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 - Schmelzer - 06-21-2016

(06-21-2016, 07:16 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: I certainly hope you realize that is not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  Remember; two different particles with the same "s".  At the A detection station the A particle's "s" goes to a.  At the B station the B particle's "s" goes to b.  I am not sure at all why you are having trouble with that.  ???
You think elementary mathematical rules are not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario?  Sorry.  I have the trouble that there is an expression, looking like a mathematical formula, which makes no sense as a mathematical formula.  

\[ f(a) = \lim_{s\to a} f(s) =  \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b} f(s) = \lim_{s\to b} f(s) = f(b)  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]

or, in the variant with \(s_A, s_B\) and with f(a)=a:

\[ a = \lim_{s_A\to a} s_A =  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=}  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to b} s_B = b  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - secur - 06-21-2016

(06-21-2016, 07:08 AM)gill1109 Wrote: I'm sorry to hurt your feelings!  .. I'm afraid that it does require some nit-picking in order to expose the incoherence.
Sorry, I was feeling annoyed about the whole exercise and over-reacted. You are to be thanked for your effort in "exposing the incoherence". Since I challenged the proponents of Mr. Christian to "come clean" on the obvious errors in the one-pagers, and they didn't, I figure (as I warned them) you're right about the rest of it also. No need for further investigation on my part.

(06-21-2016, 07:31 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 07:16 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: I certainly hope you realize that is not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  Remember; two different particles with the same "s".  At the A detection station the A particle's "s" goes to a.  At the B station the B particle's "s" goes to b.  I am not sure at all why you are having trouble with that.  ???
You think elementary mathematical rules are not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario?  Sorry.  I have the trouble that there is an expression, looking like a mathematical formula, which makes no sense as a mathematical formula. 
in the variant with \(s_A, s_B\) and with f(a)=a:
\[ a = \lim_{s_A\to a} s_A =  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=}  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to b} s_B = b  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]

@Schmelzer - It's not necessary to suppose a becomes equal to b, we get the same answer anyway.

If you give him the maximum benefit of the doubt (which was my policy here) and assume there should be two separate subscripted s's, then in eqn 8 what happens is this. The first L(s, lambda) goes to L(a, lambda), the second goes to L(b, lambda). That makes four terms: the first two equal to L(a, lambda), the second two to L(b, lambda). Each square = -1, so the entire expression simply = -1.

What he did, instead, was contradictory. To get to eqn 9 he assumes there is only one s - implying that a=b, as you say above - and squares L(s, lambda) to get -1. But in that case since a=b the two remaining terms are equal and also square to -1.

It's amusing that either way you interpret this "double limit", you still get the same answer.

@FreddiFizzx - As mentioned I don't agree with you but, despite that, I certainly hope you have a nice day Shy


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-21-2016

(06-21-2016, 07:31 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 07:16 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: I certainly hope you realize that is not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  Remember; two different particles with the same "s".  At the A detection station the A particle's "s" goes to a.  At the B station the B particle's "s" goes to b.  I am not sure at all why you are having trouble with that.  ???
You think elementary mathematical rules are not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario?  Sorry.  I have the trouble that there is an expression, looking like a mathematical formula, which makes no sense as a mathematical formula.  

\[ f(a) = \lim_{s\to a} f(s) =  \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b} f(s) = \lim_{s\to b} f(s) = f(b)  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]

or, in the variant with \(s_A, s_B\) and with f(a)=a:

\[ a = \lim_{s_A\to a} s_A =  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=}  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to b} s_B = b  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]

You have completely mangled what the EPR-Bohm scenario says in Joy's implementation of \(S^3\) for it.  It no longer has anything to do with EPR-Bohm.  Try again, maybe you can get it right.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-21-2016

(06-21-2016, 06:13 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 07:31 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 07:16 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: I certainly hope you realize that is not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  Remember; two different particles with the same "s".  At the A detection station the A particle's "s" goes to a.  At the B station the B particle's "s" goes to b.  I am not sure at all why you are having trouble with that.  ???
You think elementary mathematical rules are not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario?  Sorry.  I have the trouble that there is an expression, looking like a mathematical formula, which makes no sense as a mathematical formula.  

\[ f(a) = \lim_{s\to a} f(s) =  \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b} f(s) = \lim_{s\to b} f(s) = f(b)  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]

or, in the variant with \(s_A, s_B\) and with f(a)=a:

\[ a = \lim_{s_A\to a} s_A =  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=}  \lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to b} s_B = b  \text{ even if } a\neq b\]

You have completely mangled what the EPR-Bohm scenario says in Joy's implementation of \(S^3\) for it.  It no longer has anything to do with EPR-Bohm.  Try again, maybe you can get it right.

Well, let's just do it.

\[ f(a, b) = \lim_{s\to a} f(a, s) \lim_{s\to b} f(b, s) =  \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b} f(a, b, s)\]

That is how it is suppose to be and there is nothing mathematically wrong with it.  Look it up.  Google is your friend.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 06-21-2016

(06-21-2016, 12:16 PM)secur Wrote: @FreddiFizzx - As mentioned I don't agree with you but, despite that, I certainly hope you have a nice day Shy
Thanks. No problem. I will put you down as rejecting the postulates and won't bother trying to explain anything more to you.


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

(06-21-2016, 09:02 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 06:13 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: You have completely mangled what the EPR-Bohm scenario says in Joy's implementation of \(S^3\) for it.  It no longer has anything to do with EPR-Bohm.  Try again, maybe you can get it right.
Well, let's just do it.
\[ f(a, b) = \lim_{s\to a} f(a, s) \lim_{s\to b} f(b, s) =  \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b} f(a, b, s)\]
That is how it is suppose to be and there is nothing mathematically wrong with it.  Look it up.  Google is your friend.
LOL, what do you suggest me to find with google?  That there are other people in the net which do similar stupid things?  So let's just do stupid things?  

\( \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b}\) makes no sense at all, and the variant  \(\lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b}\) also makes no sense if you combine this with \(s_A=s_B\)  but \(a\neq b\).  

Let's do it slowly.  Here is an exercise for you.  We know that \(1\neq 2\).  So, there has to be something wrong in the following line:

\[ 1 = \lim_{s_A\to 1} s_A =  \lim_{s_A\to 1\,\,s_B\to 2} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=}  \lim_{s_A\to 1\,\,s_B\to 2} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to 2} s_B = 2. \]

Can you tell me which step is wrong? Similarly, in the variant with s only,

\[ 1 = \lim_{s\to 1} s =  \lim_{s\to 1\,\,s\to 2} s  = \lim_{s\to 2} s = 2 \]

some step has to be wrong.  Which?

I hope, you understand that by refusing to answer you disqualify yourself.  Somebody who is unable to see what is wrong in these elementary and obviously wrong lines is so incompetent in mathematics that he will be unable to understand what is wrong with Christian's papers too.

The next exercise would be to explain us why it is wrong.  

Once this is done, we can start to find out if this wrong step has been made by Christian too.


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

(06-22-2016, 05:54 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: \( \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b}\) makes no sense at all, and the variant  \(\lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b}\) also makes no sense if you combine this with \(s_A=s_B\)  but \(a\neq b\).

I think we found your problem in understanding this. s_A = s_B at creation but when s_A --> a and s_B --> b at detection then they are no longer equal obviously by the physics of the EPR-Bohm scenario. That is what you are missing. s_A becomes a and s_B becomes b. s_A is no longer equal to s_B at detection. This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario and if you don't take that into consideration then of course you will never understand it.


RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - gill1109 - 06-22-2016

(06-22-2016, 07:21 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 05:54 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: \( \lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b}\) makes no sense at all, and the variant  \(\lim_{s_A\to a\,\,s_B\to b}\) also makes no sense if you combine this with \(s_A=s_B\)  but \(a\neq b\).

I think we found your problem in understanding this.  s_A = s_B at creation but when s_A --> a and s_B --> b at detection then they are no longer equal obviously by the physics of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  That is what you are missing.  s_A becomes a and s_B becomes b.  s_A is no longer equal to s_B at detection.  This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario and if you don't take that into consideration then of course you will never understand it.

Excellent. "secur" already did it this way, yesterday. This is what he said:

"If you give him [Christian] the maximum benefit of the doubt (which was my policy here) and assume there should be two separate subscripted s's, then in eqn 8 what happens is this. The first L(s, lambda) goes to L(a, lambda), the second goes to L(b, lambda). That makes four terms: the first two equal to L(a, lambda), the second two to L(b, lambda). Each square = -1, so the entire expression simply = -1."


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

(06-22-2016, 07:21 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: I think we found your problem in understanding this.  s_A = s_B at creation but when s_A --> a and s_B --> b at detection then they are no longer equal obviously by the physics of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  That is what you are missing.  s_A becomes a and s_B becomes b.  s_A is no longer equal to s_B at detection.  This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario and if you don't take that into consideration then of course you will never understand it.
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.

So, Christian's formulas have to be rejected, because they do not make this difference.

Feel free to present here corrected formulas, which make this necessary distinction.


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

(06-22-2016, 10:18 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 07:21 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: I think we found your problem in understanding this.  s_A = s_B at creation but when s_A --> a and s_B --> b at detection then they are no longer equal obviously by the physics of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  That is what you are missing.  s_A becomes a and s_B becomes b.  s_A is no longer equal to s_B at detection.  This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario and if you don't take that into consideration then of course you will never understand it.
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.