SciPhysicsForums.com

gill1109 wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

Justo wrote:Then Bell was right!

No one has claimed that Bell's mathematics is wrong. It is the physics he messed up, just like von Neumann did.

I think that someone calling themselves “Joy Christian” used to claim that Bell’s mathematics was wrong, but it is good that they now at least agree with the maths. Joy now claims that his physics intuition trumps elementary arithmetic. This will make it hard for him to communicate with other scientists but who knows, I guess he will be able to find like-minded persons.

Joy Christian wrote:

Justo wrote:Then Bell was right!

No one has claimed that Bell's mathematics is wrong. It is the physics he messed up, just like von Neumann did.

Joy Christian wrote:

Justo wrote:
Then Bell was right!

No one has claimed that Bell's mathematics is wrong. It is the physics he messed up, just like von Neumann did.
.

Justo wrote:
Then Bell was right!

FrediFizzx wrote:

Justo wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:What is the Bell bound for CHSH?

And the answer is

You are lost if you don't know what the CHSH Bell bound is. It's 2.
.

Justo wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:What is the Bell bound for CHSH?

And the answer is

FrediFizzx wrote:What is the Bell bound for CHSH?

FrediFizzx wrote:The real bound has to be 3 and for CHSH the real bound has to be 4

Justo wrote:I have a doubt. It seems to me that it should be very easy to simulate a CHSH virtual experiment respecting Bell's hypotheses. I confess that I don't know about programming digital computers but I suppose it should be very easy for you Guys. I think that a virtual experiment should settle the debate.
A good model could be Richard Gill's spreadsheet of Nx4 values. The experiment should choose randomly one value in each column and then evaluate <AB>, <AB'>, <A'B>, and <A'B'>.
I gess I am asking a silly question but how am I wrong?

Justo wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:It is mathematically and physically impossible for ANYTHING to exceed the bound on Bell's inequalities! So guess how QM and the experiments do it. They cheat and use a higher bound.

I am completely lost here. You said earlier the bound is 4.

FrediFizzx wrote:It is mathematically and physically impossible for ANYTHING to exceed the bound on Bell's inequalities! So guess how QM and the experiments do it. They cheat and use a higher bound.

FrediFizzx wrote:I guess Justo gave up on this. It is easy to see that the bound has to be 2 because there is a slight chance you could have all heads and all tails. Same with Bell's inequality. The real bound has to be 3 and for CHSH the real bound has to be 4

Justo wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:I guess Justo gave up on this. It is easy to see that the bound has to be 2 because there is a slight chance you could have all heads and all tails. Same with Bell's inequality. The real bound has to be 3 and for CHSH the real bound has to be 4

I have a doubt. It seems to me that it should be very easy to simulate a CHSH virtual experiment respecting Bell's hypotheses. I confess that I don't know about programming digital computers but I suppose it should be very easy for you Guys. I think that a virtual experiment should settle the debate.
A good model could be Richard Gill's spreadsheet of Nx4 values. The experiment should choose randomly one value in each column and then evaluate <AB>, <AB'>, <A'B>, and <A'B'>.
I guess I am asking a silly question but how am I wrong?

FrediFizzx wrote:I guess Justo gave up on this. It is easy to see that the bound has to be 2 because there is a slight chance you could have all heads and all tails. Same with Bell's inequality. The real bound has to be 3 and for CHSH the real bound has to be 4

minkwe wrote:

Justo wrote:

minkwe wrote:2. He's not an experimentalist, thus to test this relationship in the lab, contacts his friend who has designed a coin-reading machine. The machine works by accepting one of two settings (H=head or T=tail). A coin is tossed into an opening above the machine, causing a bell to ring if the coin comes up the same side as the setting.

Together, they perform an experiment, with the machine set to H. After 50 tosses, they get 40 rings. . They repeat the experiment with the setting at T and after 50 tosses, they get 35 rings.

What about this part, Amy objections?

Yes, first you did not answer a previous question. I asked if your reading machine influences the result of the coin toss. I assume that it does not, but since the results of your coin tosses contradict your assumption (2) we have doubts. I repeat that is why Richard Gill told you that you have to use probabilities conditional on the settings. He assumed that the machine setting biases the result.
The results or your experiments are P(H)=40/50=0.8 and P(T)=35/50=0.7 giving , hence contradicticting your assumption (2).

Look, I copied this from page one of this thread. This is what I've been asking you to read carefully. In short, you now admit you didn't bother to read it. Otherwise how can you object to a statement of fact about the coin reading machine experiment on the basis that I didn't answer a question which is already clearly explained in the description you failed to read???

Apparently, Gill didn't read it either. Here is part three of the text from page 1:

3.

But, based on their results, they get violating the mathematician's relation. Astounding -- one of the two assumptions must be wrong. Either the coin does not have two sides, or probability theory is wrong they conclude!!! Or maybe counterfactual definiteness is wrong, they ponder. The side of the coin that was not measured does not exist they surmise!!!!
Again any objections to this part?

4.
What happened? Their machine is always biased towards the setting they picked to measure, with H being a bit more biased (0.8 vs 0.5) than T (0.7 vs 0.5). This can easily happen without anything being wrong with the realism of coins, probability theory, or counterfactual definiteness. Despite their combined skill in mathematics and experimentation, they do not understand the difference between actual and counterfactual measurements and what it implies when you add them in a mathematical expression. They should read Boole's Conditions of Possible Experience.

As you can see I already explained everything very clearly on page one of this thread. You didn't bother to read it despite repeated requests. That's why your replies and objections were not making sense. This is very troubling! I wonder how many articles you have reviewed and rejected without actually understanding the point being made.

Perhaps now is a good time to review the whole post to understand it before commenting and objecting to it. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=463#p12485

minkwe wrote:This thread is about counterfactual definiteness in Bell's derivation of his inequalities.

minkwe wrote:

Heinera wrote:And I don't need any physics to describe it. Have you yet managed to write a computer program that satisfies the conditions set out in this post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=404&p=9976&hilit=operational+refutation#p9976 ?

Thought not.

This is off-topic. If you don't have anything to contribute to this thread, don't post in it.

Heinera wrote:Hahaha Your aptitude for taking a thread off topic is unprecedented, however.

You are the one who went off-topic by talking about computer programs.

Heinera wrote:And I don't need any physics to describe it. Have you yet managed to write a computer program that satisfies the conditions set out in this post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=404&p=9976&hilit=operational+refutation#p9976 ?

Thought not.

Heinera wrote:Hahaha Your aptitude for taking a thread off topic is unprecedented, however.

Joy Christian wrote:

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

Heinera wrote:Who cares what John Bell thought about his theorem, except for historians and his biographers? Nor was he the first to come up with it, ref George Boole.

And who cares about completely worthless opinions of someone like you who does not have a single publication of any kind on any subject? Not even a historian or a biographer.
.

Oh, are we there again? You demonstrating your complete inaptitude to google? Ever heard of scholar.google.com?

You do not have a single publication of any kind on any subject. No one is buying your disingenuous attempt to take credit for publications by others.
.

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:.
Where does John Bell say in his writings that his so-called theorem is about computer programs? Those who make such silly computer challenges have no clue what they are talking about.
.

Who cares what John Bell thought about his theorem, except for historians and his biographers? Nor was he the first to come up with it, ref George Boole.

And who cares about completely worthless opinions of someone like you who does not have a single publication of any kind on any subject? Not even a historian or a biographer.
.

Oh, are we there again? You demonstrating your complete inaptitude to google? Ever heard of scholar.google.com?