Hidden Variables
Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - Printable Version

+- Hidden Variables (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables)
+-- Forum: Foundations of Quantum Theory (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Violation of Bell's Inequalities (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell (/showthread.php?tid=55)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-22-2016

(06-22-2016, 06:45 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: That is not necessary.  There is no time dependence in Bell's \(R^3\) model and there doesn't need to be any in Joy's \(S^3\) model either.  You can just consider that \(s_A = s_B\) at creation time.  So the product \(L(s_a, \lambda^k)L(s_b, \lambda^k) = -1\) happens at creation.

It is time for you guys to face the facts. There is absolutely no errors in Joy Christian's local-realistic \(S^3\) model. If you want to reject the postulates then fine but you should at least be honest in that if the postulates are accepted then Bell was wrong.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - secur - 06-22-2016

I promised myself I'd stay out of this! - but feel compelled to note that Schmelzer is right. If you want to change the meaning of Christian's formulas so much, it's time to re-write that paper and explicitly remove any ambiguity (a.k.a. "error"). It's no good to make up different interpretations on the fly. It's a very short paper and should be easy to fix - if indeed it's fixable.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-22-2016

(06-22-2016, 10:11 PM)secur Wrote: I promised myself I'd stay out of this! - but feel compelled to note that Schmelzer is right. If you want to change the meaning of Christian's formulas so much, it's time to re-write that paper and explicitly remove any ambiguity (a.k.a. "error"). It's no good to make up different interpretations on the fly. It's a very short paper and should be easy to fix - if indeed it's fixable.
I am sorry that you still don't understand the model. Ilja is totally wrong and I just proved it. Quite frankly one can just go directly from eq. (5) to eq. (9) mathematically. Those limits they are so concerned about don't even matter since the product,

\(L(s_A, \lambda^k) L(s_B, \lambda^k) = -1\)

happens at creation.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - Schmelzer - 06-23-2016

(06-22-2016, 06:45 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 10:18 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: Fine.  In this case, you obviously have to modify the formulas in such a way that we have function \(s_A(t) \neq s_B(t)\) except for some initial moment \(t_0\). And that means you have, first, to distinguish in all formulas \(s_A(t)\) from \(s_B(t)\) instead of using some denotation \(s\) which does not depend on time and does not distinguish the two different trajectories.  
That is not necessary.  There is no time dependence in Bell's \(R^3\) model and there doesn't need to be any in Joy's \(S^3\) model either.  You can just consider that \(s_A = s_B\) at creation time.  So the product \(L(s_a, \lambda^k)L(s_b, \lambda^k) = -1\) happens at creation.
A formula which does not distinguish different things is nonsensical. If \(s_A(t)\) and \(s_B(t)\) depend on time, and are sometimes different, sometimes not, a formula which does not indicate the time as well as the difference between \(s_A(t)\) and \(s_B(t)\) is simply meaningless. We do not know what is meant with s, thus, we cannot know if the formula is true or wrong.

Is \(s=s\) true? It seems, but what if it means \(s_A(t_1)=s_B(t_1)\), which would, again, mean that \(a=b\)?

Bell's model is irrelevant here, and it was you who has claimed that the problem with the clearly nonsensical derivation of 1=2 can be resolved by different \(s_A(t)\) and \(s_B(t)\) which are equal at preparation time \(t_0\) but unequal later. If so, fine, then make the formulas meaningful, by indicating which of the many different meanings s has in each formula.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-23-2016

(06-23-2016, 04:34 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 06:45 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 10:18 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: Fine.  In this case, you obviously have to modify the formulas in such a way that we have function \(s_A(t) \neq s_B(t)\) except for some initial moment \(t_0\). And that means you have, first, to distinguish in all formulas \(s_A(t)\) from \(s_B(t)\) instead of using some denotation \(s\) which does not depend on time and does not distinguish the two different trajectories.  
That is not necessary.  There is no time dependence in Bell's \(R^3\) model and there doesn't need to be any in Joy's \(S^3\) model either.  You can just consider that \(s_A = s_B\) at creation time.  So the product \(L(s_a, \lambda^k)L(s_b, \lambda^k) = -1\) happens at creation.
A formula which does not distinguish different things is nonsensical. If \(s_A(t)\) and \(s_B(t)\)  depend on time, and are sometimes different, sometimes not,  a formula which does not indicate the time as well as the difference between  \(s_A(t)\) and \(s_B(t)\) is simply meaningless.  We do not know what is meant with s, thus, we cannot know if the formula is true or wrong.  

Is \(s=s\) true?  It seems, but what if it means \(s_A(t_1)=s_B(t_1)\), which would, again, mean that \(a=b\)?  

Bell's model is irrelevant here, and it was you who has claimed that the problem with the clearly nonsensical derivation of 1=2 can be resolved by different \(s_A(t)\) and \(s_B(t)\) which are equal at preparation time \(t_0\) but unequal later.  If so, fine, then make the formulas meaningful, by indicating which of the many different meanings s has in each formula.
-
Now you are just plain obfuscating since it is impossible for you to ever say you are wrong. Forget about eq. (6-8); it is mathematically possible to just go directly from eq. (5) to eq. (9). Based on that fact, you have absolutely no argument.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - Schmelzer - 06-23-2016

Quote:It is time for you guys to face the facts. There is absolutely no errors in Joy Christian's local-realistic \(S^3\) model. If you want to reject the postulates then fine but you should at least be honest in that if the postulates are accepted then Bell was wrong.

Sorry, we have proven here the mathematics of Christian allows to prove 1=2.  

Quote:Forget about eq. (6-8); it is mathematically possible to just go directly from eq. (5) to eq. (9). Based on that fact, you have absolutely no argument.

If there is disagreement about something in mathematics, the normal way to solve them is to look at the details, subdivide large steps into small steps, and to evaluate every small step.  You propose, instead, to ignore the errors in the derivation we have already identified, and refuse to correct the formulas.  

It is, of course, possible to directly say 1=2.  Forget about deriving it.  

Given that FrediFizzx seems to have given up the idea that the formulas can be somehow corrected, and has started to make completely unbased claims that he has proven something, it seems time to summarize: The mathematics of Christian's paper have been shown to contain horrible nonsense, which would allow to prove 1=2 with the same "mathematical methods".  FrediFizzx has had a fair chance to make proposals how to correct these nonsensical formulas, and even made some suggestions: That one would have to distinguish \(s_A, s_B\) so that we have \(s_A\to a, s_B\to b\) after this, fine, unfortunately to preserve the derivation one needs \(s_A = s_B\), and then the two limits contradict each other again.  Then that one has to introduce time dependence, so that there may be \(s_A(t)\to a, s_B(t)\to b\) for some \(t\to t_1\), which would be compatible with \(s_A(t_0) = s_B(t_0)\).  Fine.  But then one would have to rewrite the derivation appropriately, distinguishing the \(s_A(t), s_B(t)\). FrediFizzx seems unable to do this.  Else, I think, he would simply do it. But he seems unable to accept this fact.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - gill1109 - 06-23-2016

(06-23-2016, 05:09 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Forget about eq. (6-8); it is mathematically possible to just go directly from eq. (5) to eq. (9).  Based on that fact, you have absolutely no argument.

Let's indeed forget about eq. (6-8). Let's go back to eq. (1-4) of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879v2.pdf.

Equation (1) says \(A(a, \lambda) = \lambda\), equation (2) says \(B(b, \lambda) = - \lambda\).

Equation (4) therefore says \(E(a, b) = -1\) since we are told that \(\lambda = \pm 1\).

Note that equations (1) and (2) contain definitions of  \(A(a, \lambda)\), and \(B(b, \lambda)\) as certain limits, and an evaluation of those limits. You can easily check that these evaluations are correct using (3) and the facts that unit bivectors such as \(L(a, \lambda)\) square to -1, and \(\lambda = \pm 1\).

The only way to save the paper is to abandon equations (1-4).


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - Schmelzer - 06-23-2016

Maybe let's have some fun starting a flamewar about the question which part of the paper is more inconsistent?   Cool  

There is anyway no possibility to save the paper.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-23-2016

(06-23-2016, 12:13 PM)gill1109 Wrote:
(06-23-2016, 05:09 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Forget about eq. (6-8); it is mathematically possible to just go directly from eq. (5) to eq. (9).  Based on that fact, you have absolutely no argument.

Let's indeed forget about eq. (6-8). Let's go back to eq. (1-4) of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879v2.pdf.

Equation (1) says \(A(a, \lambda) = \lambda\), equation (2) says \(B(b, \lambda) = - \lambda\).

Equation (4) therefore says \(E(a, b) = -1\) since we are told that \(\lambda = \pm 1\).

Note that equations (1) and (2) contain definitions of  \(A(a, \lambda)\), and \(B(b, \lambda)\) as certain limits, and an evaluation of those limits. You can easily check that these evaluations are correct using (3) and the facts that unit bivectors such as \(L(a, \lambda)\) square to -1, and \(\lambda = \pm 1\).

The only way to save the paper is to abandon equations (1-4).
-
Yeah, we know that is your claim; you don't need to keep repeating it over and over. What it really means is that you simply reject the \(S^3\) postulate of the model.

(06-23-2016, 12:21 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: Maybe let's have some fun starting a flamewar about the question which part of the paper is more inconsistent?   Cool  

There is anyway no possibility to save the paper.
-
Well, there is no honesty to be found here so you might as well lock the thread since it is just has gotten to the point of repetition.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - Schmelzer - 06-23-2016

No, I will leave this thread open. I will leave you the freedom to answer to my (yet open) challenge:

1.) Clearly identify which place is wrong in the 1=2 proofs.
2.) To present the the formulas in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879v2.pdf in such a way that this error is not present there. but the result remains the same.
3.) Or, alternatively, to admit that the paper is wrong.