Sci.Physics.Foundations

Justo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:26 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:28 am Who cares what Bell's definitions are? Here is what I say in Footnote 7 of my paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526.

The possible space-like separated events being averaged in (4.8) cannot possibly occur in any possible world, classical or quantum.
To appreciate this elementary fact, consider the following homely analogy: Imagine a couple, say Jack and Jill, who decide to separate
while in Kansas City, and travel to the West and East Coasts respectively. Jack decides to travel to Los Angeles, while Jill cannot make
up her mind and might travel to either New York or Miami. So while Jack reaches Los Angeles, Jill might reach either New York or
Miami. Thus, there are two possible destinations for the couple. Either Jack reaches Los Angeles and Jill reaches New York, or Jack
reaches Los Angeles and Jill reaches Miami. Now suppose that, upon reaching new York, Jill decides to buy either apple juice or orange
juice. And likewise, upon reaching Miami, Jill decides to buy either apple juice or orange juice. Consequently, there are following four
counterfactually possible events that can realistically occur, at least in our familiar world: (i) While Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys
apple juice, Jill reaches New York and buys apple juice; Or, (ii) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches New
York and buys orange juice; Or, (iii) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches Miami and buys apple juice; Or,
(iv) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches Miami and buys orange juice. So far so good. But what is being
averaged in (4.8) are impossible events of the following kind: (v) While Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches New
York and buys apple juice and Jill reaches Miami and buys orange juice at exactly the same time! Needless to say, no such events can
possibly occur in any possible world, even counterfactually. In particular, Einstein’s conception of local realism by no means demands
such absurd or impossible events in any possible world [4]. It is therefore not at all surprising why the unphysical bounds of ±2 on the
CHSH sum of expectation values obtained by averaging over the absurd events like (4.10) are not respected in the actual experiments.

.

I am sorry Richard, but I have to agree with Joy that this is absolute nonsense. Of course, Bell meant the use of counterfactual reasoning.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:28 am Who cares what Bell's definitions are? Here is what I say in Footnote 7 of my paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526.

The possible space-like separated events being averaged in (4.8) cannot possibly occur in any possible world, classical or quantum.
To appreciate this elementary fact, consider the following homely analogy: Imagine a couple, say Jack and Jill, who decide to separate
while in Kansas City, and travel to the West and East Coasts respectively. Jack decides to travel to Los Angeles, while Jill cannot make
up her mind and might travel to either New York or Miami. So while Jack reaches Los Angeles, Jill might reach either New York or
Miami. Thus, there are two possible destinations for the couple. Either Jack reaches Los Angeles and Jill reaches New York, or Jack
reaches Los Angeles and Jill reaches Miami.Now suppose that, upon reaching new York, Jill decides to buy either apple juice or orange
juice. And likewise, upon reaching Miami, Jill decides to buy either apple juice or orange juice. Consequently, there are following four
counterfactually possible events that can realistically occur, at least in our familiar world: (i) While Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys
apple juice, Jill reaches New York and buys apple juice; Or, (ii) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches New
York and buys orange juice; Or, (iii) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches Miami and buys apple juice; Or,
(iv) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches Miami and buys orange juice. So far so good. But what is being
averaged in (4.8) are impossible events of the following kind: (v) While Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches New
York and buys apple juice and Jill reaches Miami and buys orange juice at exactly the same time! Needless to say, no such events can
possibly occur in any possible world, even counterfactually. In particular, Einstein’s conception of local realism by no means demands
such absurd or impossible events in any possible world [4]. It is therefore not at all surprising why the unphysical bounds of ±2 on the
CHSH sum of expectation values obtained by averaging over the absurd events like (4.10) are not respected in the actual experiments.

.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:50 pm Joy Christian in his RSOS paper:

In particular, Einstein’s conception of local realism by no means demands such absurd or impossible events in any possible world [4]. It is therefore not at all surprising why the unphysical bounds of ±2 on the CHSH sum of expectation values obtained by averaging over the absurd events like (4.10) are not respected in the actual experiments.

Ah, you use an idiosyncratic definition of mean value and that leads you to a weird interpretation of the CHSH correlation That is one of the dangers of being too original!

It is true that QM can exceed the CHSH bound because it does not say anything about that crazy event. There is no observable corresponding to spin or polarisation in several directions simultaneously. QM has its own constraints, leading e.g. to the Tsirelson bound. Feynman says that local realism is a waste of time. You have to get used to QM’s weirdness. Get intuition for it. Embrace it. Don’t run away scared from it. Grow up.

In particular, Einstein’s conception of local realism by no means demands such absurd or impossible events in any possible world [4]. It is therefore not at all surprising why the unphysical bounds of ±2 on the CHSH sum of expectation values obtained by averaging over the absurd events like (4.10) are not respected in the actual experiments.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:54 am In Section 4.2 of [4] (Joy’s RSOS paper) Christian says that the CHSH inequality is essentially a trivial inequality in probability theory proved by Boole. Yes. He agrees with the math. He says that it doesn’t apply in the EPR-B context because the four terms in CHSH correspond to physical measurements which (according to quantum physics) cannot be done at the same time. But his definitions of each of those four correlations is not Bell’s definition. Bell motivates his definition carefully, using physical notions of realism and locality, coming up with his functions “A” and “B” and “rho”, and expresses them in the standard language of probability theory. Christian has some completely idiosyncratic definition of correlation. He is mixing up an experimentally observed average with a theoretical computed mean value. I get the impression he never learnt any probability theory or any statistics. Or, if he ever was taught some, he later forgot it. Sorry if I’m wrong.

The possible space-like separated events being averaged in (4.8) cannot possibly occur in any possible world, classical or quantum.
To appreciate this elementary fact, consider the following homely analogy: Imagine a couple, say Jack and Jill, who decide to separate
while in Kansas City, and travel to the West and East Coasts respectively. Jack decides to travel to Los Angeles, while Jill cannot make
up her mind and might travel to either New York or Miami. So while Jack reaches Los Angeles, Jill might reach either New York or
Miami. Thus, there are two possible destinations for the couple. Either Jack reaches Los Angeles and Jill reaches New York, or Jack
reaches Los Angeles and Jill reaches Miami.Now suppose that, upon reaching new York, Jill decides to buy either apple juice or orange
juice. And likewise, upon reaching Miami, Jill decides to buy either apple juice or orange juice. Consequently, there are following four
counterfactually possible events that can realistically occur, at least in our familiar world: (i) While Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys
apple juice, Jill reaches New York and buys apple juice; Or, (ii) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches New
York and buys orange juice; Or, (iii) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches Miami and buys apple juice; Or,
(iv) while Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches Miami and buys orange juice. So far so good. But what is being
averaged in (4.8) are impossible events of the following kind: (v) While Jack reaches Los Angeles and buys apple juice, Jill reaches New
York and buys apple juice and Jill reaches Miami and buys orange juice at exactly the same time! Needless to say, no such events can
possibly occur in any possible world, even counterfactually. In particular, Einstein’s conception of local realism by no means demands
such absurd or impossible events in any possible world [4]. It is therefore not at all surprising why the unphysical bounds of ±2 on the
CHSH sum of expectation values obtained by averaging over the absurd events like (4.10) are not respected in the actual experiments.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:09 amI think “everything is emptiness and chasing after the wind”. Meanwhile, Carpe diem, but do be kind to one another.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:42 am I have discovered the "trick" Nature uses to produce the observed strong correlations. It takes the ability to do physics to discover and understand such tricks.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:22 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:06 am ... (big snip of nonsense)

I have no problem with this forum being run by and primarily for anti-Bell fanatics. Or should I write anti Bell-fanatics? Joy Christian wrote in his paper in IEEE Access https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997

Joy Christian wrote:That is not to say that Bell’s theorem [11] does not have a sound mathematical core. When stated as a mathematical theorem in probability theory, there can be no doubt about its validity. But my work on the subject [2]–[3][4][5][6] does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.

We are not fans of Bell so fanatic doesn't fit. It would have to be Bell anti-fanatic.

Well, I suspect Joy was trying to please a particular referee or something with that statement. The actual "theorem" is junk physics pure and simple with no actual math to back it up since it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to "violate" the inequalities or exceed their bound while using those inequalities.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:06 am ... (big snip of nonsense)

I have no problem with this forum being run by and primarily for anti-Bell fanatics. Or should I write anti Bell-fanatics? Joy Christian wrote in his paper in IEEE Access https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997

Joy Christian wrote:That is not to say that Bell’s theorem [11] does not have a sound mathematical core. When stated as a mathematical theorem in probability theory, there can be no doubt about its validity. But my work on the subject [2]–[3][4][5][6] does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:59 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:20 am

Schmelzer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:00 am Looks like you really think being impolite is a sign of strength?

Being impolite is a sign of weakness. Those who have strong arguments have no necessity to cry around and claim victories. They know that theorems cannot be killed and therefore they don't care much about claimed theorem-killers.

Then perhaps you Bell Fanatics should be more polite! Joy Christian killed Bell's junk physics theory in 2007. Do any of you Fanatics admit to it? Hell no. That is extremely impolite!!!! Now, who is the weaklings? It's the Bell Fanatics.

Besides, it is strange that some people do not appreciate the fact that Bell's argument is not a "theorem." Bell's inequality is not a "theorem." It is a physical argument based on several implicit and explicit assumptions that can be and have been challenged throughout its history. To call the argument a "theorem" is a political and sociological tactic. A mathematical theorem does not have loopholes and does not require expensive experiments for its verification.

Joy Christian wrote:That is not to say that Bell’s theorem [11] does not have a sound mathematical core. When stated as a mathematical theorem in probability theory, there can be no doubt about its validity. But my work on the subject [2]–[3][4][5][6] does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.

Schmelzer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:00 am Looks like you really think being impolite is a sign of strength?

Being impolite is a sign of weakness. Those who have strong arguments have no necessity to cry around and claim victories. They know that theorems cannot be killed and therefore they don't care much about claimed theorem-killers.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:59 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:20 am

Schmelzer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:00 am Looks like you really think being impolite is a sign of strength?

Being impolite is a sign of weakness. Those who have strong arguments have no necessity to cry around and claim victories. They know that theorems cannot be killed and therefore they don't care much about claimed theorem-killers.

Then perhaps you Bell Fanatics should be more polite! Joy Christian killed Bell's junk physics theory in 2007. Do any of you Fanatics admit to it? Hell no. That is extremely impolite!!!! Now, who is the weaklings? It's the Bell Fanatics.

Besides, it is strange that some people do not appreciate the fact that Bell's argument is not a "theorem." Bell's inequality is not a "theorem." It is a physical argument based on several implicit and explicit assumptions that can be and have been challenged throughout its history. To call the argument a "theorem" is a political and sociological tactic. A mathematical theorem does not have loopholes and does not require expensive experiments for its verification.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:20 am

Schmelzer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:00 am Looks like you really think being impolite is a sign of strength?

Being impolite is a sign of weakness. Those who have strong arguments have no necessity to cry around and claim victories. They know that theorems cannot be killed and therefore they don't care much about claimed theorem-killers.

Then perhaps you Bell Fanatics should be more polite! Joy Christian killed Bell's junk physics theory in 2007. Do any of you Fanatics admit to it? Hell no. That is extremely impolite!!!! Now, who is the weaklings? It's the Bell Fanatics.

Schmelzer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:00 am Looks like you really think being impolite is a sign of strength?

Being impolite is a sign of weakness. Those who have strong arguments have no necessity to cry around and claim victories. They know that theorems cannot be killed and therefore they don't care much about claimed theorem-killers.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:27 pm So, don't expect us to cut Bell fanatics any slack at all. We will try to be polite whenever possible. NOT! Quite frankly we are really fed up with all the nonsense you all spew. Joy Christian killed Bell's junk physics theory in 2007 which was 14 years ago.