A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

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

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:26 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It really boggles my mind that an immediate giant alarm bell doesn't go off in Bell fan's heads when you have an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate that is supposedly "violated" by QM and the experiments. That should tell you that something is not correct right there. What the heck happened to their alarm bells?

Dear Fred
This oft-repeated statement of yours boggles my mind.

Bell derived a mathematical inequality under certain mathematical conditions, inspired by physical intuition. The inequality is trivial and the proof is elementary.

The inequality is violated by QM and by experiments.

Conclusion: the mathematical structure of QM is in conflict with those mathematical conditions. Moreover, because of the violation of the inequalities in very, very careful and rigorously performed experiments, the physical intuition which Bell translated into mathematics is wrong, or his translation is wrong.

A lot of very, very smart people have been discussing "what is wrong" for >> 50 years now. And they've been discussing the EPR paper for >> 80 years. Not many people claim that all this work was a waste of time and that the "problem" is completely illusory. Moreover, each of such persons has their own explanation for the whole big mess and does not agree with any of the others.


I'm have to inform you that in fact the experiments and QM never "violate" any of Bell's inequalities. Please demonstrate mathematically how they could possibly ever do that. You can't because what they do is use an inequality with a higher bound and never actually use the Bell inequalities.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby minkwe » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:29 pm

I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:46 pm

minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

:D I've been wondering if the QM measurement problem is somehow linked to the fact that QM can't violate the Bell inequalities? Probably not.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:17 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

:D I've been wondering if the QM measurement problem is somehow linked to the fact that QM can't violate the Bell inequalities? Probably not.
.

This has nothing to do with the measurement problem. It is simply a matter of elementary arithmetic. Try to convince a school student that something violates a mathematical inequality and they will quickly put you in your place. But try to point out the impossibility to a Bell-believer and they will spew out a whole load of irrelevant nonsense to convince themselves that they haven't been a total idiot for the past 55 years. :)

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

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby minkwe » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:09 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: :D I've been wondering if the QM measurement problem is somehow linked to the fact that QM can't violate the Bell inequalities? Probably not.
.

This has nothing to do with the measurement problem. It is simply a matter of elementary arithmetic. Try to convince a school student that something violates a mathematical inequality and they will quickly put you in your place. But try to point out the impossibility to a Bell-believer and they will spew out a whole load of irrelevant nonsense to convince themselves that they haven't been a total idiot for the past 55 years. :)

***

To put it in more polite terms, you are right that the truth has been obscured in plain sight for half a century.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:07 pm

minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

I don't see a question. What is Fred's question?

A mathematical inequality is a mathematical statement like "If A then x > y".
Let's suppose that the mathematical statement is true.
Then if x is not larger than y, we can conclude that A is not true.
It seems to me, with all due respect to the owner of this splendid forum, that Fred's question is ill-formed and his answer is ill-considered.

Bell's theorem is an elementary, and true, theorem in theoretical computer science, more specifically, in the theory of distributed classical computing.

If its conclusions do not hold in reality then we know that physical reality cannot be mathematically modelled as a network of classical spatial automata. There are proofs of this result which depend on well-known results from Fourier analysis, which therefore do not depend on "Bell inequalities" at all, but depend on well understood functional analysis and approximation theory (Steve Gull's proof outline). It was an exam question for master students in theoretical physics in Cambridge! Not such deep stuff at all.

Guys (Fred, Joy, Michel), you really all have to wake up and smell the coffee before our symposium takes place and all these things are discussed in public.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:15 pm

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:I see that nobody is brave enough to try to answer Fred's question.

I don't see a question. What is Fred's question?

A mathematical inequality is a mathematical statement like "If A then x > y".
Let's suppose that the mathematical statement is true.
Then if x is not larger than y, we can conclude that A is not true.
It seems to me, with all due respect to the owner of this splendid forum, that Fred's question is ill-formed and his answer is ill-considered.

Bell's theorem is an elementary, and true, theorem in theoretical computer science, more specifically, in the theory of distributed classical computing.

If its conclusions do not hold in reality then we know that physical reality cannot be mathematically modelled as a network of classical spatial automata. There are proofs of this result which depend on well-known results from Fourier analysis, which therefore do not depend on "Bell inequalities" at all, but depend on well understood functional analysis and approximation theory (Steve Gull's proof outline). It was an exam question for master students in theoretical physics in Cambridge! Not such deep stuff at all.

Guys (Fred, Joy, Michel), you really all have to wake up and smell the coffee before our symposium takes place and all these things are discussed in public.

It wasn't really a question,

"I have to inform you that in fact the experiments and QM never "violate" any of Bell's inequalities. Please demonstrate mathematically how they could possibly ever do that. You can't because what they do is use an inequality with a higher bound and never actually use the Bell inequalities."

Can you do the demonstration? There..., that is a question.

Bell fans are the ones that need to wake up instead of smelling Bell's junk physics theory. That sucker is a howler of a physics stink indeed! :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby minkwe » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:19 am

gill1109 wrote:A mathematical inequality is a mathematical statement like "If A then x > y".

Wrong. The mathematical inequality is just "x > y".
minkwe
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:21 am

***
The new paper by Prof. Karl Hess is now officially published: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080.

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

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby Heinera » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:20 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
The new paper by Prof. Karl Hess is now officially published: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080.

***

"Published" should be in quotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... Publishing
Heinera
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:39 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
The new paper by Prof. Karl Hess is now officially published: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080.

***

"Published" should be in quotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... Publishing

Where do you publish your papers? Can you give a reference?

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

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:47 pm

Guys, let's try to discuss the physics of the Hess paper and not the virtues of different publishing. Thanks.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:00 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Guys, let's try to discuss the physics of the Hess paper and not the virtues of different publishing. Thanks.
.

The 2019 paper by Karl Hess published in "Journal of Modern Physics", http://www.scirp.org/journal/JournalArticles.aspx?JournalID=172,

Categories of Nonlocality in EPR Theories and the Validity of Einstein’s Separation Principle as Well as Bell’s Theorem
http://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=94973

relies strongly on

[3] Hess, K. and Philipp, W. (2005) Foundations of Physics, 35, 1749-1767.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-005-6520-y

which is unfortunately behind a paywall. But fortunately it is also on arXiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503044

The Bell Theorem as a Special Case of a Theorem of Bass
Karl Hess, Walter Philipp
(Submitted on 3 Mar 2005)

The theorem of Bell states that certain results of quantum mechanics violate inequalities that are valid for objective local random variables. We show that the inequalities of Bell are special cases of theorems found ten years earlier by Bass and stated in full generality by Vorob'ev. This fact implies precise necessary and sufficient mathematical conditions for the validity of the Bell inequalities. We show that these precise conditions differ significantly from the definition of objective local variable spaces and as an application that the Bell inequalities may be violated even for objective local random variables.


And now for my real comment. Karl Hess is still confused and still somehow trying to rescue the work of himself and his departed friend Walter Philipp. OK, so now the whole thing is attributed to Bass or Vorobeev. At least there is some mention of the necessary and sufficient conditions found by the great Arthur Fine. I don't have time for an extensive analysis right now, but here are some comments I recently made with someone mentioned that of course Bell's inequality was discovered by Boole in 1850-whatever:

I think this reference to Boole is spurious. Yes, Boole has Bell’s three variable inequality as an exercise to the reader. But the probability part of the proof of Bell’s theorem is simply the trivial inequality Pr(A or B or ...) is less than or equal to Pr(A) + Pr(B) + ... . and that inequality is always called Boole’s inequality. So attributing Bell to Boole is about as silly as attributing any use of elementary probability whatsoever to whichever hero you like. Boole will do fine. Venn would do too. Kolmogorov if you prefer. Or Borel? The elementary axioms of probability are the elementary rules of accountancy. The point is that Bell argues on *physical grounds* that elementary probability rules did apply to probabilities in *different* physical experiments.


I would love to discuss more, but right now I have to work hard on preparing a workshop (and symposium) proposal, and preparing my lectures on quantum statistics in China, which start in a little more than a week.http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/lecture_course.html

By the way, the newest paper by Karl does have its own internet discussion forum. No one placed a comment yet. Bell lovers and haters should do so!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 89 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library