My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat it:

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:49 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
There is no "Gull's proof." There is not even a sketch of a proof. At best, it is just wishful thinking by Gull.

One obvious problem with Gull's wishful thinking is that his argument ignores the geometry and topology of the physical space in which EPR-Bohm type experiments are performed.

As for my claim of "stealing", the fact remains that neither Bell nor the early followers of Bell ever gave any credit to Boole for his inequality. That is "stealing" in my book.

***

I do see a sketch of a proof in Gull's overhead slides. Lots more people saw it and understood that it was easy to write out a complete and formal proof. Nobody bothered to do it because it was so easy. Please do take a careful look!

I wonder most of all, what other people on the forum here think of it?

I took Gull's outline even further in my https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6403 "The triangle wave versus the cosine (how to optimally approximate EPR-B Correlations by classical systems)"

Your accusation that J.S. Bell actually did shamelessly steal ideas from others brings various well-known sayings to my mind! :lol: Surely you knew him better (in real life, in person) than to seriously mean that. And what did Abner Shimony think of the "theft"? Tsk, tsk, tsk. 8-)
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:40 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
Gull's ... argument ignores the geometry and topology of the physical space in which EPR-Bohm type experiments are performed.

This is of course the heart of the matter. Bell and his "followers" believe that "the geometry and topology of the physical space in which EPR-Bohm type experiments are performed" is totaly irrelevant. We just need one spatial dimension, we need time, and that's it. We need binary inputs and outputs at particular space-time coordinates. You can embed all that in whatever bigger space time system you like but that doesn't change the argument.

Various writers, such as David Oaknin, Karl Hess and Walter Philipp; and no doubt others,do believe that the global geometry and topology make a difference.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 pm

Actually it is the geometry and topology of the singlets but since they separate into two particles, that topology is extended to the space between them. And I do believe that Joy has proven that singlets have 3-sphere topology. And that means that they also have two orientations.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:59 am

gill1109 wrote:
Bell and his "followers" believe that "the geometry and topology of the physical space in which EPR-Bohm type experiments are performed" is totaly irrelevant.

Who are Bell and his followers that Nature should be mindful of them?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:29 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Bell and his "followers" believe that "the geometry and topology of the physical space in which EPR-Bohm type experiments are performed" is totaly irrelevant.

Who are Bell and his followers that Nature should be mindful of them?

***

I guess that’s meant to be a rhetorical question. But seriously, whether or not Nature is mindful of any mere human seems to me a question of religion, not physics. And on the other hand we scientists had better be mindful of Nature. We had better thereby make careful use of the faculties of reasoning which Nature has given us.

I hope some other participants of the forum will let us know what they think of Gull’s very cute, very original idea of a proof. Joy’s opinion is already very well known!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Heinera » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:31 am

I think Gull's outline of a proof is great. Novel, and an interesting alternative to Bell's theorem.

Not that there is anything wrong with Bell's theorem. But why shouldn't we be allowed to use statistical theorems to prove a result about correlations, which is 100% a statistical/probabilistic concept? That's why Joy's challenge is silly.
Heinera
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:26 am

Heinera wrote:I think Gull's outline of a proof is great. Novel, and an interesting alternative to Bell's theorem.

Not that there is anything wrong with Bell's theorem. But why shouldn't we be allowed to use statistical theorems to prove a result about correlations, which is 100% a statistical/probabilistic concept? That's why Joy's challenge is silly.

Both of your points are absurd.

Gull's so-called "poof" is a non-starter, because it does not take into account the geometry and topology of the physical space in which we are confined to perform the Bell-test experiments.

Moreover, Gull's so-called proof is necessarily wrong because since 2011 there already exists an explicit and constructive counterexample to Bell's theorem: https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

Bell-believers like yourself have not been able to meet my challenge for nearly three years because it is not possible to meet it. It is here to demonstrate how silly Bell's theorem really is.

For those readers of this forum who are unbiased observers, I recommend this short paper to appreciate how nonsensical Bell's theorem really is: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:44 pm

Poof!

Indeed. If Christian's proof is correct, Gull's must be wrong.

And conversely.

Joy Christian wrote:Bell-believers like yourself have not been able to meet my challenge for nearly three years because it is not possible to meet it.

What is the point of posing a challenge which it is not possible to meet?

It is not possible to meet it, since *you* are judge and jury, and your verdict is fixed in advance.

Quite unlike the quantum Randi challenge!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:24 am

Joy Christian wrote:
guest wrote:There is a nice proof of Bell's theorem by Steve Gull which uses Fourier analysis instead of the usual algebra.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent2009/
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf

This sketch of the "proof" does not meet my challenge above.

To begin with, the "proof" violates my condition (2) right from the start. Secondly, it says, with emphasis, that "This is a mathematical project. There are no physical assumptions." I couldn't care less about a mathematical project in this context. I am talking about the physically realisable EPR-Bohm type experiment. Thirdly, I see no derivation of the bounds on the CHSH correlator at all in the "proof." Finally, there actually exists an explicit, clear-cut local-realistic model, trivially derived and verified in several independent event-by-event computer simulations: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

Therefore the above "proof" cannot possibly have any physical significance.

***

Steve Gull’s proof sketch is the outline of a proof which master students in physics in Cambridge could easily flesh out. Maybe it would be more problematic in Oxford. It is a proof of Bell’s theorem which does not use the CHSH inequality. There is no obligation to prove that theorem via that inequality. Indeed, there exist many proofs of Bell’s theorem “without inequalities”. I recall one by Lucien Hardy. Physicists use mathematical theorems all the time and give “proofs” which perhaps are not entirely rigorous, ie not entirely complete, but perfectly adequate for all scientific purposes.

That just leaves your counterexample. You present what appears to be a mathematical counterexample to a statement which appears to look like someone’s attempt at stating a theorem. So, we have what appears to be a theorem and what appears to be a counterexample. Something has to give, otherwise mathematics as we know it is inconsistent, and then physics has a problem too, I think.

To end on a constructive note: Nicolas Gisin presently thinks that there is a big physics problem connected to our conventional use and conception of “real numbers”. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06824, and several other papers.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library