SciPhysicsForums.com

by **Mikko** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:31 am

Gordon Watson wrote:To be clear: I was interested in any non-quantum experiment that delivered the Bellian RANGE [-2, +2].

Do you by "range" mean the range of possible values of the expected values of S? Or the observed value S? The former is a constant for a particular experiment and the latter is a single random variable. So one experiment does not give you a range, only a single value. Variations of an experiment may give you a range, but you need an infinite family of experiments to get the whole range. If that is what you want, you must state it very clearly in your question. Otherwise you are told something else if anything at all.

For I then might understand/discuss the relevance of such to CHSH, and to Bell's related endorsement.

Unlikely that you would find more relevance than that the expected S satisfies the CHSH inequality in those experiments where it does. But maybe you are lucky.

Perhaps you can desing an experiment that gives some value of S, for that is trivial, as Fred already said. Then it would be easier to find out ways to vary the experiment to get other values and find some range of possibilities.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:31 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should as this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

It is pretty trivial to find experiments that can't exceed the bound of 2 given Bell's conditions. Perhaps Gordon meant quantum experiments.

You're right, Fred: "It is pretty trivial to find experiments that can't exceed the bound of 2." To be clear: I was interested in any non-quantum experiment that delivered the Bellian RANGE [-2, +2]. For I then might understand/discuss the relevance of such to CHSH, and to Bell's related endorsement.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:21 am

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should ask this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

Thanks Mikko, I truly appreciate your comments; and I encourage you to bring your own Bellian ideas (if any) here for testing and discussion.

Note that Bohmians, Bohrians, Christians, Freudians, Newtonians, etc., and those studying such systems: all seem happy to test and defend their beliefs most anywhere. But you're right, Bellians are not in the same class. A point made the more telling in that several leading Bellians have yet to answer questions related to the one above.

My thanks again; Gordon

by **FrediFizzx** » Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:37 pm

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should as this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

It is pretty trivial to find experiments that can't exceed the bound of 2 given Bell's conditions. Perhaps Gordon meant quantum experiments.

by **Mikko** » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:59 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Bellians don't usually post here, so perhaps you should as this question elsewhere. Your use of the word "Bellian" may also have the effect that they don't want to answer.

You could also try Google to find an already existing answer, though I don't know what would be good words to search.

by **Gordon Watson** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:55 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:I am bringing this here, with a bump, from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=214

Reason: (i). Because this thread raises excellent points against the Bellians. (ii) Newcomers should enjoy and become familiar with it. (iii) It seems minkwe and I have very similar ideas. (iv) I would like to press the Bellians for definitive responses.

PS: I will to add my 2 cents soon.

You will probably just get the same insufficient arguments as already presented in this thread by the Bell fans. They refuse to acknowledge that the experiments shift to a different inequality from the one they are supposed to be testing. It is a big mystery to me and quite mind boggling. Yeah, I suppose it is interesting why so many people can be tricked by this.

Fred, one thing I note about many non-Bellians: they are prepared to focus and debate their ideas and beliefs. Contrary-wise: many Bellians -- not realising what they've signed up to, but seeking to justify their belief -- tend to range all over the place. You make the point nicely: Bellians refuse to acknowledge that real experiments test a VERY different inequality to the one that they worship. Like a realistic and testable range of [-4, +4] versus a constricted but easily beatable Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Which brings us to the source of the trickery. (i) The trick is not in Bell's premises; they are just that good old magician's trick of "Look Here"! (ii) The trick is a switcheroonie on the naive in the bowels of his analysis -- Bell's error -- a trick so good that it forever-after fooled Bell himself; then CHSH; which then gave the world the remarkable positive-feedback loop of CHSH-Bell-CHSH that continues to this day; eg, http://hansonlab.tudelft.nl/wp-content/ ... vOct16.pdf.

I close with an open invitation to solve a very modern mystery; mysterious because I myself, a non-Bellian, know the trick; mysterious because some well-known Bellians do not! Please, could a Bellian (without asking a non-Bellian) tell me of a real (doable) experiment (a GEx, for short) that delivers the Bellian range of [-2, +2].

Thanks in advance.

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:20 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:I am bringing this here, with a bump, from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=214

Reason: (i). Because this thread raises excellent points against the Bellians. (ii) Newcomers should enjoy and become familiar with it. (iii) It seems minkwe and I have very similar ideas. (iv) I would like to press the Bellians for definitive responses.

PS: I will to add my 2 cents soon.

You will probably just get the same insufficient arguments as already presented in this thread by the Bell fans. They refuse to acknowledge that the experiments shift to a different inequality from the one they are supposed to be testing. It is a big mystery to me and quite mind boggling. Yeah, I suppose it is interesting why so many people can be tricked by this.

by **Gordon Watson** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:35 pm

I am bringing this here, with a bump, from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=214

FrediFizzx wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:Fred, Can you point me to minkwe's stuff? Tks, G

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39

Just do a search on minkwe on the forum for more recent comments from this year. Make that an advanced search with minkwe as the author. Perhaps discussions involving Schmelzer and Jochen.

Reason: (i). Because this thread raises excellent points against the Bellians. (ii) Newcomers should enjoy and become familiar with it. (iii) It seems minkwe and I have very similar ideas. (iv) I would like to press the Bellians for definitive responses.

PS: I will to add my 2 cents soon.

by **gill1109** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:52 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:PM = private messaging on the forum. Sorry, attachments aren't allowed in PM's. But you can swap email addresses via PM.

Thanks!

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat May 31, 2014 11:25 am

PM = private messaging on the forum. Sorry, attachments aren't allowed in PM's. But you can swap email addresses via PM.

by **gill1109** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:26 am

Dear Xray

What is PM?

Email me, and I'll email you the CHSH article,

So far no-one else expressed interest in a shared dropbox folder but of course it remains an option.

Richard

by **Xray** » Fri May 30, 2014 9:43 pm

gill1109 wrote: ….

I can email the CHSH original to anyone who would like to see it. We could also set up a shared dropbox folder of key papers. Anyone interested?

Gill,

I would welcome a copy. Is PM OK for this purpose?

Has there been any progress on your dropbox idea? I support it.

Xray

by **gill1109** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:38 am

minkwe wrote:
minkwe wrote:Richard, have you withdrawn your papers which claim on the basis of alleged violations of the CHSH by experiments and QM that "realism is untenable"?

No.

by **minkwe** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:24 am

minkwe wrote:Richard, have you withdrawn your papers which claim on the basis of alleged violations of the CHSH by experiments and QM that "realism is untenable"?

by **gill1109** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:05 am

minkwe wrote:We have identified the logical error which leads to the presumed conflict.

No. "We" are barking up a wrong tree. (For some reason the image of a dog barking away at some tree where he thought he saw some cat disappear, sticks in my mind. The cat actually is sitting at home eating a nice fat mouse, and laughing.)

Where is the report of your experimental findings on doing my experiment, and where is the Python code for Joy's experiment?

by **minkwe** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:23 pm

There is no conflict whatsoever between QM and LHV theories. We have identified the logical error which leads to the presumed conflict. As Richard's friend Adenier described it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0006014

Bell's Theorem was developed on the basis of considerations involving a linear combination of spin correlation functions, each of which has a distinct pair of arguments. The simultaneous presence of these different pairs of arguments in the same equation can be understood in two radically different ways: either as `strongly objective,' that is, all correlation functions pertain to the same set of particle pairs, or as `weakly objective,' that is, each correlation function pertains to a different set of particle pairs.
It is demonstrated that once this meaning is determined, no discrepancy appears between local realistic theories and quantum mechanics: the discrepancy in Bell's Theorem is due only to a meaningless comparison between a local realistic inequality written within the strongly objective interpretation (thus relevant to a single set of particle pairs) and a quantum mechanical prediction derived from a weakly objective interpretation (thus relevant to several different sets of particle pairs).

gill1109 wrote:Yes the only upper bound which one can give to the value of CHSH that one can observe in an experiment is 4.

Richard, have you withdrawn your papers which claim on the basis of alleged violations of the CHSH by experiments and QM that "realism is untenable"?

by **gill1109** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:So far, no experiment has disproved local hidden variables theory.
So far, the experiments do not discriminate between quantum theory, Joy's theory, and local hidden variables theories.

Hallelujah!!! You have earned my respect for being the first Bell-believer to acknowledge this fact about my local-realistic framework (it is not yet a full theory).

Copied from another thread, but I it does belong here too:

gill1109 wrote:I don't know what it a Bell-believer is. I doubt I am a Bell believer. I do believe QM is seriously inadequate.

Bell offered four *alternative* positions which one might like to take in view of his analysis ("Bertlmann's socks" paper. Read it!!!). Later he admitted there exists a fifth, which I christened "Bell's fifth position" in a paper more than 10 years ago.

I think Bell's analysis is correct but I don't know which of the five positions consequently needs to be adopted. This is partly a metaphysical issue and partly a matter of experiment. ... Experiment is inconclusive. Metaphysics is partly a matter of taste.

I keep an open mind on all this.

by **minkwe** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:59 am

gill1109 wrote:1. What do you mean by "four functions"?

Go back and read the first post. Then read up the difference between a random variable and a function. Then you might learn that a,a',b,b' are not random variables in the context of the CHSH.

2. EPR experiments do not involve any functions at all.

Sad that you have been reduced to silly nitpicking. The outcome of experiments are modeled as the result of a function of a random variable.

3. Yes the only upper bound which one can give to the value of CHSH that one can observe in an experiment is 4.

Good. Finally. But I don't see you withdrawing your baloney paper, yet. I don't see you withdrawing your claim that realism is untenable.

4. Apparent violation of CHSH does not "prove" anything

It certainly proves misapplication of the CHSH to the situation, in every sense of the word "prove".

Experiments do not violate bounds. Experiments generate results which either fit to one theory or to another theory or to neither.

Tell that to Bell proponents after you withdraw your papers claiming violation of the CHSH.

Similarly, a succesful loophole free Bell-CHSH experiment, which so far has never been performed, would be an experiment which produces results which are almost impossible if LHV would be true. Not actually impossible.

Every experiment is loophole free. Theories have loopholes not experiments. A successful Bell-CHSH experiment requires actual measurement of counterfactual results, a contradiction. A successful Bell-CHSH experiment is impossible to perform. That is an unsurmountable loophole in Bell's theorem.
By your logic, a spectator who spots a magicians trick and unravels the illusion has, a loophole.

by **Joy Christian** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:45 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: I predict that Joy's experiment is going to falsify Joy's theory.

Only macroscopically if E(a, b) != -a.b for the macroscopic experiment. The quantum experiments themselves support Joy's theory microscopically.

So far, no experiment has disproved local hidden variables theory.

So far, the experiments do not discriminate between quantum theory, Joy's theory, and local hidden variables theories.

Hallelujah!!! You have earned my respect for being the first Bell-believer to acknowledge this fact about my local-realistic framework (it is not yet a full theory).

by **gill1109** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:03 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: I predict that Joy's experiment is going to falsify Joy's theory.

Only macroscopically if E(a, b) != -a.b for the macroscopic experiment. The quantum experiments themselves support Joy's theory microscopically.

So far, no experiment has disproved local hidden variables theory.

So far, the experiments do not discriminate between quantum theory, Joy's theory, and local hidden variables theories.

SciPhysicsForums.com

Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments

Re: Bell & CHSH type inequalities and experiments