Between Joy Christian and Richard Gill: The middle way?

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

Between Joy Christian and Richard Gill: The middle way?

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:28 am

.
The 3-page essay at http://vixra.org/abs/1909.0216 is titled:"Einstein vs Bell? Bell’s inequality refuted, Bell’s error corrected."

Bell's inequality (BI) is refuted in 8 lines of elementary mathematics. Bell's error is defined and corrected in 11 more.

No knowledge of QM, Joy's Clifford Algebras, nor Richard's probability theory is required.


Reason:

(i) Bell (1964b) -- http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf -- prepares us for the derivation of BI with a valid (and elementary) physical boundary condition; his eqn (1).

(ii) He then breaches that condition; see his move from the valid first line to the invalid second line on p.198 of Bell (1964b).


To facilitate discussion, I suggest we number the three unnumbered relations atop p.198 as (14a) to (14c).

I look forward to critical comments from both sides of this debate; and from those in the middle or on the side-lines.

Reinforcing the view that it is all rather elementary; and with best regards: Gordon Watson http://vixra.org/abs/1909.0216
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Between Joy Christian and Richard Gill: The middle way?

Postby gill1109 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:12 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:.
The 3-page essay at http://vixra.org/abs/1909.0216 is titled:"Einstein vs Bell? Bell’s inequality refuted, Bell’s error corrected."

Bell's inequality (BI) is refuted in 8 lines of elementary mathematics. Bell's error is defined and corrected in 11 more.

No knowledge of QM, Joy's Clifford Algebras, nor Richard's probability theory is required.


Reason:

(i) Bell (1964b) -- http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf -- prepares us for the derivation of BI with a valid (and elementary) physical boundary condition; his eqn (1).

(ii) He then breaches that condition; see his move from the valid first line to the invalid second line on p.198 of Bell (1964b).


To facilitate discussion, I suggest we number the three unnumbered relations atop p.198 as (14a) to (14c).

I look forward to critical comments from both sides of this debate; and from those in the middle or on the side-lines.

Reinforcing the view that it is all rather elementary; and with best regards: Gordon Watson http://vixra.org/abs/1909.0216
.

Your logic is faulty, Gordon. I found your paper extremely difficult to read. You succeed in making simple things very difficult, and this enables you to make incorrect logical deductions.

It is indeed all extremely elementary. No knowledge of QM is needed to follow Bell's arguments, though of course sooner or later, one should verify the classical QM derivation of the EPR-B correlations, by matrix algebra calculations (over the complex numbers) involving the 2x2 Pauli matrices and various 4x4 matrices built up from them. Clifford algebra and Geometric Algebra are sophisticated and beautiful mathematical structures which one can use to elegantly reproduce classical QM calculations. Joy Christian uses them for other purposes.

I don't understand what your problem is with "Richard's probability theory". Bell does an elementary probability calculation using the notations and terminology of 60's physicists since he was a physicist writing in the 60's for physicists.

But to get to the heart of the matter, you compare a new inequality of your own, labelled (5) in your new paper, to Bell's original three correlations inequality, reproduced and labelled (6) in your new paper. You note that a particular set of three correlations E(a, b) = -1/2, E(b, c) = -1/2, E(a, c) = +1/2 violates Bell's inequality but satisfies yours.

The reason they violate Bell's inequality is actually because it is impossible to find functions A(a, lambda), B(b, lambda), and rho(lambda) satisfying the usual constraints *and* such that E(a, b) = int A(a, lambda)B(b, lambda) rho(lambda) d lambda, etc. If you had wanted to disprove Bell by a counterexample featuring these values of the three correlations, you would have had to exhibit functions A, B and rho which reproduce your three correlations E while at the same time satisfying the standard requirements (A and B take values +/-1; rho is nonnegative and integrates to 1). But you don't do this! So your paper is empty of any content! It just exhibits muddled thinking!

I suggest you do try to find a concrete example of functions A, B and rho which do the job you want them to do. (Joy Christian thinks he did manage to do that).

I can tell you in advance that you will not succeed, since Bell's inequality is a true and trivial result in probability theory, known already by George Boole in the 1850s, and since then independently discovered again and again by many others, as Karl Hess points out (yet again) in his most recent paper.

If you do succeed, then please program the resulting model and let's do my computer challenge. 10 thousand Euro's says you'll fail.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Between Joy Christian and Richard Gill: The middle way?

Postby Gordon Watson » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:33 am

gill1109 wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:.
The 3-page essay at http://vixra.org/abs/1909.0216 is titled:"Einstein vs Bell? Bell’s inequality refuted, Bell’s error corrected."

Bell's inequality (BI) is refuted in 8 lines of elementary mathematics. Bell's error is defined and corrected in 11 more.

No knowledge of QM, Joy's Clifford Algebras, nor Richard's probability theory is required.


Reason:

(i) Bell (1964b) -- http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/ ... 00_001.pdf -- prepares us for the derivation of BI with a valid (and elementary) physical boundary condition; his eqn (1).

(ii) He then breaches that condition; see his move from the valid first line to the invalid second line on p.198 of Bell (1964b).


To facilitate discussion, I suggest we number the three unnumbered relations atop p.198 as (14a) to (14c).

I look forward to critical comments from both sides of this debate; and from those in the middle or on the side-lines.

Reinforcing the view that it is all rather elementary; and with best regards: Gordon Watson http://vixra.org/abs/1909.0216
.

Your logic is faulty, Gordon. I found your paper extremely difficult to read. You succeed in making simple things very difficult, and this enables you to make incorrect logical deductions.

It is indeed all extremely elementary. No knowledge of QM is needed to follow Bell's arguments, though of course sooner or later, one should verify the classical QM derivation of the EPR-B correlations, by matrix algebra calculations (over the complex numbers) involving the 2x2 Pauli matrices and various 4x4 matrices built up from them. Clifford algebra and Geometric Algebra are sophisticated and beautiful mathematical structures which one can use to elegantly reproduce classical QM calculations. Joy Christian uses them for other purposes.

I don't understand what your problem is with "Richard's probability theory". Bell does an elementary probability calculation using the notations and terminology of 60's physicists since he was a physicist writing in the 60's for physicists.

But to get to the heart of the matter, you compare a new inequality of your own, labelled (5) in your new paper, to Bell's original three correlations inequality, reproduced and labelled (6) in your new paper. You note that a particular set of three correlations E(a, b) = -1/2, E(b, c) = -1/2, E(a, c) = +1/2 violates Bell's inequality but satisfies yours.

The reason they violate Bell's inequality is actually because it is impossible to find functions A(a, lambda), B(b, lambda), and rho(lambda) satisfying the usual constraints *and* such that E(a, b) = int A(a, lambda)B(b, lambda) rho(lambda) d lambda, etc. If you had wanted to disprove Bell by a counterexample featuring these values of the three correlations, you would have had to exhibit functions A, B and rho which reproduce your three correlations E while at the same time satisfying the standard requirements (A and B take values +/-1; rho is nonnegative and integrates to 1). But you don't do this! So your paper is empty of any content! It just exhibits muddled thinking!

I suggest you do try to find a concrete example of functions A, B and rho which do the job you want them to do. (Joy Christian thinks he did manage to do that).

I can tell you in advance that you will not succeed, since Bell's inequality is a true and trivial result in probability theory, known already by George Boole in the 1850s, and since then independently discovered again and again by many others, as Karl Hess points out (yet again) in his most recent paper.

If you do succeed, then please program the resulting model and let's do my computer challenge. 10 thousand Euro's says you'll fail.


Thanks Richard,

You'll see the case made more clearly in v2. I'm still time-poor as I write.

Re the functions that you refer to. As implied in ¶2.3: TLR derives the same expectations as QM. As I state in ¶1.1(v), the results require no knowledge of QM. In this particular matter, Bell gives us the QM expectation. And TLR independently agrees with it.

However, didn't Bell make the claim (or imply) that such functions did not affect his result? That he need only work with the expectations to prove his point?

My comment re "Richard's probability theory" (PT) -- one side of the middle-way -- was reference to your use of PT to justify Bell's work. (AND NOT the good work you hopefully do in Court.)

Your repeat my concern above:

"Bell does an elementary probability calculation using the notations and terminology of 60's physicists since he was a physicist writing in the 60's for physicists."

But he gets a wrong answer: as I show.

For Bell's inequality produces a lower upper bound than logic, QM, experiments and PT allow. He also expected his dilemma re AAD to be resolved!

Since I pin-point the location of BE1 (Bell's first error) in his move from (what I call) his (14a) to his (14b): I would welcome your comments re the physics and your PT-based analysis thereof.

As for your computer challenge: Can I first program the two computers to move toward each other under the influence of their masses? Might you see such a challenge (for starters) as equivalent to your Bell-based challenge? And worth the prize-money?

Thanks again; Gordon
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library