Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
"I wish Christian himself would comment."

Get over to http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/v...131921b435 

See particularly 29 April 2016 in the first thread, as well as the latest entry.
Reply
JC wrote: Speaking of money owed to me, not only Richard D. Gill owes me 10,000 Euros since June 2014, but also Scott Aaronson owes me 100,000 Dollars since March 2007.

Don't make bets like these! 100 euros maybe, no more. You'll never collect, makes it much more difficult for one side or the other to admit mistakes, raises the emotional level exponentially, could involve legal hassles. Bad idea.

JC wrote: "... product of the limits = limits of the product ..."

That's true, usually. But has nothing to do with the present case. For one thing the script-E is not a limit but a finite sum (average) over N data points. Also we're dealing here with sums (and differences) not products. True the two "sign" terms are multiplied but neither is a limit. So in this case the relevant statement is "sum of the sums = sums of the sum" - or similar. Very true, but supports Gill's position not JC's.

JC wrote: It would be of interest to sociologists and historians of science, who might want to know how the false dogma of "Bell's theorem" was imposed on the physics community for so long, by a few fanatic individuals with vested interests, who stopped at nothing to prevent the truth from coming out.

Replace "Bell's theorem" with the false dogma of your choice and this is a profound statement!

I see this controversy is an old one. And, that it would require quite a bit of study to absorb all this new stuff. That's too bad because the issue is really very simple and deserves a simple straightforward answer. Give me a few days ... or weeks ...
Reply
I'm not getting involved in the personal rancor.  I've already had one stroke.

"... product of the limits = limits of the product ..." is not controversial to an analyst.  It is only the failure to understand that Joy's framework is analytical that generates the misunderstanding.
Reply
TR wrote: I'm not getting involved in the personal rancor.  I've already had one stroke.

Good decision

TR wrote: "... product of the limits = limits of the product ..." is not controversial to an analyst.

But L'Hospital's rule would make no sense if the product of the limits were always the limit of the product. Nit-picking? Perhaps. but obviously Christian never taught freshman calculus. Usually most of the class is going to be confused by this very misunderstanding.
Reply
secur wrote: "But L'Hospital's rule would make no sense if the product of the limits were always the limit of the product. Nit-picking? Perhaps. but obviously Christian never taught freshman calculus. Usually most of the class is going to be confused by this very misunderstanding."

I would explain it this way.  There is a theorem in arithmetic that a point can simultaneously map to any set of points of any cardinality, provided that it is far enough away.  The question arises of what happens when antipodal points approach the same cardinal set.  We reach a limit in which as you say, the product of the limits were always the limit of the product.

One would find that this only works completely, in the topological domain of a space that is simply connected, like the 3-sphere.

In the incomplete space of quantum mechanics, one can prove anything at all.  Even 1 = 2.  Even the illusion that one can choose a proposition and its negation, at the same time.  Quantum theorists would say that's just the way the world is.  Relativists are more circumspect.
Reply
Actually, Joy Christian said it most elegantly. "No observation was ever made except in some direction."
Reply
(08-25-2016, 11:56 PM)secur Wrote: JC wrote: Speaking of money owed to me, not only Richard D. Gill owes me 10,000 Euros since June 2014, but also Scott Aaronson owes me 100,000 Dollars since March 2007.
Yes that was a most interesting bet. In fact my challenge to JC was to simulate a data-set such as he would expect his experiment to produce; he would win if the correlations, computed according to the instructions in his paper, violated CHSH. We had an international and independent jury of respected scientists. They adjudicated JC's submission and ruled that it did not succeed. JC ignored our prior agreement to abide by the jury's decision and claims that he won. Well: everything was done in public, everything specified explicitly in advance, so anyone can verify that the jury's decision was correct.
It was amusing that even his own supporters warned him that the challenge was impossible to win.
Reply
And the claim that Scott Aaronson owes him $100,000 is of course equally ridiculous.  More on that in Scott's blog:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993

and

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1028

Pay special attention to Joy Christian's replies in the comments section under the first blog entry.
Reply
Obviously Christian's work has errors, most of which I learned from Gill.

The somewhat-interesting question, is there any meat here? I still think he's trying to equate O(3) and SU(2) which, one feels, might lead somewhere. Christian should admit, and correct, his errors. (Note, those big bets make it harder for him to do so.) What remains afterwards may have some interest.

Aaronson's blog discussion is a lot more fun than the one here, although of course it doesn't get anywhere. Some worthwhile quotes:

Joy Christian said: But in fact the error was actually discovered 30 years before Bell by a mathematician called Grete Hermann. Heisenberg and others were well aware of that discovery. Nevertheless von Neumann’s theorem (despite the existence of Bohm’s theory as an explicit counterexample) was believed in by the physics community for 30 years! For 30 years physicists continued to believe in von Neumann’s theorem and completely ignored and ridiculed Grete Hermann. She was marginalized and ostracized by the likes of Scott. So, I am afraid, the real picture of the sociology of science is a bit more complicated than what we are brought up to believe in.

He's right, and this sort of thing is what allows crackpots to flourish. For 100 years or so the top professional physicists have been half-crackpots themselves. Consider the work of Shmelzer and others on ether theories. Obviously there may be ether, and there may be a fixed reference frame; Lorentz was probably right; but it's sacrilegious heresy to say so. When will this Einstein-worship be scrapped? I give it about 20 more years. Because the "great" physicists are so blind, people like Christian won't believe the establishment. As he says, consider Grete Hermann. Many others have also been "burned at the stake", this last century or so, for being right. Of course that doesn't mean every anti-establishment'er, like Christian, is right; but it very much encourages them.

Scott Aaronson said: I completely agree with Henning Dekant that anything involving exploding colorful toy balls should absolutely be funded. If someone takes up a collection, I’ll be pleased to put in $20 of my personal money.

Me too.

David Brown said: Recently I posted 3 pieces of appalling drivel online that seem to prove that I fail to understand physics and mathematics (OOPS!).

LOL
Reply
"Obviously there may be ether, and there may be a fixed reference frame ..."

And you find that obvious by what principle?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)