Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

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

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:14 am

***
Today the total number of PDF downloads of my Royal Society paper has reached 2,000. That is, 2,000 PDF downloads in 143 days; or about 14 PDF downloads per day.

Image
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:48 pm

***
Abstract of the paper

Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:39 pm

***
Is the Moon there when no one is looking?

Is she spinning clockwise or counterclockwise?

Image

Quantum entanglement is an illusion, not reality!

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:29 pm

***

Image

Here is the link to Glashow's comments: https://inference-review.com/article/no ... EFDlXyJAs4

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:09 pm

***
Here is perhaps the simplest possible explanation of the results presented in my RSOS paper:

Let A(a, h) and B(b, h) be the results observed independently by Alice and Bob in their EPR-Bohm type experiment. Here h is a randomness shared between Alice and Bob and a and b are their freely chosen experimental parameters. Then, Bell correctly claimed that the correlation E(a, b) = << A(a, h) B(b, h) >> between their results cannot exceed the linear limit. This claim is, in fact, correct, regardless of what one thinks of the Bell inequalities. But Bell’s oversight in his claim is that the randomness h is not the only thing that is shared between Alice and Bob. What they also share, inevitably, are the algebraic, geometrical and topological properties of the physical space within which they are confined to perform their experiment. Once this is understood and the properties of the physical space are taken into account correctly, the correlation between the results A(a, h) and B(b, h) is inevitably equal to E(a, b) = -cos(a, b).

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:30 am

***
And here is what talented experimental physicists with a lot of funding but little or no intelligence believe: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404

Over the past few decades, experimental tests of Bell-type inequalities have been at the forefront of understanding quantum mechanics and its implications. These strong bounds on specific measurements on a physical system originate from some of the most fundamental concepts of classical physics—in particular that properties of an object are well-defined independent of measurements (realism) and only affected by local interactions (locality). The violation of these bounds unambiguously shows that the measured system does not behave classically, void of any assumption on the validity of quantum theory. It has also found applications in quantum technologies for certifying the suitability of devices for generating quantum randomness, distributing secret keys and for quantum computing. Here we report on the violation of a Bell inequality involving a massive, macroscopic mechanical system. We create light-matter entanglement between the vibrational motion of two silicon optomechanical oscillators, each comprising approximately 10^10 atoms, and two optical modes. This state allows us to violate a Bell inequality by more than 4 standard deviations, directly confirming the nonclassical behavior of our optomechanical system under the fair sampling assumption.

In my view, such "violations" of any Bell-type inequalities, in any actual experiment, simply mean a confirmation of quantum mechanical predictions, not a disproof of locality or realism.

I have long predicted such "violations" of Bell inequalities for macroscopic systems (cf. this paper) because they are simply a manifestation of the algebraic, geometrical and topological properties of the physical space we live in, not because of a failure of local-realism. Bell inequalities would be exceeded for any system, classical or quantum, microscopic or macroscopic.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:37 am

***
The PRL authors write "... we have demonstrated the violation of a Bell-type inequality using massive (around 10^10 atoms), macroscopic optomechanical devices, thereby verifying the nonclassicality of their state without the need for a quantum description of our experiment." https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404

But isn't that what I have been saying for the past eleven years? https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:52 am

***
I have written up an explicit proof of the equation (2.40) --- or equivalently of the equation (2.59) of my RSOS paper, because its validity had been aggressively questioned by Richard D. Gill for several months with intentions to have the paper retracted. The proof is in the form of the following self-contained note: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... tonion.pdf

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:30 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
The PRL authors write "... we have demonstrated the violation of a Bell-type inequality using massive (around 10^10 atoms), macroscopic optomechanical devices, thereby verifying the nonclassicality of their state without the need for a quantum description of our experiment." https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404

But isn't that what I have been saying for the past eleven years? https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem

The key phrase by the authors here is the following:

"... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."

What this means is that we have an experimental proof --- published in PRL --- that Bell-type inequalities can be "violated" by purely classical, macroscopic systems!!!

But of course they can be: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2. That has long been predicted by my local-realistic model for the quantum correlations.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:09 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
The key phrase by the authors here is the following:

"... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."



I have made a post about the above experiment at my RSOS paper's website: http://disq.us/p/1y83ysk

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:58 pm

***
It has been claimed elsewhere on the Internet that by “nonclassicality” the authors of the above PRL paper mean “violation of local realism.”; and they do seem to support this orthodox interpretation by providing a quantum description of their massive, macroscopic, mechanical system. I very much doubt that their paper would have been accepted by PRL if they didn’t.

However, to their credit, the key phrase also used by the PRL authors to describe their experiment is the following: ``... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."

Thus we have an experimental proof that Bell-type inequalities can be violated also by purely classical, massive, macroscopic, mechanical systems without requiring quantum quackery.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:04 pm

***
In addition to what I have written above, note well that "violations" of Bell inequalities have absolutely nothing to do with Einstein's local realism: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library