Parrott's mathematical nonsense

[FrediFizzx]

If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Nice try, I mean the CHSH, can the CHSH be violated or not?yes or no. Your answer should be at most 3 letters. Why is this question so difficult for you? If you can't answer, then you are not intellectually honest enough for me to engage you in a discussion.

So let the next thing you say to me be a maximum 3 letter answer to my question, if you want me to even recognise your presence.

LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

[Heinera]

If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Nice try, I mean the CHSH, can the CHSH be violated or not?yes or no. Your answer should be at most 3 letters. Why is this question so difficult for you? If you can't answer, then you are not intellectually honest enough for me to engage you in a discussion.

So let the next thing you say to me be a maximum 3 letter answer to my question, if you want me to even recognise your presence.

Don't be sloppy. You have the CHSH expression involved in all of your four inequalities. Which one do you mean, (1), (2), (3) or (4)?

[minkwe]

LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

I had to try. I thought perhaps there was a glimmer of self respect left deep down somewhere.

A bell fanatic who doesn't know if the CHSH can ever be violated or not.

[Joy Christian]

LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

I had to try. I thought perhaps there was a glimmer of self respect left deep down somewhere.

A bell fanatic who doesn't know if the CHSH can ever be violated or not.

Welcome to the post-truth world of Bell-fanatics. Witness their shameless attempts at RW to either run away when proven wrong (like Gill and Parrott), change the subject when cornered (like HR), ignore your direct questions (like LJ), or shamelessly switch to a completely different inequality from the one being discussed (like HR). If Gill didn't keep interfering with my academic life by blocking my papers from being published, then I would never bother to deal with such a dishonest bunch.

***

[Joy Christian]

LOL! I know you didn't ever really expect a straight answer from a Bell fanatic. They don't seem to respond very well to logical mathematics.

My straightforward but uncomfortable question is systematically ignored at Retraction Watch by the Bell-fanatics:

HR, Is the Bell-CHSH inequality | ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ | ≤ 2 “violated” in the EPR-B experiments, or not? Please answer Yes or No without trying to switch to a different inequality with a higher bound of 4. If it is “violated”, then please provide an N x 4 data set.

Needless to say, there are only two logically possible answers to my question:

(1) Yes, the Bell-CHSH inequality | ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ | ≤ 2 is “violated” in the EPR-B experiments,

in which case the Bell-fanatics should be able to provide a data set in the form of an N x 4 matrix violating the above inequality,

or

(2) No, the Bell-CHSH inequality | ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ | ≤ 2 is not “violated” in the EPR-B experiments,

in which case why have they been making a false claim of "violations" and misleading the physics community for many decades?

***

[minkwe]

The unanswered questions are mounting. Here is another one to keep the pro-Bellers up at night.

Larsson and Gill, two famous pro-Bellers stated the following quite eloquently in their paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312035v2.pdf, page 4):

The problem here is that the ensemble on which the correlations are evaluated changes
with the settings, while the original Bell inequality requires that they stay the same. In effect,
the Bell inequality only holds on the common part of the four different ensembles ΛAC′ , ΛAD′ ,
ΛBC′ , and ΛBD′

So my question for all Bell believers is simple:

What is the common part of the 4 disjoint ensembles used to evaluate the expression:

⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩

[minkwe]

My latest post at RW:

Jay,
You keep asking the question that has been answered by contra-Bell over and over and over. Are you ignoring the points we’ve been making or what part of it don’t you understand? Perhaps it is time for you to start answering some questions too. For example, it is well known that Gill is pro-Bell.

1) Do you agree with Gill when he says “The problem here is that the ensemble on which the correlations are evaluated changes with the settings, while the original Bell inequality requires that they stay the same. In effect, the Bell inequality only holds on the common part of the four different ensembles ΛAB , ΛAB′ , ΛA′B , and ΛA′B′”? [notation changed for consistency]. In other words, are each of the averages in the CHSH inequality evaluated on the same ensemble (strongly objective) or from separate *disjoint* ensembles (weakly objective). Or if you like, does the CHSH inequality require that the ensembles used to calculate each average stay the same?

2) On the Wikipedia page you pointed to, where it claims QM violates the inequalities, you have the expression

⟨A(a)B(b)⟩ + ⟨A(a)B(b’)⟩ + ⟨A(a’)B(b)⟩ – ⟨A(a’)B(b’)⟩ = 2√2

Are the averages in that expression based on experimental outcomes from a single ensemble (strongly objective), or averages from separate *disjoint* ensembles (weakly objective)? If your answer is “strongly objective”, then it should be possible to use QM to produce the Nx4 spreadsheet of data demonstrating violation of the CHSH.

3) If you answer [YES] to (1) like I do, then please answer, what is the common part of *disjoint* ensembles that are used to calculate ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₂B’₂⟩ + ⟨A’₃B₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ in QM or EPRB Experiments.

4) There have been many experiments claiming to violate the CHSH. In your opinion, has an experiment ever been carried out in which each of the terms was calculated from the same ensemble? If such an experiment exists, it should be possible to produce the Nx4 Spreadsheet from such an experiment demonstrating the violation.