A real EPR-Bohm scenario

[FrediFizzx]

We have a pair of spin 1/2 particles going off in opposite directions that were created from a singlet state so their spins are anti-correlated. Perhaps their initial spin could be parameterized by "s" relative to a lab frame. However, I don't think we actually care about that because when the particles hit the polarizers, the spins become aligned with the angle of the polarizer and at that point you can have either up or down, +1 or -1 detected.

Now, can you actually assign a spin component for each particle relative to the angle of the polarizer before such alignment happens? I don't think so as the spins could be "tumbling" around and the only thing we know (suspect) is that the spins of the particles will stay anti-correlated.

If the above is true, then NO theory can do a prediction better than 50-50, +1 or -1 outcomes at A and B. And Bell's theory has absolutely nothing to say about realism. IOW, an EPR-Bohm scenario can't test for realism.

However, if a hidden variable model can predict the 50-50 outcomes in a realistic way, then I believe it can be claimed that it is realistic. If EPR-Bohm can't test for it, then it can't be disproved anyways.

[minkwe]

Fred, actually you can test and confirm EPR realism by performing a single run of the EPRB experiment with identical settings at Alice and Bob. If you obtain perfect correlation after accounting for noise, then you have realism. Inequalities are simply paradox factories.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, actually you can test and confirm EPR realism by performing a single run of the EPRB experiment with identical settings at Alice and Bob. If you obtain perfect correlation after accounting for noise, then you have realism. Inequalities are simply paradox factories.

Ah yes, that is true. So all a hidden variable theory needs to predict is correlation with a and b settings the same (a = b) to be considered realistic. That is pretty simple.

Or anti-correlation with a = -b. And it actually should probably predict both. Well... I guess it should also predict that the A and B outcomes will be 50-50 +1 or -1.
.

[thray]

Fred, actually you can test and confirm EPR realism by performing a single run of the EPRB experiment with identical settings at Alice and Bob. If you obtain perfect correlation after accounting for noise, then you have realism. Inequalities are simply paradox factories.

Ah yes, that is true. So all a hidden variable theory needs to predict is correlation with a and b settings the same (a = b) to be considered realistic. That is pretty simple.

Or anti-correlation with a = -b. And it actually should probably predict both. Well... I guess it should also predict that the A and B outcomes will be 50-50 +1 or -1.
.

Fred, what Bell loyalists will tell you, is that setting a = b, leaves out the freedom of the experimenter to choose and change detector settings. They don't recognize non-arbitrarily-chosen initial conditions. They really don't understand physical measure space -- they take it to be the quantum configuration space -- and since the conclusion of Bell's Theorem is that quantum configuration space cannot map onto physical space without a nonlocal model, non-locality is a prior assumption.

To prove it -- ask a Bell believer to define a measure space. Should be simple enough -- in what space are Bell-Aspect measures taken?

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, actually you can test and confirm EPR realism by performing a single run of the EPRB experiment with identical settings at Alice and Bob. If you obtain perfect correlation after accounting for noise, then you have realism. Inequalities are simply paradox factories.

Ah yes, that is true. So all a hidden variable theory needs to predict is correlation with a and b settings the same (a = b) to be considered realistic. That is pretty simple.

Or anti-correlation with a = -b. And it actually should probably predict both. Well... I guess it should also predict that the A and B outcomes will be 50-50 +1 or -1.
.

Fred, what Bell loyalists will tell you, is that setting a = b, leaves out the freedom of the experimenter to choose and change detector settings. They don't recognize non-arbitrarily-chosen initial conditions. They really don't understand physical measure space -- they take it to be the quantum configuration space -- and since the conclusion of Bell's Theorem is that quantum configuration space cannot map onto physical space without a nonlocal model, non-locality is a prior assumption.

To prove it -- ask a Bell believer to define a measure space. Should be simple enough -- in what space are Bell-Aspect measures taken?

Hi Tom,

We are just talking about the realism part of the equation here not the locality part. So Joy's S^3 model is perfectly realistic since it predicts correlation when a = b and anti-correlation when a = -b and also predicts 50-50 +/- 1 outcomes at A and B via realistic means for the EPR-Bohm scenario. It does not have to predict what the individual event by event outcomes might be.
.

[thray]

Fred, actually you can test and confirm EPR realism by performing a single run of the EPRB experiment with identical settings at Alice and Bob. If you obtain perfect correlation after accounting for noise, then you have realism. Inequalities are simply paradox factories.

Ah yes, that is true. So all a hidden variable theory needs to predict is correlation with a and b settings the same (a = b) to be considered realistic. That is pretty simple.

Or anti-correlation with a = -b. And it actually should probably predict both. Well... I guess it should also predict that the A and B outcomes will be 50-50 +1 or -1.
.

Fred, what Bell loyalists will tell you, is that setting a = b, leaves out the freedom of the experimenter to choose and change detector settings. They don't recognize non-arbitrarily-chosen initial conditions. They really don't understand physical measure space -- they take it to be the quantum configuration space -- and since the conclusion of Bell's Theorem is that quantum configuration space cannot map onto physical space without a nonlocal model, non-locality is a prior assumption.

To prove it -- ask a Bell believer to define a measure space. Should be simple enough -- in what space are Bell-Aspect measures taken?

Hi Tom,

We are just talking about the realism part of the equation here not the locality part. So Joy's S^3 model is perfectly realistic since it predicts correlation when a = b and anti-correlation when a = -b and also predicts 50-50 +/- 1 outcomes at A and B via realistic means for the EPR-Bohm scenario. It does not have to predict what the individual event by event outcomes might be.
.

Understood, Fred. How does one separate locality from realism?

[minkwe]

Tom according to EPR, realism is defined as -- If a theory can predict with certainty the result of a measurement, without disturbing the system then there is an element of reality corresponding to the measured quantity in the theory.

If the theory predicts that measurement at (a=b) will produce perfect anti-correlation, and measurement in fact produces anti-correlation, then the theory is realistic and has been proven experimentally.

But as Joy has been explaining, Bell assumed that B + B' was an element of realism in LR theories. The question so far unanswered by Bell believers is: "What is the prediction that Bell-LR theories make for measurement of the impossible B + B' quantity.

In effect, Bell concluded that LR theories were impossible by including an impossible element of realism in the assumptions. The reason experiments can't confirm Bell's realism, is because his realism includes impossible quantities such as B + B', that can never be measured in the first place.

[FrediFizzx]

Oh yeah, I had that backwards, sorry. Anti-correlated when a = b and correlated when a = -b.

What I have learned by this is that Bell screwed up bigtime using the EPR-Bohm scenario. No theory of any kind can predict what B or B' will be for that scenario. The best any theory can do is predict that they will average to zero after many trials. So Bell's theory really has nothing to say about if B, B' or B + B' are real or not. But experiments definitely rule out B + B' as being real since it is a physically impossible situation.

[Q-reeus]

Slightly off-topic. This link posted recently at another site: http://thebigbelltest.org/

A bit late to participate it seems, not that anyone here would be particularly keen I'd imagine! Got to wonder what level of education was being aimed at - trippy if nothing else.

[FrediFizzx]

Slightly off-topic. This link posted recently at another site: http://thebigbelltest.org/

A bit late to participate it seems, not that anyone here would be particularly keen I'd imagine! Got to wonder what level of education was being aimed at - trippy if nothing else.

LOL! It is for sure tripped out!

[Joy Christian]

Tom according to EPR, realism is defined as -- If a theory can predict with certainty the result of a measurement, without disturbing the system then there is an element of reality corresponding to the measured quantity in the theory.

If the theory predicts that measurement at (a=b) will produce perfect anti-correlation, and measurement in fact produces anti-correlation, then the theory is realistic and has been proven experimentally.

But as Joy has been explaining, Bell assumed that B + B' was an element of realism in LR theories. The question so far unanswered by Bell believers is: "What is the prediction that Bell-LR theories make for measurement of the impossible B + B' quantity.

In effect, Bell concluded that LR theories were impossible by including an impossible element of realism in the assumptions. The reason experiments can't confirm Bell's realism, is because his realism includes impossible quantities such as B + B', that can never be measured in the first place.

Just to elaborate on Michel's explanation for the lurkers, the word “predict” in the EPR’s criterion refers to the predictions made by Alice about Bob’s results.

Alice can predict B(b) with certainty only by measuring A(b), and predict B(b’) with certainty only by measuring A(b’), as I have explained at Retraction Watch:

For convenience, here is how EPR would specify “elements of reality” for the singlet state:

The singlet state has two remarkable properties. First, it happens to be rotationally invariant. That is to say, it remains the same for all directions in space, denoted by the unit vector n. Second, it entails perfect spin correlations: If the component of spin along direction n is found to be “up” for particle 1, then with certainty it will be found to be “down” for particle 2, and vice versa. Consequently, one can predict with certainty the result of measuring any component of spin of particle 2 by previously measuring the same component of spin of particle 1. However, locality demands that measurements performed on particle 1 cannot bring about any real change in the remotely situated particle 2. Therefore, according to the criterion of reality, the chosen spin component of particle 2 is an element of physical reality. But this argument goes through for any component of spin, and hence all infinitely many of the spin components of particle 2 are elements of physical reality (cf. the paper by GHSZ).

It is evident to me that B(b) + B(b’ ) is NOT an element of reality according to EPR’s criterion.

***

[thray]

Tom according to EPR, realism is defined as -- If a theory can predict with certainty the result of a measurement, without disturbing the system then there is an element of reality corresponding to the measured quantity in the theory.

If the theory predicts that measurement at (a=b) will produce perfect anti-correlation, and measurement in fact produces anti-correlation, then the theory is realistic and has been proven experimentally.

But as Joy has been explaining, Bell assumed that B + B' was an element of realism in LR theories. The question so far unanswered by Bell believers is: "What is the prediction that Bell-LR theories make for measurement of the impossible B + B' quantity.

In effect, Bell concluded that LR theories were impossible by including an impossible element of realism in the assumptions. The reason experiments can't confirm Bell's realism, is because his realism includes impossible quantities such as B + B', that can never be measured in the first place.

Hi Michel. I agree with all that.

In a complete space, though, and using the boundaries of special relativity, the impossible to measure local position is always the initial condition. So for Bell believers to answer the question you pose, a reversible time parameter has to be built into the measure space. It is, in the relativistic version of local realism.

If you have no defined measure space, nonlocality is assumed. Quantum theory is simply incoherent without this assumption. So Bell-Aspect proves no more than it assumes.

it is at the source that the result E(a,b) = -a.b. To realize this result by statistical inference, the source must be included in the measure space, regardless of the separation at detection, between source and detector. For this reason, I don't see separation of locality and realism. We aren't talking philosophy here -- we are talking about physical measure space. Completeness is the hallmark of special relativity; completeness is the hallmark of Joy Christian's framework.

Press quantum theorists to define a measure space. The standard reply from Richard Gill: "lambda can be anything." Implying that the space can be anything, too. The logical entailment is a random, probabilistic event-space in which time plays no role.

[FrediFizzx]

Posted at RW which they did not let thru so far,

Joy Christian
Jay, as you probably know, I would not use your (14) as a criterion for the elements of reality. So my answers to your questions in Part A and Part B are both in the negative, with more negative for the question in Part B for obvious reasons.
…

That is correct and applied to the EPR-Bohm situation, A, B, A’ and B’ cannot be elements of reality until they are measured. The best any theory can do is predict that their averages will be zero after many trials.

That should really end the debate about "elements of reality" as far as Bell's theory goes. No one can make a prediction with 100 percent certainty for A, B, A', B' therefore they have to be measured. And since it is impossible to measure B + B' simultaneously, it can never be an element of reality. Bell's theory is junk physics as far as realism goes.
.

[Joy Christian]

Posted at RW which they did not let thru so far,

Joy Christian
Jay, as you probably know, I would not use your (14) as a criterion for the elements of reality. So my answers to your questions in Part A and Part B are both in the negative, with more negative for the question in Part B for obvious reasons.
…

That is correct and applied to the EPR-Bohm situation, A, B, A’ and B’ cannot be elements of reality until they are measured. The best any theory can do is predict that their averages will be zero after many trials.

That should really end the debate about "elements of reality" as far as Bell's theory goes. No one can make a prediction with 100 percent certainty for A, B, A', B' therefore they have to be measured. And since it is impossible to measure B + B' simultaneously, it can never be an element of reality. Bell's theory is junk physics as far as realism goes.
.

Not quite, Fred. Alice can predict Bob's result B(b) with certainty by measuring A(b), since there is perfect anti-correlation between B(b) and A(b); i.e., A(b)B(b) = -1.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Posted at RW which they did not let thru so far,

Joy Christian
Jay, as you probably know, I would not use your (14) as a criterion for the elements of reality. So my answers to your questions in Part A and Part B are both in the negative, with more negative for the question in Part B for obvious reasons.
…

That is correct and applied to the EPR-Bohm situation, A, B, A’ and B’ cannot be elements of reality until they are measured. The best any theory can do is predict that their averages will be zero after many trials.

That should really end the debate about "elements of reality" as far as Bell's theory goes. No one can make a prediction with 100 percent certainty for A, B, A', B' therefore they have to be measured. And since it is impossible to measure B + B' simultaneously, it can never be an element of reality. Bell's theory is junk physics as far as realism goes.
.

Not quite, Fred. Alice can predict Bob's result B(b) with certainty by measuring A(b), since there is perfect anti-correlation between B(b) and A(b); i.e., A(b)B(b) = -1.

***

Yes, Michel already addressed that. That prediction can only be when a = b or a = -b. With any other arbitrary b, Alice cannot predict what Bob will get. But as Michel points out, it is sufficient that if any hidden variable theory does predict anti-correlation or correlation when a = b or a = -b then it can be considered a realistic theory. I think he is right.
.
.

[Joy Christian]

Not quite, Fred. Alice can predict Bob's result B(b) with certainty by measuring A(b), since there is perfect anti-correlation between B(b) and A(b); i.e., A(b)B(b) = -1.

***

Yes, Michel already addressed that. That prediction can only be when a = b or a = -b. With any other arbitrary b, Alice cannot predict what Bob will get. But as Michel points out, it is sufficient that if any hidden variable theory does predict anti-correlation or correlation when a = b or a = -b then it can be considered a realistic theory. I think he is right.
.
.

Yes, Michel is right. That follows from the EPR criterion of reality, when applied to the singlet state.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Not quite, Fred. Alice can predict Bob's result B(b) with certainty by measuring A(b), since there is perfect anti-correlation between B(b) and A(b); i.e., A(b)B(b) = -1.
***

Yes, Michel already addressed that. That prediction can only be when a = b or a = -b. With any other arbitrary b, Alice cannot predict what Bob will get. But as Michel points out, it is sufficient that if any hidden variable theory does predict anti-correlation or correlation when a = b or a = -b then it can be considered a realistic theory. I think he is right.
.

Yes, Michel is right. That follows from the EPR criterion of reality, when applied to the singlet state.

***

Well, this fact takes a bit of "pressure" off your model since you make that prediction plus can make the prediction that the averages of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) will be zero after many trials. You can put in the effect of the polarizers and the model is still perfectly local-realistic. The model doesn't have to predict individual event by event outcomes. Which are impossible in the EPR-Bohm scenario anyways. But the bottom line as far as realism goes, is that it is impossible for B + B' to be an element of reality taking EPR-Bohm into consideration.
.

[Joy Christian]

Not quite, Fred. Alice can predict Bob's result B(b) with certainty by measuring A(b), since there is perfect anti-correlation between B(b) and A(b); i.e., A(b)B(b) = -1.
***

Yes, Michel already addressed that. That prediction can only be when a = b or a = -b. With any other arbitrary b, Alice cannot predict what Bob will get. But as Michel points out, it is sufficient that if any hidden variable theory does predict anti-correlation or correlation when a = b or a = -b then it can be considered a realistic theory. I think he is right.
.

Yes, Michel is right. That follows from the EPR criterion of reality, when applied to the singlet state.

***

Well, this fact takes a bit of "pressure" off your model since you make that prediction plus can make the prediction that the averages of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) will be zero after many trials. You can put in the effect of the polarizers and the model is still perfectly local-realistic. The model doesn't have to predict individual event by event outcomes. Which are impossible in the EPR-Bohm scenario anyways. But the bottom line as far as realism goes, is that it is impossible for B + B' to be an element of reality taking EPR-Bohm into consideration.
.

The GA model predicts the individual +/-1 also. The requirements by Bell and the experiments are that, given a, b and lambda, A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = +/-1, < A > = 0, < B > = 0, and E(a, b) = -a.b. All of these requirements are satisfied by my model exactly. The only problem with it is that it is politically incorrect.

***

[FrediFizzx]

The GA model predicts the individual +/-1 also. ***

Hmm... I don't think so as the effect of the polarizers is not included, IIRC. I will have to look at the simulation again.

But it doesn't have to predict the individual event by event outcomes to be completely local-realistic is the new point I am making.

[Joy Christian]

The GA model predicts the individual +/-1 also. ***

Hmm... I don't think so as the effect of the polarizers is not included, IIRC. I will have to look at the simulation again.

But it doesn't have to predict the individual event by event outcomes to be completely local-realistic is the new point I am making.

I am not talking about the GA simulation. I am talking about the actual model. What is wrong with the predictions made in eqs. (54) and (55) of this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 ?

Eqs. (54) and (55) quite clearly predict individual outcomes: A(a, lambda) = +/-1 and B(b, lambda) = +/-1.

***