Experiment confirms my local-realistic model for EPR-Bohm

[Joy Christian]

Here is an important historical factoid:

The above experiment was published on the 29th of October 2015, just 14 days after the theory behind it was published here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879v2.pdf.

[FrediFizzx]

:shock:

So the bogus propaganda by the topologically naïve Bell believers continues: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 15631.html

As some of us already know, the title of this article is an outright lie. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who desperately want to believe this lie.

For those that wish to be plastered with more bogus propaganda. Perhaps someone can sneak in some tough questions for them.

http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science- ... live-video

[Joy Christian]

For those that wish to be plastered with more bogus propaganda. Perhaps someone can sneak in some tough questions for them.

http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science- ... live-video

These guys should be deeply ashamed of themselves, especially in the light of this incontrovertible support for Einstein: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=207&p=5736#p5732.

[Joy Christian]

***
The bogus propaganda by the "quantum" mysterians continue shamelessly: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190 ,

even though this type of experiments with photons have long been explained by my 3-sphere model purely local-realistically: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748.

Eventually the fraud-busters will catchup with the "quantum" mysterians. The following derivation is just the beginning: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=207&p=5754#p5732.

Nota bene: There are NO LOOPHOLES exploited in this derivation: https://www.academia.edu/17783877/Dispr ... 501.03393_.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
The bogus propaganda by the "quantum" mysterians continue shamelessly: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190 ,

even though this type of experiments with photons have long been explained by my 3-sphere model purely local-realistically: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748.

Eventually the fraud-busters will catchup with the "quantum" mysterians. The following derivation is just the beginning: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=207&p=5754#p5732.

Nota bene: There are NO LOOPHOLES exploited in this derivation: https://www.academia.edu/17783877/Dispr ... 501.03393_.

***

More bogus propaganda (do these people, including Physical Review Letters, have any shame?): http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team- ... tance.html

And here is the antidote to the bogus propaganda, again: https://www.academia.edu/17783877/Dispr ... 501.03393_



Needless to say, the entire Bell saga is a deeply embarrassing episode in the recent history of physics.

[FrediFizzx]

More bogus propaganda (do these people, including Physical Review Letters, have any shame?): http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team- ... tance.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189

And once again one can see from simpe inspection that they are shifting to a different inequality to show "violation". For their eq. (1), The first and last terms can range from 0 to +1 and the two middle terms can range from 0 to 0.5 so we could have,

+1 -0 -0 -0 = +1 instead of 0.

So the absolute bound on the inequality with independent terms is +1 not 0. Did they violate +1? This applies to the other recent experiment also using that CH-E inequality. Local realism is still alive and very well. The evidence for local realism is now very overwhelming.

[ivica]

... More bogus propaganda (do these people, including Physical Review Letters, have any shame?) ...

Ca-HA, perhaps they are "entagled" with it .

[Joy Christian]

The much hyped "loophole free" experiment discussed in this thread has come under fire also from a different direction, with a serious charge of the "violation" of Bell inequalities achieved in the experiment only by post-selection --- i.e., by deceitful manipulation of the experimental data:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/B74AEB ... 88#fb41387

If this charge is true (and I am no expert on the data analysis in the actual experiments), then the fraud perpetuated collectively by the Bell believers is of even more serious nature than I previously thought.

[Joy Christian]

***

More bogus propaganda by one of the quantum mystics: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/123.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

The fraudulent propaganda by ignorant fools continue: http://journals.aps.org/prl/issues/115/25.

I am using such strong words because this is the same Physical Review whose editors have rejected my papers (such as this one) without reviews, on the grounds that their "readership" would not be interested in my conclusions. They are not interested in publishing the truth or serving physics. They are only interested in making a ton of money by pleasing their "readership." And they are not the only journal running on such a despicable anti-scientific policy. Other commercial journals such as Nature and Science have similar or even worse policies. Sadly, physics has become a farce far more egregious than any organized religion.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

I just learned that the Delft team, which performed the so-called “loophole free” experiment, had a 50 million dollar investment form the INTEL Corporation, a company with a huge vested interest in building a “quantum computer.”

I don’t have an independent confirmation of this gossip. I just learned about it from a comment by Teresa Mendes on the FQXi blog. But if true, then no wonder why the Delft team was so keen on proclaiming the “death of local realism”, just as Clauser et al. did in the 70’s, and Aspect et al. did in the 80’s.

Buried under money, power, politics, and vested interests, the "truth" is difficult to find in these experiments.

***

[FrediFizzx]

***

I just learned that the Delft team, which performed the so-called “loophole free” experiment, had a 50 million dollar investment form the INTEL Corporation, a company with a huge vested interest in building a “quantum computer.”

I don’t have an independent confirmation of this gossip. I just learned about it from a comment by Teresa Mendes on the FQXi blog. But if true, then no wonder why the Delft team was so keen on proclaiming the “death of local realism”, just as Clauser et al. did in the 70’s, and Aspect et al. did in the 80’s.

Buried under money, power, politics, and vested interests, the "truth" is difficult to find in these experiments.

***

Well their acknowledgements don't mention any funding from Intel so probably is just gossip. From their arXiv paper;

"We acknowledge support from
the Dutch Organization for Fundamental Research on
Matter (FOM), Dutch Technology Foundation (STW),
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
(NWO) through a VENI grant (THT) and a VIDI
grant (SW), the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency QuASAR program, the Spanish MINECO
project MAGO (Ref. FIS2011-23520) and Explora
Ciencia (Ref. FIS2014-62181-EXP), the European Regional
Development Fund (FEDER) grant TEC2013-
46168-R, Fundacio Privada CELLEX and the European
Research Council through projects AQUMET and
HYSCORE."

[Joy Christian]

^^^

I am reproducing below my recent reply to someone who, like many, has been taken-in by the success of the so-called "loophole-free" experiments:

I am sorry that you prefer to ignore the evidence I have presented and side with a manifestly erroneous argument by Belll and his followers. I doubt that you will change your mind, but let me show you, in just a few steps, how absurd Bell's argument is (independently of the explicit and irrefutable evidence I have presented above in support of my manifestly local model for EPRB).

Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. It makes predictions for possible ***physical*** experiments. It makes no prediction whatsoever for the Bell-CHSH quantity

E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’),

because no experiment can ever be performed (even by "God") which can measure that quantity. On the other hand, quantum mechanics does make definite predictions for the quantities (or expectation values) E(a, b), E(a, b’), E(a’, b), and E(a’, b’) individually. Therefore one has to be extraordinarily naïve to think that the Bell-CHSH inequality

E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) < 2

has any relevance whatsoever for physics.

One can see Bell’s argument as an elementary logical fallacy, relentlessly committed by the Bell supporters with a straight face. What is possible (and actually observed in any Bell-type experiment) is

E(a, b) OR E(a, b’) OR E(a’, b) OR E(a’, b’),

since a, b, a’, and b’ are mutually exclusive observation directions (evidently, one can either be in New York or in LA, but not in both places at the same time). The corresponding inequality then is

E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) < 4

which has never been violated in any experiment.

But Bell and his supporters superstitiously replace the above logical string with

E(a, b) AND E(a, b’) AND E(a’, b) AND E(a’, b’),

which is a quantity that can never be observed in any experiment, because, once again, a, b, a’, and b’ are mutually exclusive observation directions. All one needs is an elementary lesson in logic to recognize the fallacy in replacing OR with AND --- i.e., replacing physics with nonsense.

What is flabbergasting is that the Bell supporters have been able to mislead the entire physics community for over 50 years with such an obvious sleight of hand. No statistical trickery can mask this Uri Geller-type sleight of hand in logic.

^^^

[Gordon Watson]

I am reproducing below my recent reply to someone who, like many, has been taken-in by the success of the so-called "loophole-free" experiments:

I am sorry that you prefer to ignore the evidence I have presented and side with a manifestly erroneous argument by Belll and his followers. I doubt that you will change your mind, but let me show you, in just a few steps, how absurd Bell's argument is (independently of the explicit and irrefutable evidence I have presented above in support of my manifestly local model for EPRB).

Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. It makes predictions for possible ***physical*** experiments. It makes no prediction whatsoever for the Bell-CHSH quantity

E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’),

because no experiment can ever be performed (even by "God") which can measure that quantity. On the other hand, quantum mechanics does make definite predictions for the quantities (or expectation values) E(a, b), E(a, b’), E(a’, b), and E(a’, b’) individually. Therefore one has to be extraordinarily naïve to think that the Bell-CHSH inequality

E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) < 2

has any relevance whatsoever for physics.

One can see Bell’s argument as an elementary logical fallacy, relentlessly committed by the Bell supporters with a straight face. What is possible (and actually observed in any Bell-type experiment) is

E(a, b) OR E(a, b’) OR E(a’, b) OR E(a’, b’),

since a, b, a’, and b’ are mutually exclusive observation directions (evidently, one can either be in New York or in LA, but not in both places at the same time). The corresponding inequality then is

E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) < 4

which has never been violated in any experiment.

But Bell and his supporters superstitiously replace the above logical string with

E(a, b) AND E(a, b’) AND E(a’, b) AND E(a’, b’),

which is a quantity that can never be observed in any experiment, because, once again, a, b, a’, and b’ are mutually exclusive observation directions. All one needs is an elementary lesson in logic to recognize the fallacy in replacing OR with AND --- i.e., replacing physics with nonsense.

What is flabbergasting is that the Bell supporters have been able to mislead the entire physics community for over 50 years with such an obvious sleight of hand. No statistical trickery can mask this Uri Geller-type sleight of hand in logic.

Emphasis added by GW.

Joy,

IMHO, your reply will not be convincing. Take this wording of yours:

"It [QM] makes no prediction whatsoever for the Bell-CHSH quantity E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’), because no experiment can ever be performed (even by "God") which can measure that quantity."

I suggest that the Bell-CHSH quantity, a straight-forward physically-significant expression, is predicted by QM and that it is readily derived from a Bell-test in which Alice is free to select detector settings a or a' while Bob is free to select settings b or b'. Then (as is now well-known), for some settings, the Bell-CHSH limit of 2 will be exceeded.

So the Bell-CHSH limit of 2 is clearly false, and we ask: Why is it so?

Well Bell-CHSH base their limit of 2 on the assumption that quantum objects have classical-like properties which are faithfully revealed by tests. (Indeed, some classical objects do satisfy their limit of 2.) But tests which smash sensitive quantum objects into macroscopic detectors perturb the quantum objects so that the test outputs (inputs to the related Expectations E) are a not pre-existing classical-like properties (now revealed). Rather, they are outcomes manufactured via perturbative interactions; interactions which are minimised when we measure classical objects.

Then, since improved experiments continue to confirm the Bell-CHSH error, I suggest that you challenge your friend to find its source.

PS: If your friend believes that "local-realism" is false, it would be good to know what they mean by that expression!

[Joy Christian]

IMHO, your reply will not be convincing. Take this wording of yours:

"It [QM] makes no prediction whatsoever for the Bell-CHSH quantity E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’), because no experiment can ever be performed (even by "God") which can measure that quantity."

I suggest that the Bell-CHSH quantity, a straight-forward physically-significant expression, is predicted by QM and that it is readily derived from a Bell-test in which Alice is free to select detector settings a or a' while Bob is free to select settings b or b'. Then (as is now well-known), for some settings, the Bell-CHSH limit of 2 will be exceeded.

Thanks, Gordon.

You are talking about a "theoretical" prediction of quantum mechanics [ that of Tsirel'son's bound of 2\/2 ] for counter-factually possible but mutually incompatible observation directions. That prediction is indeed straightforward as you say. I myself have derived it many times within my own local-realistic framework --- see, for example, the extensive discussion we had at this thread of the forum and links to several of my papers therein. See also: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=196&start=50#p5458.

On the other hand, my sentence you quote above is obviously true, because a, b, a', and b' are mutually exclusive observation directions corresponding to physically incompatible four experiments. What I am saying there is that Bell-CHSH quantity cannot be observed directly in any experiment, for example in a given single run.

We have of course gone through all of these issues to death in this forum. See for example this quite succinct discussion by Michel: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=199#p5528.

[Gordon Watson]

IMHO, your reply will not be convincing. Take this wording of yours:

"It [QM] makes no prediction whatsoever for the Bell-CHSH quantity E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’), because no experiment can ever be performed (even by "God") which can measure that quantity."

I suggest that the Bell-CHSH quantity, a straight-forward physically-significant expression, is predicted by QM and that it is readily derived from a Bell-test in which Alice is free to select detector settings a or a' while Bob is free to select settings b or b'. Then (as is now well-known), for some settings, the Bell-CHSH limit of 2 will be exceeded.

Thanks, Gordon.

You are talking about a "theoretical" prediction of quantum mechanics [ that of Tsirel'son's bound of 2\/2 ] for counter-factually possible but mutually incompatible observation directions. That prediction is indeed straightforward as you say. I myself have derived it many times within my own local-realistic framework --- see, for example, the extensive discussion we had at this thread of the forum and links to several of my papers therein. See also: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=196&start=50#p5458.

On the other hand, my sentence you quote above is obviously true, because a, b, a', and b' are mutually exclusive observation directions corresponding to physically incompatible four experiments. What I am saying there is that Bell-CHSH quantity cannot be observed directly in any experiment, for example in a given single run.

We have of course gone through all of these issues to death in this forum. See for example this quite succinct discussion by Michel: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=199#p5528.

Joy, with respect, that sentence of yours (that I quoted above) is false!

I am not referring to Tsirelson's bound. QM readily derives a value for any expectation E(x, y) in a Bell-test and those values are experimentally confirmed to high accuracy. So:

1. For Bell-tests, QM predicts a value for your "Bell-CHSH quantity".

2. With or without "God", a Bell-test allows Alice to move her detector between the settings a and a' while Bob independently moves his detector between the settings b and b'.

3. Bell-tests [here consisting of 4 relative detector settings (a, b), (a, b'), (a', b), (a', b')], confirm the QM prediction to high accuracy.

4. The challenge for your friend remains: How did Bell-CHSH get it so wrong?
.

[Joy Christian]

Gordon,

All I am saying is that quantum mechanics makes no prediction whatsoever for the Bell-CHSH quantity E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’)

for a single run of the EPR-Bohm type experiment, because no experiment can be performed that can measure that quantity for a single run.

The point I am making is rather trivial to understand: a, b, a', and b' are mutually exclusive, or physically incompatible observation directions.

***
As for your question: "How did Bell-CHSH get it so wrong?", my answer, as many on this forum know, has to do with the wrong choice of a co-domain they
chose for the measurement functions, as I have explained in great detail on this page of my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/d ... orem-book/

***

[thray]

" ... a, b, a', and b' are mutually exclusive, or physically incompatible observation directions."

Why is this so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand?

[FrediFizzx]

" ... a, b, a', and b' are mutually exclusive, or physically incompatible observation directions."

Why is this so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand?

It is one of the biggest mysteries in modern physics. QM nor any experiment has ever violated a Bell inequality.

[Gordon Watson]

" ... a, b, a', and b' are mutually exclusive, or physically incompatible observation directions."

Why is this so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand?

Joy, Tom, Fred:

What is currently hard for me to understand is this: Why do you make such a statement?

Having regard to the following facts, I'd welcome your explanation.

a and a' are mutually exclusive, b and b' are mutually exclusive; but a does not exclude b or b', and a' does not exclude b or b', etc.

Thus the following combinations of detector settings are relevant, valid and physically compatible angles: (a, b), (a, b'), (a', b), (a', b'); being the angles between physically compatible detector settings.