once, following the EPR argument, the results are predetermined, and fixed by , it does not matter at all at which moment one actually measures them.

Somebody also is too full of himself not to see that:
means exactly the same thing as
since "a" is a fixed direction, is nonsensical. Therefore their blindness prevents them from seeing that such an expression only works if the function A(...) is time independent, or time is also fixed ie .

That's an interesting new technique. Introducing multiple nonsense, and, if the opponent focusses his interest on only one, the most horrible nonsense, then accusing him of not having seen the other nonsense.

I have long searched for a meaningful interpretation and finally found one for as a way of denoting with that A is measured at the time , as denoting that a is chosen at time , and the as that the values of and the function A(...) are those taken at time .

But, ok, I acknowledge that the attempt to make sense of your formulas was false. I should not have tried to give your formulas a meaningful interpretation and to try to follow your challenge to prove something with them, but should have immediately rejected them as as a meaningless mixture of letters.

[minkwe]

It is a prediction of standard QM that in this case holds.

QM takes for granted that the measurement is simultaneous (aka at the same time) since both particles are described by the same wavefunction evolving in time. Therefore , is perfectly consistent with QM . It is not my problem if Bell is sloppy and ignores that fact. Sorry there is no contradiction with QM to see here, move on to something else.

So, if the experiment would observe something different, QM would have been falsified and everybody would be happy about new physics to explore.

is perfectly consistent with the QM prediction of when t_3 = t_6. Besides, if you claim that is arbitrary and can be anything, then should also contain time within it, so when you see , it means precisely that the at Alice has exactly the same value as that at Bob, which implies measurement at the exact same time! All I've done is separate out the time from your "arbitrary" , to tickle your imagination into realizing that the measurement must be at the same time. There is no new physics to explore here, just a lack of imagination on the part of Bell and his followers, to realize the simple fact that for time dependent hidden variables or functions, leaving out time does not give you a complete specification. If time is included in, then the measurement time must be exactly the same on both sides. Sorry there is no falsification of QM to see here, move on to something else.

Given that the two measurements are space-like separated, we can always choose a time coordinate such that the two measurements happen at the same "time". So, not only quantum theory would be falsified, relativity would be falsified too, with the different result for equal "true time" and otherwise.

Utter Garbage. Don't tell me you have problems understanding relativity too? When you write , it is understood mathematically that the on both sides means exactly the same thing. You want to use a different basis to define each side, you may as well write . There is no way to predict at , the outcome of a measurement governed by a time dependent function, if you do not know at what time it will be measured. Picking a different basis in order to have the same value, does not give you the same meaning. If I tell you Bob has measured his particle, there is no way Alice would be able to tell what outcome Bob would have gotten unless she knew exactly at what time Bob measured the particle, and if you are playing dirty tricks with time coordinates, Alice would have to know both the time value, and the time coordinate, in order to calculate the outcome of Bob. So sorry, there absolutely is no conflict with relativity here, and no conflict with QM here. Move on to something else.

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.

Once, following the EPR argument, the results are predetermined, and fixed by , it does not matter at all at which moment one actually measures them.

The EPR argument says:

if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (ie, with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity

.

For time dependent functions, there is no way to predict with certainty what the value would be, unless you know at what time it would be measured. You can't have it both ways. Either you include the measurement time in in order to be able to predict with certainty, (and assume they are the same on both sides), or you don't have a complete specification according to EPR. So sorry, there is no conflict between what I'm saying and the EPR argument. Move on to something else.

That's an interesting new technique. Introducing multiple nonsense, and, if the opponent focusses his interest on only one, the most horrible nonsense, then accusing him of not having seen the other nonsense.

There is no nonsense in what I've argued. The person spouting nonsense is the one who claimed: "there is no CFD in QM" only to backtrack later that "yes, we have CFD in QM, in some exceptional cases". The person who claimed that the outcome of a measurement governed by a time dependent function can be predicted with certainty at without knowledge of the measurement time, is the one who has been spouting nonsense. If only they are paid more careful attention, they would have avoided the embarrassment of having to retract yet another stupid claim.

I have long searched for a meaningful interpretation and finally found one for as a way of denoting with that A is measured at the time , as denoting that a is chosen at time , and the as that the values of and the function A(...) are those taken at time .

But, ok, I acknowledge that the attempt to make sense of your formulas was false. I should not have tried to give your formulas a meaningful interpretation and to try to follow your challenge to prove something with them, but should have immediately rejected them as as a meaningless mixture of letters.

I've told you already, nobody gives a rat's behind at what time the settings were chosen. The settings are fixed for a given P(a,c). The only thing that matters is the time at which the outcomes were obtained. Outcomes, because the inequalities are about outcomes, and because experimental tests calculate averages from outcomes. If you ignore the physics of the experiment under consideration, you end up in lalaland.



Are all equivalent notations to reflect the fact that the outcome of the function is time dependent, and evaluated at time . I haven't introduced any new symbols here. If those symbols appear to you to be meaningless mixtures of letters, you should probably consider moving to fishing for a new profession.

Bottom line:
1) There is no locality assumption required to in the derivation inequalities, despite claims (See de Raedt et al, and Rosinger's paper for details).
2) The CFD assumption, required to derive the inequalities also applies to QM
3) The use of counterfactual outcomes in the inequalities precludes experimental tests
4) Either the inequalities forbid time dependent functions or time dependent hidden variables , or they require that all measurements be performed at the same time.

Each of these points by itself is fatal to Bell's theorem but together, they simply shatter it to smithereens. No reasonable person can continue to Believe Bell's theorem is true.

We can therefore mirror Bell's own words against von Neuman toward him:

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.

Yet the Bell proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of Bell is not merely false but foolish.

[Schmelzer]

if you claim that is arbitrary and can be anything, then should also contain time within it, so when you see , it means precisely that the at Alice has exactly the same value as that at Bob, which implies measurement at the exact same time!

I claim the used by Bell describes what is predetermined, that means determined before the time when the choice of the direction a, b is made by the experimenters. Given that the observation happens only after this choice, the time when it is predetermined and the time of measurement are different.

It is a prediction of standard QM that in this case holds.

QM takes for granted that the measurement is simultaneous (aka at the same time) since both particles are described by the same wavefunction evolving in time.

So, you claim that if the measurements are done at different times, will not hold? Or what do you predict for measurements at two different times?

Note: The question is not about what can be written down with some 's, it is about the outcomes of the experiment where on above sides the same direction a is measured, but at two different times. Does QM predict or not? If not, what else QM predicts?

Given that the two measurements are space-like separated, we can always choose a time coordinate such that the two measurements happen at the same "time". So, not only quantum theory would be falsified, relativity would be falsified too, with the different result for equal "true time" and otherwise.

Utter Garbage. Don't tell me you have problems understanding relativity too? When you write , it is understood mathematically that the on both sides means exactly the same thing.

Please don't argue about some 's, but tell me about the outcomes of the experiments as predicted by QM and SR, if the measurement is done in the same direction but at different moments of time.

And especially I'm interested in the question if the predictions of SR and QM depend on the choice of the time coordinate, and if they depend, how.

This is a question not about Bell's paper, or what hypothetical Einstein-causal hidden variable theories predict, it is simply a question about what standard QM and SR predict about the physical outcome of this experiment.

If I tell you Bob has measured his particle, there is no way Alice would be able to tell what outcome Bob would have gotten unless she knew exactly at what time Bob measured the particle, and if you are playing dirty tricks with time coordinates, Alice would have to know both the time value, and the time coordinate, in order to calculate the outcome of Bob. So sorry, there absolutely is no conflict with relativity here, and no conflict with QM here.

There is a very big one, because standard QM predicts that after Bob has measured in direction a, the particle of Alice will be in an eigenstate of the operator which measures A in direction a, with the eigenvalue being A=-B. And the spin is conserved and remains in this eigenstate until you measure the spin, which can happen much later, without changing the A=-B eigenvalue, thus, without changing what will be measured in direction a.

For time dependent functions, there is no way to predict with certainty what the value would be, unless you know at what time it would be measured.

There is - you can predict the value of variables which are, in the particular physical situation, conserved.

[FrediFizzx]

It is a prediction of standard QM that in this case holds.

QM takes for granted that the measurement is simultaneous (aka at the same time) since both particles are described by the same wavefunction evolving in time.

So, you claim that if the measurements are done at different times, will not hold? Or what do you predict for measurements at two different times?

Note: The question is not about what can be written down with some 's, it is about the outcomes of the experiment where on above sides the same direction a is measured, but at two different times. Does QM predict or not? If not, what else QM predicts?

One should be able to determine if A = -B when b = a holds at different measurement times (or even different distances) from the data of EPRB type experiments. Or... you would think someone has tested this somehow.

[minkwe]

I claim the used by Bell describes what is predetermined, that means determined before the time when the choice of the direction a, b is made by the experimenters. Given that the observation happens only after this choice, the time when it is predetermined and the time of measurement are different.

So what? Why do you keep arguing about things you have not understood or read carefully. is a measurement outcome. It is the measurement outcome that is used in all the equations.

How do you think it is possible to predetermine the measurement outcome with certainly without knowing along what axis it will be measured (a), and exactly what the hidden parameters would be at the time of measurement? Predetermination simply means given the axis , and the complete specification of the hidden parameters , you can calculate with certainty what the outcome of that measurement will be. If as you say, can include time "no-problem at all", then the complete specification includes the exact measurement time. Don't you understand this?

It is a prediction of standard QM that in this case holds.

QM takes for granted that the measurement is simultaneous (aka at the same time) since both particles are described by the same wavefunction evolving in time.

So, you claim that if the measurements are done at different times, will not hold? Or what do you predict for measurements at two different times? Note: The question is not about what can be written down with some 's, it is about the outcomes of the experiment where on above sides the same direction a is measured, but at two different times. Does QM predict or not? If not, what else QM predicts?

I already answered your question. Quantum mechanics takes it for granted that the times are the same because both particles are described by the same wavefunction. QM does not make any prediction about any relationship between the outcomes for two particles described by two different wavefunctions. It is not my problem if you use sloppy incomplete notation such as . The quantum mechanical prediction is . If you disagree, provide the evidence, and write down the complete equations for the quantum mechanical prediction which contradicts this.

Please don't argue about some 's, but tell me about the outcomes of the experiments as predicted by QM and SR, if the measurement is done in the same direction but at different moments of time.

I already told you very clearly. Do you mean you now agree that means the lambda on either side is exactly the same? Then you should have no problem seeing that according to QM , means both particles are described by exactly the same wavefunction.

And especially I'm interested in the question if the predictions of SR and QM depend on the choice of the time coordinate, and if they depend, how.

Choice of time-coordinate is completely irrelevant. If you have a point to make, make it, because this new-found "time-coordinate" thing is just another garbage that will eventually be retracted, so "... please proceed" to make your point. QM predicts that where is the wavefunction describing both particles. If you want to argue that evolves differently on one side of the equation than the other, please proceed. Einstein causality predicts that where is a complete specification of the state of the particles. If you want to argue that should not include time, or that can be different from one side of the equation to the other, please proceed to do so.

There is a very big one, because standard QM predicts that after Bob has measured in direction a, the particle of Alice will be in an eigenstate of the operator which measures A in direction a, with the eigenvalue being A=-B. And the spin is conserved and remains in this eigenstate until you measure the spin, which can happen much later, without changing the A=-B eigenvalue, thus, without changing what will be measured in direction a.

Rubbish. It is not my problem if you use sloppy language and half-baked equations to describe the predictions of QM. Show the equations where QM makes such a ridiculous predictions, and the experimental confirmation to back it up.

For time dependent functions, there is no way to predict with certainty what the value would be, unless you know at what time it would be measured.

There is - you can predict the value of variables which are, in the particular physical situation, conserved.

Of course you would say that without thinking. So let me give you an example, and you predict for me with certainty what Bob will obtain:

Let
Let us take for example that for a given pair of particles, and the angle of interest is , please predict with certainty (ie, with probability = 1) what outcome Bob will obtain when he measures the particle.

Like I said, you argue without thinking first.

[minkwe]

One should be able to determine if A = -B when b = a holds at different measurement times (or even different distances) from the data of EPRB type experiments. Or... you would think someone has tested this somehow.

Good point Fred, the results of those measurements are well known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
The inequality that Bell derived can be written as:[4]

,
where ρ is the correlation between measurements of the spins of the pair of particles and a, b and c refer to three arbitrary settings of the two analysers. This inequality is however restricted in its application to the rather special case in which the outcomes on both sides of the experiment are always exactly anticorrelated whenever the analysers are parallel. The advantage of restricting attention to this special case is the resulting simplicity of the derivation. In experimental work the inequality is not very useful because it is hard, if not impossible, to create perfect anti-correlation.

Of course the assumption of perfect correlation or anti-correlation is an idealization relative to actual experimental situations: real laboratory conditions at best allow some approximation of perfect agreement or disagreement. Bell's result was further generalized by CHSH (1969) to deal with imperfect correlations. In the case of our polarized photons, it is immediately clear that a small relaxation of the perfect correlation condition would not solve the difficulty.

Fred, I would encourage anyone who thinks QM does not take for granted that the measurements are simultaneous to look up "entanglement" and "simultaneous eigenstates", and "simultaneous measurements". If they don't yet understand, I can provide references in articles and books to help them out. In QM, entangled basis states are simultaneous eigenstates of two commuting observables!

[Schmelzer]

There is - you can predict the value of variables which are, in the particular physical situation, conserved.

Of course you would say that without thinking. So let me give you an example, and you predict for me with certainty what Bob will obtain:
Let
Let us take for example that for a given pair of particles, and the angle of interest is , please predict with certainty (ie, with probability = 1) what outcome Bob will obtain when he measures the particle.

Learn to read. And then explain why your nonsense-example is relevant for a claim about conserved variables.

I already answered your question. Quantum mechanics takes it for granted that the times are the same because both particles are described by the same wavefunction. QM does not make any prediction about any relationship between the outcomes for two particles described by two different wavefunctions. It is not my problem if you use sloppy incomplete notation such as . The quantum mechanical prediction is . If you disagree, provide the evidence, and write down the complete equations for the quantum mechanical prediction which contradicts this.

You have not answered the question, so, please answer. What is the result if Alice and Bob measure in the same direction but at different times? Do the results fulfill A=-B or not?

QM " takes it for granted that the times are the same" could be interpreted to mean that QM makes no prediction at all about the results if Alice and Bob measure at different time. Is this your answer?

I have not asked about the same or different wave functions, but about the measurement result if Alice and Bob measure at different times.

Please don't argue about some 's, but tell me about the outcomes of the experiments as predicted by QM and SR, if the measurement is done in the same direction but at different moments of time.

I already told you very clearly. Do you mean you now agree that means the lambda on either side is exactly the same? Then you should have no problem seeing that according to QM , means both particles are described by exactly the same wavefunction.

The question is unanswered. I have not asked for blabla about your preferred denotations or same wavefunctions. I have asked about the outcome of the experiment, if Alice and Bob measure in the same direction a but at different times. Does hold for the results or not? Does this depend on the choice of the time coordinate in SR, and if it depends, how?

If I ask you a trivial question about QM, it does not mean that I now agree with some of your nonsense, it means that I suspect that you don't even know the elementary facts about what QM and SR prediction in this case. I want to know if this is correct or not. This is important, because it may be rather useless to argue with someone who does not even know elementary QM and SR but claims to have found contradictions in Bell's theorem. In such a situation, the optimum what can be reached is to show that he does not know elementary QM and SR.

And especially I'm interested in the question if the predictions of SR and QM depend on the choice of the time coordinate, and if they depend, how.

Choice of time-coordinate is completely irrelevant. If you have a point to make, make it, because this new-found "time-coordinate" thing is just another garbage that will eventually be retracted, so "... please proceed" to make your point.

No, it is not irrelevant, so please answer. I want to have the basic information if you know the elementary facts about what QM and SR predict here or not. Because your answers have strongly suggested that you don't know these elementary facts.

[minkwe]

Learn to read. And then explain why your nonsense-example is relevant for a claim about conserved variables.

I can read perfectly fine. It is you who is desperately searching for a life-line, none will be found.

I've given you a simple example, which proves that you can't predict with certainty unless you know the time of measurement. You are the one claiming that you can predict it. You definitely have some serious problems with understanding English so answer the question and tell me what "variables" need to be "conserved" in the particular situation of my example. Unless you are afraid we would find out you are retracting your position yet again. I will repeat the question until you answer it:

So let me give you an example, and you predict for me with certainty what Bob will obtain:
Let
Let us take for example that for a given pair of particles, and the angle of interest is , please predict with certainty (ie, with probability = 1) what outcome Bob will obtain when he measures the particle.

Feel free to state clearly what "variables" are "conserved" in this physical situation in order to predict Bob's outcome with certainty. This shouldn't be difficult for you, unless you just like blowing hot air.

You have not answered the question, so, please answer. What is the result if Alice and Bob measure in the same direction but at different times? Do the results fulfill A=-B or not?

How many times do I have to answer the same question for you to understand simple English. Please investigate what "take for granted" means in English then come back. The QM prediction implies simultaneous measurement. I don't care what the result is at different times. It is irrelevant. The result at arbitrary times is not a definite result. It is 50% +1 and 50% -1 for both Alice and Bob. That's all the answer you will get. If you disagree with that, proceed to make your point.

QM does not make any prediction about any relationship between the outcomes for two particles described by two different wavefunctions.




QM takes for granted that the measurement is simultaneous (aka at the same time) since both particles are described by the same wavefunction evolving in time.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
The inequality that Bell derived can be written as:[4]

,
where ρ is the correlation between measurements of the spins of the pair of particles and a, b and c refer to three arbitrary settings of the two analysers. This inequality is however restricted in its application to the rather special case in which the outcomes on both sides of the experiment are always exactly anticorrelated whenever the analysers are parallel. The advantage of restricting attention to this special case is the resulting simplicity of the derivation. In experimental work the inequality is not very useful because it is hard, if not impossible, to create perfect anti-correlation.





Of course the assumption of perfect correlation or anti-correlation is an idealization relative to actual experimental situations: real laboratory conditions at best allow some approximation of perfect agreement or disagreement. Bell's result was further generalized by CHSH (1969) to deal with imperfect correlations. In the case of our polarized photons, it is immediately clear that a small relaxation of the perfect correlation condition would not solve the difficulty.

If I ask you a trivial question about QM, it does not mean that I now agree with some of your nonsense, it means that I suspect that you don't even know the elementary facts about what QM and SR prediction in this case. I want to know if this is correct or not. This is important, because it may be rather useless to argue with someone who does not even know elementary QM and SR but claims to have found contradictions in Bell's theorem. In such a situation, the optimum what can be reached is to show that he does not know elementary QM and SR.
...
No, it is not irrelevant, so please answer.

It is irrelevant, explain how it is relevant to Bell's derivation, or Bell's theorem. I have no time to entertain your silly irrelevant detours. If you have a point or a claim to make, make it. I've made clear claims, and I've backed everyone of them. I've destroyed all claims you have made, and I've proven that you are wrong about Bell's theorem many times. So why don't you state what you claim I don't know, and how it is relevant to the fact that I've proven convincingly that you do not understand Bell's theorem like you thought you did. So go ahead and tell me what you think I don't understand that is relevant to the discussion and we shall see.

I want to have the basic information if you know the elementary facts about what QM and SR predict here or not.

Who do you think you are, my school teacher? You think I give a rats behind what you think about my knowledge? All that matters is that I've made very clear arguments here (main points restated below), and I've defended every one of them (see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&p=4380&hilit=failed#p4380). If you have an argument to present, do so. Instead, you've contradicted yourself at every turn. Do you want me to catalogue your journey of false claims and retractions so far concerning almost every one of those claims?

Bottom line:
1) There is no locality assumption required to in the derivation inequalities, despite claims (See de Raedt et al, and Rosinger's paper for details).
2) The CFD assumption, required to derive the inequalities also applies to QM and is used by Bell himself.
3) The use of counterfactual outcomes in the inequalities precludes experimental tests, and make them inapplicable to the predictions of QM for this experiment.
4) Either the inequalities forbid time dependent functions or time dependent hidden variables , or they require that all measurements be performed at the same time.

Each of these points by itself is fatal to Bell's theorem but together, they simply shatter it to smithereens. Nothing substantial arguing against these points has been presented by you or anyone else, no doubt you want to focus instead on irrelevant nonsense about QM and SR time-coordinate. No reasonable person can continue to Believe Bell's theorem is true.

[FrediFizzx]

And especially I'm interested in the question if the predictions of SR and QM depend on the choice of the time coordinate, and if they depend, how.

Choice of time-coordinate is completely irrelevant. If you have a point to make, make it, because this new-found "time-coordinate" thing is just another garbage that will eventually be retracted, so "... please proceed" to make your point.

No, it is not irrelevant, so please answer. I want to have the basic information if you know the elementary facts about what QM and SR predict here or not. Because your answers have strongly suggested that you don't know these elementary facts.

Why do you keep going off into this subterfuge? Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing can violate it not even QM. Michel has clearly shown that it has no real meaning for physics.

If you think QM violates Bell's inequality, please show us how in full detail.

[Heinera]

Why do you keep going off into this subterfuge? Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing can violate it not even QM. Michel has clearly shown that it has no real meaning for physics.

If you think QM violates Bell's inequality, please show us how in full detail.

Nothing can violate Bell's inequality? Here is a simple example of a model that violates the CHSH-inequality, with no loopholes:

http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

[Schmelzer]

Learn to read. And then explain why your nonsense-example is relevant for a claim about conserved variables.

I can read perfectly fine. It is you who is desperately searching for a life-line, none will be found.

I've given you a simple example, which proves that you can't predict with certainty unless you know the time of measurement. You are the one claiming that you can predict it.

I have not claimed that one can predict it always, in general. But one can predict it in some special, particular cases. namely for conserved variables. So you, as usual, simply falsify what I claim.

Feel free to state clearly what "variables" are "conserved" in this physical situation in order to predict Bob's outcome with certainty.

The spin of the particle.

You have not answered the question, so, please answer. What is the result if Alice and Bob measure in the same direction but at different times? Do the results fulfill A=-B or not?

How many times do I have to answer the same question for you to understand simple English. Please investigate what "take for granted" means in English then come back. The QM prediction implies simultaneous measurement. I don't care what the result is at different times. It is irrelevant. The result at arbitrary times is not a definite result. It is 50% +1 and 50% -1 for both Alice and Bob. That's all the answer you will get. If you disagree with that, proceed to make your point.

So you claim that if Bob measures in direction a at time and obtains the value B, and Alice measures at time in the same direction a, she obtains with 50% the value +B and with 50% the value -B? (And that this is true also for If, instead, the measurements happen exactly at the same time time , she obtains 100% -B?

The point is not that I don't understand simple English, I simply want to avoid misunderstandings. Therefore, if you make a statement which is IMHO complete nonsense, I prefer to verify if you really mean that.

It is irrelevant, explain how it is relevant to Bell's derivation, or Bell's theorem. I have no time to entertain your silly irrelevant detours.

It is relevant for Bell's theorem, because else the EPR argument would fail, because it would be impossible to predict with certainty the results of measuring at B by measuring something at A, because the only case where we would be able to predict something would be for measurements at exactly the same time, for the simple reason of uncertainty of our clocks, and moreover, for the reason that in SR contemporaneity is not well-defined.

It is relevant for the discussion because you have introduced here the consideration of different measurement times for Alice and Bob. Once you have introduced them, there should be agreement about what is predicted by QM and SR about the outcomes. Or, if no such agreement can be found, to clarify the differences about what we think QM and SR predict in this case.

Who do you think you are, my school teacher? You think I give a rats behind what you think about my knowledge?

I'm a participant in a discussion, and have assumed that you know some elementary facts, but now it appears you don't know even these elementary facts. In case you don't even care about elementary facts, it makes no sense to continue a discussion.

Why do you keep going off into this subterfuge? Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing can violate it not even QM. Michel has clearly shown that it has no real meaning for physics.
If you think QM violates Bell's inequality, please show us how in full detail.

If there is not even an elementary agreement about what QM predicts, this is impossible. I'm unable to prove that QM predicts a violation of BI to somebody who simply does not know even elementary QM.

Moreover, there is no need to show this, given that this already has been done by Bell himself, and in much more detail in his later papers. If somebody thinks a particular step in this derivation is wrong, I can try to help him to identify his error. But if he does not even know elementary QM, he has to take a course in QM, to give such a course here is too much.

Simply, think about it: The times of the two measurements will always be different, simply because every clock has an uncertainty, thus, no method exists to guarantee that the two measurements happen at exactly the same time. Thus, real measurements will be measurements at different times. So, if Bell assumes that in this case QM predicts AB = -ab, and minkwe assumes that QM predicts 0 in the average, what could be the base for a discussion?

[FrediFizzx]

Why do you keep going off into this subterfuge? Bell's inequality is pure math; nothing can violate it not even QM. Michel has clearly shown that it has no real meaning for physics.

If you think QM violates Bell's inequality, please show us how in full detail.

Nothing can violate Bell's inequality? Here is a simple example of a model that violates the CHSH-inequality, with no loopholes:

http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

LOL! Sorry, you did not violate Bell-CHSH. Your CHSH terms are independent; the bound is 4 not 2. It is impossible for anything physical to violate Bell's inequality since it is pure math.

[minkwe]

BoWttom line:
1) There is no locality assumption required to in the derivation inequalities, despite claims (See de Raedt et al, and Rosinger's paper for details).
2) The CFD assumption, required to derive the inequalities also applies to QM and is used by Bell himself.
3) The use of counterfactual outcomes in the inequalities precludes experimental tests, and make them inapplicable to the predictions of QM for this experiment.
4) Either the inequalities forbid time dependent functions or time dependent hidden variables , or they require that all measurements be performed at the same time.

Where is the counter-argument? I don't have time to go around in circles with people pretending to object to these points, just to find out in the end, they can't argue against it because they agree with it. So where is the counter argument? Only three questions are required to unravel all the noise about time:

a) When Bell writes and and says in the text that

since stands for any number of variables and and the dependences[sic] theoreon of and are unrestricted

Does he mean that can include time of measurement, does he include in his consideration the fact that and could be time-dependent?

b) When Bell writes


Is it understood that \lambda must be exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing in each term of the expression?

c) Then how can any reasonable person continue to argue that Bell's includes measurement time "no-problem at all", and yet claim that the inequality derived assuming that is the same in every term should apply to measurements performed at different times? How can be exactly the same but contain components that are clearly different?

Hess & Phillip were right:
K. Hess and W. Philipp 2002 Europhys. Lett. 57 775 doi:10.1209/epl/i2002-00578-y
Exclusion of time in the theorem of Bell

The celebrated inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist. When combined with conflicting experimental results these inequalities appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) type of experiments. We show that Bell-type theories and proofs leading to the well-known inequalities completely exclude a large class of time dependencies in their considerations. Owing to the fact that the electrodynamics of moving bodies cannot be described by time-independent theories or models, we conclude that the Bell theorem cannot describe the physics of EPR experiments. We also show how hidden parameter theories that include time can obtain the quantum result.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103028
Einstein-separability, time related hidden parameters for correlated spins, and the theorem of Bell

Gill was completely wrong in his criticism, as he later on found out with Larsson, that time is a huge issue.

Finally, I will join Fred in waiting for the detailed calculation which demonstrates the often made claim that QM violates Bell's inequality. Those who think they understand QM should present that calculation, let us see.

[Heinera]

Nothing can violate Bell's inequality? Here is a simple example of a model that violates the CHSH-inequality, with no loopholes:
http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

LOL! Sorry, you did not violate Bell-CHSH. Your CHSH terms are independent; the bound is 4 not 2. It is impossible for anything physical to violate Bell's inequality since it is pure math.

Well, if you think the rhs for the CHSH-inequality is 4, than of course nothing can violate the CHSH-inequality. Most other people would mean 2 when they talk about the CHSH-inequality (because that is the rhs of the inequality in the CHSH paper), so I suggest you either adhere to that, or come up with some different terminology so that we know which rhs you are talking about.

And a bonus question for you: In what sense are my CHSH terms independent, distinguishing them from the terms of an LHV model? Or do you mean that the terms from an LHV model would be equally independent?

[FrediFizzx]

Nothing can violate Bell's inequality? Here is a simple example of a model that violates the CHSH-inequality, with no loopholes:
http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

LOL! Sorry, you did not violate Bell-CHSH. Your CHSH terms are independent; the bound is 4 not 2. It is impossible for anything physical to violate Bell's inequality since it is pure math.

Well, if you think the rhs for the CHSH-inequality is 4, than of course nothing can violate the CHSH-inequality. Most other people would mean 2 when they talk about the CHSH-inequality (because that is the rhs of the inequality in the CHSH paper), so I suggest you either adhere to that, or come up with some different terminology so that we know which rhs you are talking about.

And a bonus question for you: In what sense are my CHSH terms independent, distinguishing them from the terms of an LHV model? Or do you mean that the terms from an LHV model would be equally independent?

You need to go back on this thread and try to study and understand everything Michel has posted. He has already explained it in much detail.

[Schmelzer]

BoWttom line:
1) There is no locality assumption required to in the derivation inequalities, despite claims (See de Raedt et al, and Rosinger's paper for details).
2) The CFD assumption, required to derive the inequalities also applies to QM and is used by Bell himself.
3) The use of counterfactual outcomes in the inequalities precludes experimental tests, and make them inapplicable to the predictions of QM for this experiment.
4) Either the inequalities forbid time dependent functions or time dependent hidden variables , or they require that all measurements be performed at the same time.

Where is the counter-argument?

They will be presented after it is clarified that you accept what the standard predictions of QM are. It makes no sense to argue about a paper which claims that local realistic theories are unable to recover the QM predictions with somebody who has completely wrong ideas about what QM predicts.

Of course, if one thinks that QM predicts that A=-B will hold only for the exceptional case of identical time of above experiments, and if the two experiments happen at different times (which will be the case for every real experiment, because nothing can give certainty about exactly equal times), the QM prediction will be 50% A=B and 50% A=-B, there is simply no base for a discussion. In this case, measuring something at A would not give any information about possible measurement results at B, thus, the EPR argument would be inapplicable.

I don't have time to go around in circles with people pretending to object to these points, just to find out in the end, they can't argue against it because they agree with it. So where is the counter argument?

Any textbook of quantum mechanics would do it. Read it and come back when you have understood that QM predicts that A=-B even if Alice and Bob measure the spin in the same direction at different times.

But, of course, I can answer some simple questions anyway.

a) When Bell writes and and says in the text that

since stands for any number of variables and and the dependences[sic] theoreon of and are unrestricted

Does he mean that can include time of measurement, does he include in his consideration the fact that and could be time-dependent?

Of course, the time of measurement can not be part of the parameter , because contains information which is predetermined. The time of the measurement is, as well as the direction of measurement, a free decision of the experimenters which is not predetermined, thus, cannot be part of .

The possibility that the outcomes are time-dependent is explicitly rejected using the EPR argument - which is based on the prediction of quantum theory that A=-B even if Alice and Bob measure the spin in the same direction at different times, which you reject.

b) When Bell writes


Is it understood that \lambda must be exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing in each term of the expression?

Yes.

c) Then how can any reasonable person continue to argue that Bell's includes measurement time "no-problem at all", and yet claim that the inequality derived assuming that is the same in every term should apply to measurements performed at different times? How can be exactly the same but contain components that are clearly different?

Given that does not contain future visions about the free decisions of Alice and Bob what and when to measure, does not contain components which are clearly different.

Finally, I will join Fred in waiting for the detailed calculation which demonstrates the often made claim that QM violates Bell's inequality.

Of course, in the theory which you believe is QM, which predicts 50% A=B and 50% A=-B for every experiment which can be realized with clocks of finite accuracy, the BI will not be violated by this type of experiment. Thus, first we have to wait until you accept what standard QM predicts, and only after this we can show you that these predictions (different from what you think now about QM predictions) violate BI.

[minkwe]

Since we are getting silly distractions instead of counterarguments, let me yet again summarize my arguments:

1. There is no "locality assumption" in Bell's derivation of his inequalities. None whatsoever, despite repeated noises about "locality".

- implies settings independence, not locality. It is possible to have , where represents a non-local hidden variable. Moreover, it is possible to have settings dependence even if the whole experimental setup is local and within each others light cones such that , as explained in this post
- Secondly, setting indepdendence is irrelevant for the derivation anyway because one could eliminate hidden variables (local or non-lcoal) completely and still proceed to derive the inequality, since the expectation value of the paired product can be calculated for any valid probability measure. This has been clearly explained in this post.



, Since
and after factorizing out , remembering that we get


The second term on the right is .

Therefore, any insistence that locality is required is simply poppycock, and a waste of time.

2. The counterfactual definiteness assumption invoked by Bell applies to QM as well. Bell himself uses it on page 1 to make a QM argument.

- Counterfactual Definiteness is defined as: Wikipedia: In quantum mechanics, Counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).
Gill (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5103v6.pdf): Its formulation refers to outcomes of measurements which are not actually performed, so we have to assume their existence, alongside of the outcomes of those actually performed: the principle of realism, or more precisely, counterfactual definiteness.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4281.pdf: the assumption that a measurement that was not performed had a single definite result..
- Bell's 2nd and 3rd sentence in paragraph 2 of page 1, applies CFD to quantum mechanics as follows: If Alice measures along "a" and obtained +1, then if Bob were to measure the sister particle along "a" he must obtain -1. Clearly, Bell believes and QM states that the measurement that was not performed has a single definite value. In fact, CFD applies to any theory that makes predictions. Any suggestion otherwise reflects lack of thinking ability, as it can easily shown that a prediction for an experiment which ends up not being done, is counterfactually definite. No theory is immune to this, including QM.

3. Bell's inequality relates one actual measurement, to two counterfactual measurements which could have been done but weren't.

- Bell invokes CFD in his derivation starting on Page 406 where he states that "it follows that c is another unit vector". Note, we have a pair of particles, one is measured along "a", the other is measured along "b". Bell says it follows that "c" is another unit vector, but we don't have any other particles to measure along "c". Therefore "c" is a counterfactual axis (what we could have measured but didn't). This is also revealed in the above derivation, by the use of the same index for all the summation terms, reflecting the fact that Bell is always looking at the outcomes for the same pair of particles along the three axes, one of which must be counterfactual. Futhermore, the factorization of outcomes from both terms in the summation/integral again reveals that it is always the same pair of particles measured at 3 axes, one of which must be counterfactual. Therefore, any terms in the final inequality which contain "c", MUST be counterfactual terms, ie .
- Therefore Bell's inequality is a relationship between one actual expectation value and two counterfactual expectation values .

4. Bell's inequality can not be derived if we do not assume counterfactual results, but instead use actual independent measurements .

- It does not apply to three actual expectation values because it can not be derived starting from those.
--> DEAD END. No way to derive P(b,c) on the RHS therefore no way to derive the inequality

5. Even if it were possible to measure the same pair of particles at all three pairs of settings (which is impossible to do), Bell's derivation requires that all the measurements are done at the same time.

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 . 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:

Bottom line:
1) There is no locality assumption required to in the derivation inequalities, despite claims (See de Raedt et al, and Rosinger's paper for details).
2) The CFD assumption, required to derive the inequalities also applies to QM and is used by Bell himself.
3) The use of counterfactual outcomes in the inequalities precludes experimental tests, and make them inapplicable to the predictions of QM for this experiment.
4) Either the inequalities forbid time dependent functions or time dependent hidden variables , or they require that all measurements be performed at the same time.
5) The inequalities are purely mathematical, nothing can violate them unless a mathematical error of comparing apples and oranges has been made. Not even QM can violate the inequalities.
6) Bell's theorem is false, and his inequalities are completely irrelevant for physics.

Where is the counter-argument? No more silly games, I would wait for a counter-argument to any of those points before responding any further ...

Where is the detailed calculation which demonstrates the often made claim that QM violates Bell's inequality? No more silly games, I will wait for the calculation before responding further ...

Further reading material for those who need it:

A Refutation of Bell's Theorem
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0006014v3

Bell's Theorem was developed on the basis of considerations involving a linear combination of spin correlation functions, each of which has a distinct pair of arguments. The simultaneous presence of these different pairs of arguments in the same equation can be understood in two radically different ways: either as `strongly objective,' that is, all correlation functions pertain to the same set of particle pairs, or as `weakly objective,' that is, each correlation function pertains to a different set of particle pairs.
It is demonstrated that once this meaning is determined, no discrepancy appears between local realistic theories and quantum mechanics: the discrepancy in Bell's Theorem is due only to a meaningless comparison between a local realistic inequality written within the strongly objective interpretation (thus relevant to a single set of particle pairs) and a quantum mechanical prediction derived from a weakly objective interpretation (thus relevant to several different sets of particle pairs).

I would also recommend anyone who does not understand what "coincidence" means in the context of the EPR experiment should look it up. In fact, a very careful study of one of the papers such as Weihs' experiment which you can find here (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9810080v1.pdf), will be very revealing.

Rather the individual events should be registered on both sides completely independently and compared only after the measurements are finished. This requires independent and highly accurate time bases on both sides.
...
The difference in fiber length was less than 1 m which means that the photons were registered simultaneously within 5 ns.
...
Events where both photomultipliers register a photon within △t ≤ 2 ns are ignored.
...
Finally all signals were time-tagged in special time interval analyzers, which allowed us to record the events with 75 ps resolution and 0.5 ns accuracy referenced to a rubidium standard together with the appendant switch position.
...
Long after measurements were finished we analyzed the files for coincidences with a third computer. Coincidences were identified by calculating time differences between Alice’s and Bob’s time tags and comparing these with a time window (typically a few ns).
...
Quantum theory predicts a sinusoidal dependence for the coincidence rate
on the difference angle of the analyzer directions in Alice’s and Bob’s experiments.
...
etc etc

That should be enough reading material for a week. I have better things to do right now. See you in a week. Hopefully by then someone would have been courageous enough to present clear counterarguments to my points, AND the detailed quantum calculation demonstrating violation of the inequalities. Though I suspect, after reading the material provided, they would shy away and look for a distraction instead.

[Schmelzer]

Since we are getting silly distractions instead of counterarguments, let me yet again summarize my arguments:

It is, hear, a silly distraction if I ask minkwe if he really believes that QM predicts 50% A=B and 50% A=-B if Alice and Bob measure in the same direction of the same particle pair but at different times, where QM predicts 100% A=-B.

1. There is no "locality assumption" in Bell's derivation of his inequalities. None whatsoever, despite repeated noises about "locality".

Nonsense.

Now we make the hypothesis 2, and it seems one at least worth considering, that if the two measurements are made at places remote from
one another the orientation of one magnet does not influence the result obtained with the other.

is a locality assumption.
Feel free to make your own proofs of Bell's inequalities on whatever assumptions you like, but Bell has made a locality assumption, and this is a trivial fact.

Therefore, any insistence that locality is required is simply poppycock, and a waste of time.

In Bell's proof it is assumed, which is all what matters.

2. The counterfactual definiteness assumption invoked by Bell applies to QM as well. Bell himself uses it on page 1 to make a QM argument.

Given that you have completely nonsensical ideas about what QM predicts, this is impossible to discuss with you.

Of course, if the wave function is in an eigenstate of some operator, the result of measuring this particular operator is predetermined, and, therefore, counterfactually definite - it will give the eigenvalue of this eigenstate. But this is all what is predetermined in QM.

Bell, of course, uses this fact, in particular he uses the fact that after the measurement of Bob the particle of Alice will be in an eigenstate of the spin operator in the direction measured by Bob with eigenvalue -B.

Bell's 2nd and 3rd sentence in paragraph 2 of page 1, applies CFD to quantum mechanics as follows: If Alice measures along "a" and obtained +1, then if Bob were to measure the sister particle along "a" he must obtain -1. Clearly, Bell believes and QM states that the measurement that was not performed has a single definite value. In fact, CFD applies to any theory that makes predictions. Any suggestion otherwise reflects lack of thinking ability, as it can easily shown that a prediction for an experiment which ends up not being done, is counterfactually definite. No theory is immune to this, including QM.

You seem unable or unwlling to make the trivial distinction between theories which assume counterfactual definiteness for all predictions from those who do it only in very special cases. QM has counterfactual definiteness only for measurements of very particular states - the eigenstates of the operator which describes the measurement.
For all other measurements, it makes nontrivial predictions - about probabilities. Probabilistic predictions do not need any counterfactual definiteness assumption, but are physical predictions, thus, your claim that CFD applies to every theory making predictions is nonsense.

3. Bell's inequality relates one actual measurement, to two counterfactual measurements which could have been done but weren't.

No, it relates averages.
Bell uses the counterfactual definiteness in the proof of the theorem, which is unproblematic because it has been derived based on the locality assumption and the EPR argument. It is not part of the inequalities.

You obviously don't understand that it is part of the proof that the P(a,b) will be the same in different experiments, because of the law of large numbers. This allows you to measure P(a,b), P(b,c) and P(a,c) in three different experiments.

4. Bell's inequality can not be derived if we do not assume counterfactual results, but instead use actual independent measurements .

Of course it cannot be derived from measurement results alone. A triviality without value.

5. Even if it were possible to measure the same pair of particles at all three pairs of settings (which is impossible to do), Bell's derivation requires that all the measurements are done at the same time.

Simply wrong. Learn elementary QM.

It looks like you have not understood why in some experiments one has to be careful to measure time. This is simply because these experiments use a lot of different pairs following each other in rather short time intervals, so that time measurements are used to clarify if the two measurements made by Alice and Bob are really measurements of the same pair.

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.

Imagine pink little fairies are dancing in concert as they move apart. But, then, please wake up and care about the actual predictions of QM.

minkwe has yet refused to answer if he really believes that QM predicts 50% A=B and 50% A=-B if Alice and Bob measure in the same direction of the same particle pair but at different times, where QM predicts 100% A=-B.