Parrott's mathematical nonsense

[Heinera]

It is quite mind boggling how these Bell fanatics get stuck on really stupid stuff. If they think Bell was right then they should be able to prove that Jay's eq. (6) is true. But they can't because they already proved it has to be bounded by |2|.

It is quite mind boggling how these anit-Bell fanatics get stuck on really stupid stuff. If they think Bell was wrong then they should be able to provide 16 frequencies for the urn model so that the model produces a value for the CHSH-expression outside the bounds -2, +2. Only 16 numbers between 0 and 1; any idiot should be able to find those if they exist. Then we can compute the correlations by brute force.

Prove that Jay's eq. (6) here could possibly be true. But you can't since it has already been mathematically proven to be bounded by |2|. Pretty silly if you want to continue to believe that Bell was right. Bell's junk theory has absolutely nothing to do with local-realism.

To me it is self-evident that the urn model will produce a value for the CHSH expression between -2 and +2, so I don't need any proof, thus any discussions about some proof are not very interesting to me. What would be interesting, of course, is a counterexample of 16 particular frequencies that somehow would produce a value for the CHSH expression outside those bounds. Just provide those 16 numbers, then we can continue this discussion.

[FrediFizzx]

It is quite mind boggling how these Bell fanatics get stuck on really stupid stuff. If they think Bell was right then they should be able to prove that Jay's eq. (6) is true. But they can't because they already proved it has to be bounded by |2|.

It is quite mind boggling how these anit-Bell fanatics get stuck on really stupid stuff. If they think Bell was wrong then they should be able to provide 16 frequencies for the urn model so that the model produces a value for the CHSH-expression outside the bounds -2, +2. Only 16 numbers between 0 and 1; any idiot should be able to find those if they exist. Then we can compute the correlations by brute force.

Prove that Jay's eq. (6) here could possibly be true. But you can't since it has already been mathematically proven to be bounded by |2|. Pretty silly if you want to continue to believe that Bell was right. Bell's junk theory has absolutely nothing to do with local-realism.

To me it is self-evident that the urn model will produce a value for the CHSH expression between -2 and +2, so I don't need any proof, thus any discussions about some proof are not very interesting to me. What would be interesting, of course, is a counterexample of 16 particular frequencies that somehow would produce a value for the CHSH expression outside those bounds. Just provide those 16 numbers, then we can continue this discussion.

It is already mathematically proven that it is impossible to get a value outside of the bound of |2| for the urn model so it is really stupid that you want to stick to that. But that is not a EPR-Bohm model.

[Heinera]

It is already mathematically proven that it is impossible to get a value outside of the bound of |2| for the urn model so it is really stupid that you want to stick to that. But that is not a EPR-Bohm model.

Well, this is excellent progress. So you now accept that the urn model can only produce a CHSH value between -2 and 2. But it is generally accepted in the physics community that the urn model is in fact the modern version of Bell's theorem, distilling previous historical formulations.

So now we can forget about any proofs about the urn model, but are down to the philosophical question of where does the EPR argument differ from the urn model, right?

[Joy Christian]

***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqASXGI_9j0

***

[FrediFizzx]

***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqASXGI_9j0

***

Yeah... you would think I should know better by now. Apparently, Heine thinks the urn model and the EPR-Bohm model are equivalent.

But he can't prove that Jay's eq. (6) is true so he can't prove that either the experiments or QM has ever violated Bell-CHSH. Of course it is simple math that nothing can violate any Bell inequalities.

[minkwe]

If they think Bell was wrong then they should be able to provide 16 frequencies for the urn model so that the model produces a value for the CHSH-expression outside the bounds -2, +2.

Haven't you learned anything all these years?

We are arguing that the following expressions are correct:




But the following expressions are wrong:



Bell worshipers cluelessly mix and match expressions without thinking or listening to what is being said. Your last post for example is completely nonsensical, inasmuch as it asks us to provide evidence *against* what we already accept as true (1). It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

Again, Bell's theorem amounts to the claim that expression (2) is a violation of expression (1). But can't you see that both expressions though correct in their own rights are not referring to the same thing? Don't you see that expression (3) is completely different from expression (2). This is the main issue!!! Can you get your head out of the sand for long enough to glimpse at the epiphany? That is why Bell's followers continue to think there is a violation because in their feeble minds without any physical insight, they swap out expression (2) for expression (3). But if you still can't see clearly to be appreciate the difference between (2) and (3) then as Fred has asked repeatedly, please provide the proof of expression (3).

[FrediFizzx]

Of course they can't prove that expression (3) is true so all they can do is keep slinging more nonsense on top of nonsense.

[FrediFizzx]

More nonsense from Parrott over at RW.

To sum up, it has long been said based on Bell that: “No locally realistic theory can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.”
But what actually now seem to be the case is that: *No locally *probabilistic* theory can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.*

I don’t find your analysis convincing. Some of the problems can be seen from your summary above.

(1) This is philosophy, neither mathematics nor physics. I’m not going to comment on it because I don’t have a precise understanding of what you mean by “locally probabilistic theory”. By comparison “local realistic theory” has a precise mathematical meaning as the urn model, which is easily seen to be mathematically equivalent to any of the historical formulations.

It is not philosophy at all; it is a direct physical consequence of the EPR-Bohm scenario itself. The best that ANY theory can do for that scenario is predict that the outcomes for A and B will be 50-50 + or - 1.

(2) Your objection is not to Bell’s theorem itself, but to one particular proof of it. Even if one proof should be wrong (and this one is not wrong, in my opinion), that doesn’t disprove the theorem. How much will you bet that you can find 16 probabilities for the slips in the urn so that drawing slips from the urn reproduces the quantum mechanical correlations? That is a good indication of your belief in the truth of the theorem.

Now that is a real howler there! There is actually no proof of Bell's theory whatsoever. There is mathematical proof of the inequalities and that is it. There is no connection to reality nor to locality.

(3) In another post, Richard Gill has already given a proof of Bell’s theorem which does not rely on the step that you and Christian question. That proof simply observes that the CHSH sum is a linear function on the convex set of all probability distributions. It is an elementary fact that such a function assumes its maximum (or minimum) on the extreme points of the convex set. The extreme points of this set are easily seen to be the probability distributions which assign probability 1 to one particular kind of slip (like all slips ++-+). Thus the CHSH sums are bounded by 2 if that is true for all 16 possible slips, which can easily be checked. This proof doesn’t have any “counterfactuality” in it.

All that does is to mathematically prove the CHSH inequality. Again, it has no connection to reality nor to locality.

I don’t expect to be posting much after this, if at all, so I’ll close with a general comment unrelated to your analysis. When people invest their time deciphering a paper, they hope for some return on their investment. Christian’s papers are complicated and obscurely written, in my opinion. If he clearly stated what might be the payoff for the considerable effort, he might garner more readers.

But who will invest his time to read a paper from an author who has published others with titles like “Disproof of Bell’s Theorem”? Christian has not disproved Bell’s theorem as it is generally understood by the physics community, and hardly anyone outside SciPhysicsFoundations will believe that he has. Instead, they will believe that he doesn’t understand the usual statements of Bell’s theorem.

If his Clifford algebra model has some unusual merit, he will find it to his advantage to clearly state it. If he thinks it provides a better definition of “local realistic” than the standard one embodied in the urn model, it would be better to state that directly rather than to make unbelievable claims about disproving Bell’s theorem.

There are plenty of people outside of this forum that think that Joy is right. They don't come forward because of the nonsense like you have just spewed.

It is not that hard to understand geometric algebra. I would advise you to get to it. Once you do, it is a very easy task to "decipher" Joy's work.

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... f-joy.html

The computer program GAViewer confirms that Joy's math is 100 percent correct. And as one can see from the computer code, it is remarkably simple.
.

[Joy Christian]

If they think Bell was wrong then they should be able to provide 16 frequencies for the urn model so that the model produces a value for the CHSH-expression outside the bounds -2, +2.

Haven't you learned anything all these years?

We are arguing that the following expressions are correct:




But the following expressions are wrong:



Bell worshipers cluelessly mix and match expressions without thinking or listening to what is being said. Your last post for example is completely nonsensical, inasmuch as it asks us to provide evidence *against* what we already accept as true (1). It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

Again, Bell's theorem amounts to the claim that expression (2) is a violation of expression (1). But can't you see that both expressions though correct in their own rights are not referring to the same thing? Don't you see that expression (3) is completely different from expression (2). This is the main issue!!! Can you get your head out of the sand for long enough to glimpse at the epiphany? That is why Bell's followers continue to think there is a violation because in their feeble minds without any physical insight, they swap out expression (2) for expression (3). But if you still can't see clearly to be appreciate the difference between (2) and (3) then as Fred has asked repeatedly, please provide the proof of expression (3).

Michel, please post this on Retraction Watch if you can. You can just copy-paste this post, but you will have to change the language otherwise it will be blocked by the moderators. The above are the points that all of the Bell-believers are missing for many years (apart from Gill, perhaps, who is just flagrantly dishonest and a cheat).

PS: The less-than-equal signs etc. do not work on Retraction watch, but Fred knows the way to make them come out right with HTML translation codes.

***

[FrediFizzx]

PS: The less-than-equal signs etc. do not work on Retraction watch, but Fred knows the way to make them come out right with HTML translation codes.

***

Well, Michel used tex for the math above so won't be able to just copy and paste it easily. Special character codes for HTML are here,

http://text-symbols.com/html

There are probably better websites for it than that one.

[FrediFizzx]

It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

You misunderstand, as usual. I ask for evidence that is violating expression (4). But you can't provide that either. You obviously can't give me those 16 frequencies.

[Joy Christian]

***
The following is my latest reply to Stephen Parrott on Retraction Watch:

(3) In another post, Richard Gill has already given a proof of Bell’s theorem which does not rely on the step that you and Christian question. That proof simply observes that the CHSH sum…

To which I replied:

The details of whatever “proof” of Bell’s “theorem” Gill may have claimed are completely irrelevant as long as a CHSH-like sum is involved in the proof in some way. That sum is all that is needed to disprove Bell’s theorem, because that sum is both mathematically and physically identical to the single “average” presented in the expression (D16) of the latest version of my Appendix D: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 ; in current notation it is

Int_K { A( B + B’ ) + A'( B – B’ ) } rho(k) dk .

From my (D16) it immediately follows that the bonds of -2 and +2 on CHSH are entirely fictitious, because they arise from averaging over an entirely fictitious quantity. Once it is recognized that the bounds of -2 and +2 on CHSH arise from a quantity that does not even respect the EPR criterion of reality, it is completely irrelevant how many other ways one can claim to have arrived at the same bounds.

So what the Bell-believers have yet to realize is that the problem is not with one supposed proof or another of Bell's "theorem", but with the CHSH sum itself. That sum has always been promoted as implementing the EPR criterion of reality. But that is a lie. The truth is exactly the opposite. As soon as one writes down the CHSH sum it violates the EPR criterion of reality, as I have explained on the last page of this paper: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... /Fatal.pdf.

***

[minkwe]

It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

You misunderstand, as usual. I ask for evidence that is violating expression (4). But you can't provide that either. You obviously can't give me those 16 frequencies.

By asking for 16 frequencies, you are in fact asking us to disprove expression (1) not expression (4) like you claim. Obviously you don't know the difference. There not 16 frequencies in expression (4) there are 256! Like I said, you haven't learned a thing all these years.

In any case, you are the one claiming that expression (4) is correct, so please provide the proof of it as Fred has been asking.

[FrediFizzx]

It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

You misunderstand, as usual. I ask for evidence that is violating expression (4). But you can't provide that either. You obviously can't give me those 16 frequencies.

By asking for 16 frequencies, you are in fact asking us to disprove expression (1) not expression (4) like you claim. Obviously you don't know the difference. There not 16 frequencies in expression (4) there are 256! Like I said, you haven't learned a thing all these years.

In any case, you are the one claiming that expression (4) is correct, so please provide the proof of it as Fred has been asking.

Thank you, Michel! That should settle this debate once and for all time. If Heine doesn't now see that neither the experiments nor QM has ever "violated" Bell-CHSH then further debate with him is a complete waste of time. But perhaps of interest to lurkers. All Heine has to do is prove eq. (3) or (4) are correct and we will shut up forever.

Well... as I said earlier, it is trivial that the bound on eq. (4) is |4| by simple mathematical inspection, 1 + 1 +1 -(-1) = 4 so that really only leaves him eq. (3) to prove. Ahh...!!! but darn it; it is already proven that the bound on it is |2|. Guess he is plain out of luck as far as being able to shut us up.

[Heinera]

It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

You misunderstand, as usual. I ask for evidence that is violating expression (4). But you can't provide that either. You obviously can't give me those 16 frequencies.

By asking for 16 frequencies, you are in fact asking us to disprove expression (1) not expression (4) like you claim. Obviously you don't know the difference. There not 16 frequencies in expression (4) there are 256! Like I said, you haven't learned a thing all these years.

A LOCAL urn model only has 16 different slips by definition, with 16 frequencis, and can of course be used to disprove expression (4). I would just start drawing according to the frequencies (and randomly choosing settings) and see what (4) converges to. If it converges to say 3, (4) would be disproved.

But now I see where your confusion stems from: You think the urn model should have 256 slips, with 256 frequencies. That would be true for a NON-LOCAL urn model, which of course can violate (4). The reason it would be non-local is that Alice, having randomly chosen a setting and being handed a copy of the slip, would in general not know what outcome she should pick from the slip, since that would also depend on Bob's setting.

[Joy Christian]

We are arguing that the following expressions are correct:




But the following expressions are wrong:



Bell worshipers cluelessly mix and match expressions without thinking or listening to what is being said.

It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

You misunderstand, as usual. I ask for evidence that is violating expression (4). But you can't provide that either. You obviously can't give me those 16 frequencies.

By asking for 16 frequencies, you are in fact asking us to disprove expression (1) not expression (4) like you claim. Obviously you don't know the difference. There are not 16 frequencies in expression (4) there are 256! Like I said, you haven't learned a thing all these years.

Let me try to explain this somewhat differently, especially in the light of the protracted discussion we had with the Bell-believers on Retraction Watch:

Claiming that they are implementing the EPR criterion of reality --- or Einstein's demand of local realism --- the Bell-believers replace the expression



with the traditional CHSH sum



Now this traditional CHSH sum of four averages is evidently both mathematically and physically identical to the single average



But all this single average does is reveal that their claim of implementing the EPR criterion of reality has badly backfired. What is in fact being averaged in this last expression does not respect the EPR criterion of reality at all. Worse still, what is being averaged is physically an utter gobbledygook. But since the single average is both mathematically and physically identical to the original CHSH sum in the middle expression, the CHSH sum itself is physically utter gobbledygook. Consequently, the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH sum are also physically completely meaningless. There is no way out of this conclusion. They are barking up the wrong tree.

***

[minkwe]

A LOCAL urn model only has 16 different slips by definition, with 16 frequencis, and can of course be used to disprove expression (4)
....
a NON-LOCAL urn model, which of course can violate (4).

And expression (1) has only 16 frequencies, so what? Expression (4) has 256! All talk of frequencies is obfuscation any way.
Yes I'm familiar with all the tricks and schemes of the Bell mafia. But I never said anything about urns. I gave 4 expressions, two of which are correct, and two of which are wrong. The expressions are simply averages of sets of numbers with possible values +1, -1. Datasets, that's what it's all about.

I can prove that (4) is wrong by giving you the data which violates it. If you think (4) is correct, provide the mathematical proof. You can't prove an inequality by providing data, though you can disprove one by providing data. The CHSH derivation is already proof that (3) is false. And there is plenty of data available violating (4). If you think (1) has ever been violated, provide the data.

So please provide mathematical proof of (4)

[Heinera]

I can prove that (4) is wrong by giving you the data which violates it.

I hear you say so, bu so far you have failed to do that. Give me the 16 frequencies so that I can run the urn model, and compute the expression in (4) outside the bounds. Anyone can talk BS. I want numbers.

[minkwe]

I can prove that (4) is wrong by giving you the data which violates it.

I hear you say so, bu so far you have failed to do that.
...
Anyone can talk BS. I want numbers.

Hehe? You really want a dataset which violates (4), here it is. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6sZy ... EtRMlpsQzQ It is a zip archive and inside you will find 4 spreadsheets corresponding to A₁B₁, A’₂B₂, A₃B’₃, A’₄B’₄

You can do the calculation and verify that you have ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ = (0.918) + (0.916) + (0.918) - (0.385) = 2.37 violating expression (4). QED


Now the ball is in your court, provide the proof of expression (4), and provide the data violating expression (1).

[Heinera]

I can prove that (4) is wrong by giving you the data which violates it.

I hear you say so, bu so far you have failed to do that.
...
Anyone can talk BS. I want numbers.

Hehe? You really want a dataset which violates (4), here it is. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6sZy ... EtRMlpsQzQ It is a zip archive and inside you will find 4 spreadsheets corresponding to A₁B₁, A’₂B₂, A₃B’₃, A’₄B’₄

You can do the calculation and verify that you have ⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₂B₂⟩ + ⟨A₃B’₃⟩ – ⟨A’₄B’₄⟩ = (0.918) + (0.916) + (0.918) - (0.385) = 2.37 violating expression (4). QED


Now the ball is in your court, provide the proof of expression (4), and provide the data violating expression (1).

I didn't ask for a *dataset* which violates (4). Any nonlocal model can produce that, it's trivial. 16 frequencies was all I asked for. 16 numbers. Still not answered. What 16 frequencies did you use to generate your dataset?