Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by gill1109 » Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:49 pm

Esail wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:06 am
gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:16 pm
Well, if you are right, you will have no difficulty at all in getting someone to program your model on a simulated computer network, and then you will be in line for a big prize from me, and indeed for worldwide recognition and a Nobel prize.
Richard,
it becomes apparent that you are not a physicist but a statistician. Physical models of nature are discussed and falsified on the conceptual level and on the mathematical level. Neither Bell nor Einstein bothered with computer programs. Even computer programs need a theoretical concept that clarifies the terms and relationships before a code can be created. At least that's how I learned it.
Indeed. You have failed to convince me (or anyone else here) on the conceptual level or the mathematical level. Your last chance to convince anyone is to write pseudo-code showing how your model could be simulated on a network of classical computers. You have the theoretical concept. Now work it out in sufficient detail that even a statistician with some programming skills can write the programs for you, which will prove that you are right.

However, you don't do it, because you can't, and this shows a major defect in your conceptualisation of the problem you are facing. You just have words and a few formulas but they do not together constitute a coherent theory.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Justo » Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:51 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:16 pm Well, if you are right, you will have no difficulty at all in getting someone to program your model on a simulated computer network, and then you will be in line for a big prize from me, and indeed for worldwide recognition and a Nobel prize.
I am sorry but I disagree. Nobody will ever bother to program a model which results on one side is dependant on the setting of the other side. At least, nobody who understands locality issues.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Esail » Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:06 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:16 pm
Well, if you are right, you will have no difficulty at all in getting someone to program your model on a simulated computer network, and then you will be in line for a big prize from me, and indeed for worldwide recognition and a Nobel prize.
Richard,
it becomes apparent that you are not a physicist but a statistician. Physical models of nature are discussed and falsified on the conceptual level and on the mathematical level. Neither Bell nor Einstein bothered with computer programs. Even computer programs need a theoretical concept that clarifies the terms and relationships before a code can be created. At least that's how I learned it.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by gill1109 » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:16 pm

Esail wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:36 am
Justo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:39 am
I agree, this is local . However, what is not local in your published model is that to calculate the result in one laboratory you need the setting of the other laboratory. You call this contextuality but it doesn't matter how you call it, it is nonlocal for everybody except for you. So, you are redefining locality.
It is not Bob's results in general that depend on Alice's selection but only the results of Bob's photons2, which were selected by Alice's polarizer. That local as you admitted and is no wonder. It were a wonder if those results would not depend on Alice's setting.
Well, if you are right, you will have no difficulty at all in getting someone to program your model on a simulated computer network, and then you will be in line for a big prize from me, and indeed for worldwide recognition and a Nobel prize.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Esail » Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:36 am

Justo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:39 am
I agree, this is local . However, what is not local in your published model is that to calculate the result in one laboratory you need the setting of the other laboratory. You call this contextuality but it doesn't matter how you call it, it is nonlocal for everybody except for you. So, you are redefining locality.
It is not Bob's results in general that depend on Alice's selection but only the results of Bob's photons2, which were selected by Alice's polarizer. That local as you admitted and is no wonder. It were a wonder if those results would not depend on Alice's setting.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Justo » Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:39 am

Esail wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:08 am As already written in the paper and in the previous paper as well: If Alice selects a photon1 with 0° polarization the peer photon2 at Bob's with polarization 90°, detectable by "time slot", is selected as well. If this photon2 hits Bob's polarizer a match (A=1,B=1) is detected.
I agree, this is local . However, what is not local in your published model is that to calculate the result in one laboratory you need the setting of the other laboratory. You call this contextuality but it doesn't matter how you call it, it is nonlocal for everybody except for you. So, you are redefining locality.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Esail » Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:08 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:06 pm How does selection of photons by Alice’s device cause photons arriving at Bob’s device to be selected in a way which depends on Alice’s device setting (which she chose while the photons were “en route”)? In present day Bell type experiments the experimental unit is “time slot”, and in each time slot, and on each side of the experiment, there is a binary input and a binary output.
As already written in the paper and in the previous paper as well: If Alice selects a photon1 with 0° polarization the peer photon2 at Bob's with polarization 90°, detectable by "time slot", is selected as well. If this photon2 hits Bob's polarizer a match (A=1,B=1) is detected.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by gill1109 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:06 pm

Esail wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:51 am
gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:43 pm
You say your new assumption is local realistic. However, it is only realistic, not local.
What you write is unfounded. The new assumption MA2new refers only to one side. So it is local per definition.
Per your definition. Not per my definition.

You say that I bring in computer programming games and do not address what you write. I do address what you write. You use words in a thoughtless way. You make claims which have no substance. How does selection of photons by Alice’s device cause photons arriving at Bob’s device to be selected in a way which depends on Alice’s device setting (which she chose while the photons were “en route”)? In present day Bell type experiments the experimental unit is “time slot”, and in each time slot, and on each side of the experiment, there is a binary input and a binary output. The words “photon”, “entanglement”, “particle”, “wave” do not enter into the specification of the experiment nor into the analysis of the data it produces.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Esail » Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:51 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:43 pm
You say your new assumption is local realistic. However, it is only realistic, not local.
What you write is unfounded. The new assumption MA2new refers only to one side. So it is local per definition.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Esail » Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:20 am

Richard, you always ride the same wave with your reference to programming. If you have anything to criticize, criticize the written text. The reference to Bell's theorem is not a proof, because that is precisely the subject of the analysis.
Why is the following passage not local?:
MA2new has the consequence that the selection by a polarizer in position alpha on one side corresponds to a selection with polarization alpha+pi/2 on the other side.
This can be seen from the following consideration: A polarizer PA set to alpha selects a fraction of cos^2(alpha) of horizontally polarized photons 1 and a fraction of sin^2(alpha) of vertically polarized photons 1. See ([3], equation (4, 4a) ). This means a selection of peer photons 2 as well with perpendicular polarization yielding a selected fraction of cos^2(alpha) = sin^2(alpha+ pi/2) of vertically polarized photons 2 and a selected fraction of sin^2(alpha) = cos^2(alpha+ pi/2) of horizontally polarized photons 2. By MA2new the common polarization is alpha+pi/2 due to the indistinguishability of the photons 2.

Re: Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by gill1109 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:43 pm

Esail wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:14 am Bell has assumed that hidden variables in a model must be coupled if this is to reproduce the measurement results on entangled photon pairs.
It is shown that various phenomena, including entanglement swapping, cannot be explained with this assumption.
A model is therefore presented that manages without coupled hidden variables.
See:
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23525.73441
Hi, another try! You write
New Model assumption MA2new: If the fractions of horizontally and vertically polarized photons from the singlet state which contribute to a stream of photons selected by a polarizer are cos2(a) and sin2(a) respectively then the common polarization is a with 0 £ a < p/2 because of the indistinguishability of the photons.
MA2new is a contextual assumption, as the polarization of a selection coincides with the setting of a polarizer. However, it is a local realistic assumption, as it assigns a real value to the physical quantity polarization. The above reasoning is true after exchanging the polarizers as well.
You say your new assumption is local realistic. However, it is only realistic, not local. How do I know this? Because of Bell's theorem! You cannot engineer assumption MA2new by a local realistic (according to Bell's definition) mechanism. Learn programming (or hire a programmer) and try to write computer programs which implement your theory.

Refuting Bell's theorem without coupled hidden variables

by Esail » Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:14 am

Bell has assumed that hidden variables in a model must be coupled if this is to reproduce the measurement results on entangled photon pairs.
It is shown that various phenomena, including entanglement swapping, cannot be explained with this assumption.
A model is therefore presented that manages without coupled hidden variables.
See:


http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23525.73441

Top