SciPhysicsForums.com

luca valeri wrote:
But I am not a realist!

Joy Christian wrote:The main point of my comments in this post is the following:

The four possible experiments that have anything to do with physics are described by

E(a, b) = << A(t)B(t) >> ,

E(a, b') = << A(t)B'(t) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A'(t)B(t) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A'(t)B'(t) >> .

But the Bell believers derive their inequalities by discarding the above four possible experiments altogether and replacing them by a completely different, physically entirely fictitious experiment described by

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>.

Joy Christian wrote:He or she replaces the sum of four separate averages

E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b' )

with a single average of an un-observable, and hence un-physical quantity (a Mickey Mouse)

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(t)B(t) + A(t)B'(t) + A'(t)B(t) - A'(t)B'(t) >>.

luca valeri wrote:Joy is arguing, that for non-compatible measurements a and a', the underlying probability distribution does not exists (Mickey Mouse), since incompatible properties can never be measured or observed. That brings him away of what traditionally is seen as a realist position and brings him nearer to a positivist or instrumentalists or if you wish Copenhagen interpretation.

luca valeri wrote:Hi guest1202

I appreciated your posts. Basically you are saying, that if p(A,B), p(A',B) etc. are true marginals, then Bell inequality holds.
Joy is arguing, that for non-compatible measurements a and a', the underlying probability distribution does not exists (Mickey Mouse),
since incompatible properties can never be measured or observed. That brings him away of what traditionally is seen as a realist position and brings him nearer to a positivist or instrumentalists or if you wish Copenhagen interpretation

Joy Christian wrote:Now I see that you, Fred, are engaged in a fruitless discussion with Richard D. Gill and the host Ilja Schmelzer about Bell's mistakes elsewhere on the Internet.

FrediFizzx wrote:Now there is another mistake Bell made that Joy has stressed before. However it is a bit more subtle than the one exposed in this thread concerning the derivation of the inequalities. And Bell, to his credit, probably didn't realize the consequence of how he set up his "rules" for local hidden variable models. His resulting model is locked into . In other words, if you have an LHV model like Joy's that behavior is a postulate of the model, there is no way to get that into Bell's model because is not a hidden variable so to speak. So Bell basically locked out a whole range of LHV models for consideration by his particular formulation. A pretty big mistake. Fortunately, Joy found a way around that problem.

Joy Christian wrote:

Gordon Watson wrote:
I thank parnassos2001 and rest my case.

Gordon,

I am not sure what your case was.

***

Gordon Watson wrote:
I thank parnassos2001 and rest my case.

FrediFizzx wrote:

parnassos2001 wrote:Re: Impossibility of Bell Violations

Couldn't gedanken experiments employing macroscopic isomorphisms count as violations? I'm thinking specifically of Diederik Aerts' series of those ... e.g., the twin vessels connected by a tube on pp 4-5, which might be seen as obviating the orthodox quantum-classical distinction:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007044 ("The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld")

To answer your question; no. When they say "macroscopic violation" they mean it in the same sense that everyone says that QM "violates" the Bell inequality. When in reality, no such thing has ever happened. I will say it again; it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of the Bell inequalities! People like in the paper you linked just continue to propagate the myth that violation is possible when it isn't. I suspect it is just due to years of being subject to what like guest1202 keeps proposing. Totally brainwashed without truly realizing what is actually going on.

Proposed Macroscopic Test of the Physical Relevance of Bell’s Theorem
Joy Christian∗Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, 15 Thackley End, Oxford OX2 6LB, United Kingdom
A macroscopic experiment capable of detecting a signature of spinorial sign changes is discussed. If realized, it would determine whether Bell inequalities are satisfied for a manifestly local, classical system. By providing an explicitly local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm type spin correlations, it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated even in such a manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as strongly as they are [VIOLATED] in the microscopic domain. The proposed experiment has the potential to transform our understanding of the relationship between classical and quantum physics. [My emphasis and edit.]

FrediFizzx wrote:

parnassos2001 wrote:Isn't there a contradiction between (1.) "it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of Bell's inequalities" and (2.) "it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated even in such a manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as they are in the microscopic domain"? Isn't that eating your cake and having it too?

I'm not exactly sure what you are quoting for (2) since no links. Unfortunately the language is inappropriate in (2). It is just part of the 50 years of brainwashing. Bell inequalities are never violated as shown why previously in this thread. IOW, exceeding the Bell-CHSH bound of 2 is not really a "violation" since a different inequality other than a Bell inequality is really being used. But saying it is a violation just means in the same way that say QM exceeds the 2 bound.

parnassos2001 wrote:Isn't there a contradiction between (1.) "it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of Bell's inequalities" and (2.) "it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated even in such a manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as they are in the microscopic domain"? Isn't that eating your cake and having it too?

FrediFizzx wrote:
The only question that remains is can a mechanical singlet experiment also surpass the bound of 2? Joy says it should. The experiment needs to be done.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Gordon Watson wrote:1. If the Bell-CHSH bound of 2 has nothing to do with physics, please show me a published classical experiment that surpasses it.*

https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fu ... &id=321243

Gordon Watson wrote:1. If the Bell-CHSH bound of 2 has nothing to do with physics, please show me a published classical experiment that surpasses it.*