Sci.Physics.Foundations

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.
.

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.

Yes. And if you are new to this forum and don't know who the hell Joy Christian is and how he killed Bell's theorem, then you can find all the relevant information and references on the subject in these slides of my recent talk: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.
.

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.

Have a nice day.

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.

.

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: ↑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.

Yep, all Bell ever had was a physics theory. It is a pile of junk now.

Here is 10 million trials.



WoW! Is it SCREAMING -a.b or what? You Bell fanatics are doomed for good.
.

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.

Here is a simulation that is similar to Joy's model that shot down Bell's junk physics theory back in 2007. Using quaternions instead of geometric algebra so perhaps you might understand it and agree that it is true instead of being very impolite that it is not true without any good reason at all. Plot of product calculation 20,000 trials.


The blue is data points and the magenta is the -cosine curve for an exact match so easy to see that the model predicts -cos(a-b) exactly like quantum mechanics.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c-forum.nb

Direct Files.

download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf
download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy this Bell junk physics theory killer!!

So, all you Bell Fanatics should have been more polite back in 2007 instead of lying like crazy. Now, that is really rude and impolite of you! And why you get cut NO slack on these forums.
.

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.

Of course, a mathematical theorem does not have loopholes and is not verified by expensive experiments. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical structure, and local realism also defines a mathematical structure. One of those mathematical structures can be mathematically proven to be isomorphic to a sub-structure of the other. That is a mathematical theorem which is much more than 40 years old. It goes back to von Neumann's mathematical formalisation of quantum theory in the 30's. Publlshed one year before Kolmogorov's mathematical formalisation of probability theory, and both answering one of Hilbert's problems, namely to mathematically axiomatise further parts of physics.

Tsirelson's inequality and Bell's inequality are the suprema over the two structures of "the same" mathematical object, , one correlation minus the sum of three others. It attains a larger value in the larger structure than in its sub-structure. This was worked on intensively by both mathematicians and physicists from 1964, and definitively settled by 1980 (Tsirelson), 1981 (Fine). These mathematical facts have all been stated and rigorously proved as formal mathematical theorems, numerous times.

Naturally, one may debate whether or not those mathematical models have any use for physicists. Physicists do careful experiments which are aimed at finding out whether one really needs the bigger (von Neumann) structure, of whether Kolmogorovian probability would be enough, for a certain class of physical experiments. Those experiments are called Bell-type experiments, and the most stringent ones are called "loophole-free" Bell experiments.

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.

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.
.

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.

Gill keeps quoting me out of context, just like any dishonest journalist or politician would do. Below is my full statement. The highlighted parts are painful for Gill so he prefers to keep those hidden from view:


.

Your logic is incredible, Joy! You say that your very own RSOS paper [4] shows that Bell's inequalities can be derived without assuming either locality or realism???

You shot yourself in your own foot.

Yes, the Bell inequalities depend on some assumptions. They can be violated by violating those assumptions. That has been your game, since 2007. The assumptions are not just "locality", "realism", and "no-conspiracy". They also include: binary measurement outcomes. Together with: a certain definition of "correlation". As Weatherall already showed long ago, your very first trick was to redefine correlation. Later, you employed other tricks. Since it would have been unthinkable for you to admit that you had been wrong, the first time round.

PS. I'm glad you showed us the rest of your very own text, published in IEEE Access. It shows that I was not misrepresenting you. You have been misrepresenting yourself since 2007. It would have been smarter to keep quiet, and to focus on what you do seem to be quite good at. A very different ball game. Sir Roger Penrose acknowledged that you had had (quite independently of him) some smart ideas on quantum gravity. Your work with Fred Diether on torsion and all that stuff, published in Entropy, looks very impressive to me.

.
@gill1109: You can keep dragging your feet, but you are going down in history as a loser, like the rest of the Bell-believers. Physics is all about discovering the "tricks" Nature uses. 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. Having done some statistics in the past or being an upstart philosopher is not good enough to understand how Nature works.
.

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.

That’s what you think. I think “everything is emptiness and chasing after the wind”. Meanwhile, Carpe diem, but do be kind to one another.

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.

That's religion not Physics. Remember that you are on a physics forum.

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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.

What a bunch of crappy pure nonsense. There is absolutely nothing weird about QM. It is just a math program with defects.
.

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.

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's absurd story has got absolutely nothing to do with Bell's theorem. Bell (I refer to the mature Bell of the later works in his book "Speakable and unspeakable") made some physical assumptions, nowadays called locality, realism, and no-conspiracy. He expressed those assumptions in a mathematical form. Physicists and philosophers may debate whether or not this mathematical expression of physical and metaphysical concepts is reasonable. But once done, it is done, we may proceed with a mathematical analysis of the mathematical model which we now have before us. This is the familiar mathematical model with functions A, B and a probability measure rho with the familiar properties. From that, elementary calculus leads to the CHSH inequality. No "counterfactual reasoning" in the sense sometimes given to that phrase by philosophers is used.

Joy has given you a straw man. He confuses the issue by using an idiosyncratic definition of mean value, different from Bell's and different from modern physicists', and gets himself into a mess entirely of his own creation. (Von Mises' axiomatisation of probability was shown to have self-contradictions by Paul Lévy's student Ville in 1939, and it was superseded by Kolmogorov's 1933 measure-theoretic framework).

Meanwhile, counterfactual reasoning has had a renaissance in the modern theory of causality (led by Judea Pearl and many others). The words no longer mean what they meant decades ago in philosophy. They refer to a mathematical framework for discussing causality which is used every day in modern science. The latest Nobel prize in economics went to econometrician Guido Imbens (originally for the Netherlands) who has been promoting modern counterfactual reasoning in order to estimate/predict the effect of interventions in the economy by state actors.

Meanwhile, I checked the printer's proofs of my IEEE Access paper, commenting on Joy's first IEEE Access paper. It should be appearing very soon, and Joy really ought to get to work on a "Reply".

I'm expecting a final decision on my RSOS comment very soon. The editors have apologised for some delay due to Corona issues in London.

I guess I will soon stop following the discussions in Fred's forum. My work is done here. I will maybe get back into action when I notice some kind of journal publication (or attempt thereof) of Fred's simulation model.