09242016, 05:59 PM
So I have just finished a marvelous new paper by Hess, De Raedt and Michielsen, that illustrates exactly what I mean, by the demarcation of science and philosophy. Attached.
Bell's theorem  for or against Hidden Variables?

09242016, 05:59 PM
So I have just finished a marvelous new paper by Hess, De Raedt and Michielsen, that illustrates exactly what I mean, by the demarcation of science and philosophy. Attached.
09242016, 08:10 PM
TR wrote: Consider the demarcation problem. Do you agree that it is a problem for science, and for Bell's theorem? Why or why not?
Definitely a problem, or issue. For science in general, for QM foundations in particular. I'll check out the paper when I get to it.
09252016, 02:17 PM
(09242016, 05:59 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: So I have just finished a marvelous new paper by Hess, De Raedt and Michielsen, that illustrates exactly what I mean, by the demarcation of science and philosophy. Attached. The paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05237 (de Raedt, Michielsen and Hess) exploits a wellknown loophole, namely the coincidence loophole, to simulate the singlet correlations in an EPRB experiment in a completely classical way. The idea is to let each particle experience a timedelay when arriving at the detector which depends both on hidden variables carried in the particle and the setting which has been applied to the detector. Consequently, the time interval between the detection times of the two particles depends on both settings and on the hidden variables carried in the particles. Now suppose we use a "coincidence window", that is we reject all particle pairs for which the time interval between detection times is larger than some threshhold. The particle pairs which are "postselected" in this way are not a random sample of all particle pairs. Whether or not a pair survives depends on *both* settings and on hidden variables carried by the particles. It has been known for a long time how one can use this trick to simulate the EPRB correlations and thereby violate Bell inequalites. Hans de Raedt et al. know this well, and refer for instance to Larsson and Gill (2004). Possibly the first who discovered this was Pascazio (1986, Phys.Letters A, "Time and Belltype inequalities"). The authors claim that they have simulated a "loophole free" experiment, but that is simply not true. The postselection which they perform creates the loophole opened up by what is loosely called the "coincidence loophole" ... and which is ruled out in the best experiments by a more stringent experimental protocol.
09252016, 06:16 PM
Wrong paper. Try the original link.
09252016, 09:05 PM
@Gill1109, having read it before, I believe you're right about that paper. But the one in the attachment is "Counterfactual Definiteness and Bell’s Inequality". It's true that by denying CFD, thus violating part of Bell's realism assumption, you can get around the nonlocality that way. I haven't studied it and don't yet know if this paper presents that idea correctly. (I intend to get around to it.) If you have analyzed it please tell us what you found.
09272016, 06:51 AM
(09252016, 09:05 PM)secur Wrote: @Gill1109, having read it before, I believe you're right about that paper. But the one in the attachment is "Counterfactual Definiteness and Bell’s Inequality". It's true that by denying CFD, thus violating part of Bell's realism assumption, you can get around the nonlocality that way. I haven't studied it and don't yet know if this paper presents that idea correctly. (I intend to get around to it.) If you have analyzed it please tell us what you found. Ah, this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04889 (the link in the forum didn't work for me). Sure. Bell's realism implies CFD implies (with locality) Bell's inequality. Without CFD you don't get there. That's pretty well known.
09272016, 12:49 PM
" ... counterfactual definiteness restricts the use of variables to those that can be independently picked from their respective domains. However, a magnet or polarizer orientation, mathematically represented by the variable j, cannot be picked independently of the measurement times, which are mathematically represented by t_n and registered by the clocks of the measurement stations. Once a setting is picked at a certain spacetime coordinate, no other setting can be linked to that coordinate, because of the relativistic limitations for the movement of massive bodies and the fact that Bell’s theory is confined to the realm of Einsteinian physics and, therefore, excludes quantum superpositions. Thus any measurement is related to spatiotemporal equipment changes and the mathematical variables that describe the measurement need to represent the possible physical situations."
Try that with BellAspect.
09282016, 08:52 AM
So, it looks like we're all on the same page re. CFD and the Hess, De Raedt and Michielsen paper.
10012016, 02:01 AM
Annals of Physics' editorial board, in shamefully retracting Joy Christian's previouslypublished paper, gave this excuse: " ... we have concluded that your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments, and thus your result could not be generally accepted by the physics community."
How could violation of local realism be a "proven scientific fact"? Let's see the "proof". It is entirely nonconstructive, proving no more than its own assumptions. The inductive conclusions of BellAspect type experiments lack all correspondence to elements of reality accepted by Bell and EPR. Philosophy doesn't become science. Faith doesn't replace objectivity.
10012016, 01:51 PM
I'm happy to position QM as a subdiscipline of information theory. It fails as a foundational theory. There is actually zero probability that based on initial conditions, and a continuous function with boundary conditions, that any QM experiment will not violate Bell/CHSH bounds.
However, given a viable framework (Christian) and a mechanism to set initial conditions and continue the function, it is easy to see that the function does not collapse. It is easy to see that entanglement is an illusion. Assume linear superposition, and you get a probability model as a product of that assumption  this is a useful prediction for information theory, but does not belong in a foundational theory. The acid test will be quantum computing. I cannot put it better than Karl Hess said to me in an Email message: "Sometimes things take a while, but they are caught in an awful trap. After trying to do quantum computation with entangled pairs for another 10 years, some one will be smart enough to find a way to put a stop to the nonsense." 
« Next Oldest  Next Newest »
