Bell proved that you can't be at two places at once!

[minkwe]

Michel, that is a beautifully compact way to explain the physical effect of parity on observation. I arrived at the same result in a draft paper ("Special Relativity and the Origin of Probability" https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... lity_REV_1)

Imagine a sequence of random results from a coin-tossing function: HHTHHHTTH ...

This sequence is identical to the maximally-unknowable Chaitin number Ω , in which the outcome H or T (0 or 1) of any individual toss cannot be predicted from the outcome previous, as if the discrete digits were independent Bernoulli trials. Ω is itself dependent on the initial condition of the program in which the algorithm was written, and no two different programming languages give the same result.

For a continuous function, however, only a pairwise state guarantees an unambiguous initial condition. (2 + x) + y and (2 + x) – y do not share a parity relation.

Arithmetic parity tells us:

{1/2} + 1/4 + {1/2} - 1/4 = 1 (+ -) anti-parity (a)

{1/2} - 1/4 + {1/2} + 1/4 = 1 (- +) anti-parity (b)

{1/2} + (+1/4) + {1/2} + (+1/4) = 1.5 (+ +) positive parity (H:) (c)

{1/2} – (-1/4) – {1/2} – (-1/4) = 0.5 (- -) negative parity (G:) (d)

The sign reversal between (c) and (d) informs the order of sign operations that plays a critical role in the inequalities of positive and negative pairwise parity.

The positive case is identical to the unfalsifiable twin primes conjecture; it will never tell us anything about what happens when we exchange positive parity for negative parity. G: is falsifiable in principle; H: is not falsifiable at all. Physically, the observer is always found in the impossible-to-observe state of highest energy (c), initially.

Tom

Hi Tom, that is a very interesting approach. Never thought of it that way. Will definitely check out your paper.

Have you ever considered if the no-cloning theorem of QM had a related origin?

[FrediFizzx]

***
The gross mistake made by Bell and his followers was to unwittingly smuggle-in something mathematically illegitimate and physically impossible (namely the quantity B + B’ ) as THE essential part of their derivation of the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator in the name of Einstein’s local-realism, and then declare that the experimentally observed “violations” of those bounds is a proof of a “violation” of Einstein’s local-realism. But what they illegally smuggled-in — namely the quantity B + B’ — has nothing to do with Einstein’s local-realism, which they used to define B and B’ individually. Any precocious schoolchild can see their logical fallacy here.

***

That is right so how does one explain why this has been going on for over 50 years?

And it is easy to prove that B + B' can never be a simultaneous element of reality by the very mechanism of EPR-Bohm itself. It is impossible for Bell's theory to have any say about realism. And that actually goes for your EPR-Bohm model also. However, you can still claim it is realistic because no one can prove it wrong. It still makes the prediction that you will get outcomes of 50-50 +/-1 at A and B by realistic means.
.

[Joy Christian]

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch, in reply to Jay:

These are all words. I ask Gill for a precise criterion — analogous to that by EPR — which dictates that B is real, and B’ is real. Then, using the same criterion, prove that B + B’ is real.

My argument from the Appendix of the following paper is being ignored by all at Retraction Watch: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

I am reproducing the appendix here to point out that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming local causality:




***

[Heinera]

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch, in reply to Jay:
[...]
I am reproducing the appendix here to point out that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming local causality:
[...]
***

Of course you assume locality. You assume that the result for Alice is a function A(a, \lambda) of a and \lambda only, independent of Bob's setting b (or b').

[FrediFizzx]

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch, in reply to Jay:
[...]
I am reproducing the appendix here to point out that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming local causality:
[...]
***

Of course you assume locality. You assume that the result for Alice is a function A(a, \lambda) of a and \lambda only, independent of Bob's setting b (or b').

I think Joy meant there "without assuming realism" instead of local causality.
.

[Joy Christian]

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch, in reply to Jay:
[...]
I am reproducing the appendix here to point out that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming local causality:
[...]
***

Of course you assume locality. You assume that the result for Alice is a function A(a, \lambda) of a and \lambda only, independent of Bob's setting b (or b').

Please read what I have written more carefully. It is just one page. I am sure you can read it more carefully. I have not assumed locality.

***

[Heinera]

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch, in reply to Jay:
[...]
I am reproducing the appendix here to point out that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming local causality:
[...]
***

Of course you assume locality. You assume that the result for Alice is a function A(a, \lambda) of a and \lambda only, independent of Bob's setting b (or b').

I think Joy meant there "without assuming realism" instead of local causality.
.

By using a hidden variable \lambda he is assuming realism as well. He assumes a local hidden variable model, and then derives bounds of -2, +2. Big deal. Someone did that before.

[Joy Christian]

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch, in reply to Jay:
[...]
I am reproducing the appendix here to point out that one can easily derive the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator without assuming local causality:
[...]
***

Of course you assume locality. You assume that the result for Alice is a function A(a, \lambda) of a and \lambda only, independent of Bob's setting b (or b').

I think Joy meant there "without assuming realism" instead of local causality.
.

By using a hidden variable \lambda he is assuming realism as well. He assumes a local hidden variable model, and then derives bounds of -2, +2. Big deal. Someone did that before.

Can you read, Heinera? If you can't, then please don't pollute this thread.

It is just one page. But you have to read it to dispel your deep-seated prejudices.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Since Heinera has missed this point from my paper, and since Bell-believers never admit when they are wrong, let me reproduce the two lines that Heinera has missed:



***

[thray]

Michel, that is a beautifully compact way to explain the physical effect of parity on observation. I arrived at the same result in a draft paper ("Special Relativity and the Origin of Probability" https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... lity_REV_1)

Imagine a sequence of random results from a coin-tossing function: HHTHHHTTH ...

This sequence is identical to the maximally-unknowable Chaitin number Ω , in which the outcome H or T (0 or 1) of any individual toss cannot be predicted from the outcome previous, as if the discrete digits were independent Bernoulli trials. Ω is itself dependent on the initial condition of the program in which the algorithm was written, and no two different programming languages give the same result.

For a continuous function, however, only a pairwise state guarantees an unambiguous initial condition. (2 + x) + y and (2 + x) – y do not share a parity relation.

Arithmetic parity tells us:

{1/2} + 1/4 + {1/2} - 1/4 = 1 (+ -) anti-parity (a)

{1/2} - 1/4 + {1/2} + 1/4 = 1 (- +) anti-parity (b)

{1/2} + (+1/4) + {1/2} + (+1/4) = 1.5 (+ +) positive parity (H:) (c)

{1/2} – (-1/4) – {1/2} – (-1/4) = 0.5 (- -) negative parity (G:) (d)

The sign reversal between (c) and (d) informs the order of sign operations that plays a critical role in the inequalities of positive and negative pairwise parity.

The positive case is identical to the unfalsifiable twin primes conjecture; it will never tell us anything about what happens when we exchange positive parity for negative parity. G: is falsifiable in principle; H: is not falsifiable at all. Physically, the observer is always found in the impossible-to-observe state of highest energy (c), initially.

Tom

Hi Tom, that is a very interesting approach. Never thought of it that way. Will definitely check out your paper.

Have you ever considered if the no-cloning theorem of QM had a related origin?

No, but opinions are free.

One cannot perfectly copy an unknown state. So long as we rely on linear superposition and entanglement to guide our quantum computing efforts, we're not likely to get far. Using the relativistic principles of time reversibility, no privileged observer frame and speed limit on the exchange of information -- we might find that localized states have a dynamic relation to their adjacent states. "Adjacent" is a field concept, with no dependence on the mathematical fiction of superposition, operating on the open interval (0,1), as opposed to the probabilistic interval [0,1]. The trick is to fix the state 0 on a half-open interval [0,oo) such that we know the correct time orientation. This is why I think Joy's research is so important--far beyond the Bell controversy.

[Joy Christian]

***
My latest reply to Gill on Retraction Watch:

In the appendix of the paper linked below I have derive the Bell inequality,

-2 ≤ E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) ≤ +2 ,

using only the assumption of the realities of B + B’ and B – B’, without assuming locality.

Since experiments “violate” this inequality, they prove that B + B’ and B – B’ are not real:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***

[FrediFizzx]

***
My latest reply to Gill on Retraction Watch:

In the appendix of the paper linked below I have derive the Bell inequality,

-2 ≤ E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) ≤ +2 ,

using only the assumption of the realities of B + B’ and B – B’, without assuming locality.

Since experiments “violate” this inequality, they prove that B + B’ and B – B’ are not real:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***

I am not sure that it is a proof since experiments don't really "violate" CHSH. I highly suspect the experiments have absolutely nothing to say about realism at all. Nor does Bell's theory. I'm going to start a new thread about this since the discussion at RW has brought it to the forefront.
.

[Joy Christian]

***
My latest reply to Gill on Retraction Watch:

In the appendix of the paper linked below I have derive the Bell inequality,

-2 ≤ E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) ≤ +2 ,

using only the assumption of the realities of B + B’ and B – B’, without assuming locality.

Since experiments “violate” this inequality, they prove that B + B’ and B – B’ are not real:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***

I am not sure that it is a proof since experiments don't really "violate" CHSH. I highly suspect the experiments have absolutely nothing to say about realism at all. Nor does Bell's theory. I'm going to start a new thread about this since the discussion at RW has brought it to the forefront.
.

Sure. I am just playing with Gill, just like a cat playing with a mouse. I am just having fun.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
My latest reply to Gill on Retraction Watch:

In the appendix of the paper linked below I have derive the Bell inequality,

-2 ≤ E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) ≤ +2 ,

using only the assumption of the realities of B + B’ and B – B’, without assuming locality.

Since experiments “violate” this inequality, they prove that B + B’ and B – B’ are not real:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***

I am not sure that it is a proof since experiments don't really "violate" CHSH. I highly suspect the experiments have absolutely nothing to say about realism at all. Nor does Bell's theory. I'm going to start a new thread about this since the discussion at RW has brought it to the forefront.
.

Sure. I am just playing with Gill, just like a Cat playing with a mouse. I am just having fun.

***

[minkwe]

I just posted the following at RW:

Jay, "sum over probabilities=1" is valid only within the same experiment. I thought I just gave you a ptetty solid counter-example.

What might be real to Spinoza might no be the same as what is real for an experimeter. There is a risk of missing the point altogether by considering "elements of reality" separately from the specific experimental situation.

(1) ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ ≤ 2
(2) ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ ≤ 2√2


(a) P(H)₁ + P(T)₁ = 1
(b) P(H)₁ + P(T)₂ = 1.5


The relationship between (1) and (2), is not unlike the relationship between (a) and (b). All those statements are valid for the relevant experiments. But mix and match them and you can generate paradoxes at will.

In other words, if Bell's realism assumption is equivalent to the simultaneous existence of A,A',B,B', how can the rejection of that assumption be based on experiments which deliberately do not measure them simultaneously? Isn't it a bit curious to you that the main feature required to derive the CHSH -- ie the simultaneous existence of B,B' is the biggest limitations of the experiment?

Is the CHSH Spinoza's inequality, or the experimentalists? Give onto Spinoza what belongs to Spinoza,and to the experimentalists what belongs to them. The biggest problem is when you derive an inequality from Spinoza's POV, and try to test it from the POV of experimentalists who do not know anything about the unmeasurable.

[thray]

That is nice, Michel!

[Joy Christian]

***
Since Heinera has missed this point from my paper, and since Bell-believers never admit when they are wrong, let me reproduce the two lines that Heinera has missed:



***

As expected, Heinera has no decency to come forward and admit that he was wrong. At the least, he did not carefully read my earlier post before jumping the gun.

No matter. The bottom line of my argument --- as one can see from my post below --- is to disprove Bell by using his own logic:

In the appendix of the paper linked below I have derive the Bell inequality,

-2 ≤ E(a, b) + E(a, b’) + E(a’, b) – E(a’, b’) ≤ +2 ,

using only the assumption of the realities of B + B’ and B – B’, without assuming locality.

Since experiments “violate” this inequality, they prove that B + B’ and B – B’ are not real:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***

[Heinera]

***
Since Heinera has missed this point from my paper, and since Bell-believers never admit when they are wrong, let me reproduce the two lines that Heinera has missed:



***

The fact that you write something, does not mean that it is correct.

If you want \lambda to depend on the settings, your integrals are wrong. The distribution \rho must then take the settings as arguments, in addition to \lambda.

[Joy Christian]

***
Since Heinera has missed this point from my paper, and since Bell-believers never admit when they are wrong, let me reproduce the two lines that Heinera has missed:



***

The fact that you write something, does not mean that it is correct.

If you want \lambda to depend on the settings, your integrals are wrong. The distribution \rho must then take the settings as arguments, in addition to \lambda.

My integrals are manifestly correct. Just because you claim them to be wrong does not make them wrong. Anyone who has gone through a basic course in calculus can see that my integrals are correct. The distribution rho(lambda) evidently takes the settings {a, b} as well as the results {A, B} as arguments via lambda(a, b, A, B). You ether do not understand elementary mathematics to judge my argument, or you are deliberately lying, as all Bell-believers habitually do when they are proven wrong.

***

[Heinera]

It is you who don't understand calculus. One does not integrate over a function, one integrates over a variable. If you want the distribution of that variable to depend on anything, this dependence must be made explicit in the distribution. If you do that, you can figure out yourself that the bounds are -4, 4.

And by that I have finished with this thread. Don't expect any further replies.