Heinera wrote:...
All the talk about frequencies is a cop-out. We don't even have to talk about experiments, or QM or loopholes or any other concept for that matter. There are 4 expressions:
(1) ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ ≤ 2
(2) ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ ≤ 2√2
(3) ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ ≤ 2√2
(4) ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ ≤ 2
Let us focus on just the maths for a moment. There are no frequencies in that expression, just hard-cold data. I say the expressions (3) and (4) are wrong. I have provided a dataset which easily violates expression (4)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6sZy ... EtRMlpsQzQ If you think expression (4) is correct, provide the mathematical proof of it. Expression (3) is wrong because it cannot be correct at the same time as expression (1). And definitive proof of the validity of expression (1) exists already.
I claim that expression (1) is correct and can never be violated, ever! Expression (4) is wrong and is easily violated. Bell's proponents claim that they have evidence of violation of expression (1), but then claim that expression (4) is correct. I'm calling their bluff, provide the dataset which violates expression (1). Use any means at your disposal to provide the data, you don't need to explain to anyone how you got it, If you believe an experiment violates (1), then you can just copy the data from the experiment and I'll shut up. Just provide the hard-cold data like I've done. The ball is in your court, it is clear what you have to do:
(a) Provide a dataset which violates expression (1)
(b) Provide a mathematical proof of expression (4)I call this the
Fred Diether Challenge, and it cuts through all the noise of disagreements about physical concepts, and experimental details. It is simply a challenge about datasets.
