Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
@Gill1109,

If you feel I misrepresented your words, I apologize - I hate it when people do that to me. But really I think my paraphrase is close enough. The intention was just to tone it down a bit, remove the rough edge which could be considered insulting.

It's not really inaccurate to call Christian's calculated variable "spin" but the word carries the connotation of QM spin. Perhaps "direction of angular velocity" or some such phrase would be better. Calling it "spin" helps him in his objective of conflating the two cases, classical and QM. That's exactly the confusion that needs straightening out here.

Of course I expect CHSH inequality will hold in this classical case. However your demonstration of that is flawed it seems to me. I'm looking at  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2677v3.pdf, the paragraphs beginning with "Now pick any two pairs of directions a1, a2 and b1, b2." You consider the script-E terms arising from every combination of these:

E(a1, b1) - E(a1, b2) - E(a2, b1) - E(a2, b2) (Adapting the notation to avoid hassling with LaTex)

A little algebra shows this must be +-2, so when all such terms are averaged, it can't get up to 2*sqrt(2). Christian expects, apparently, it should follow the SU(2) cos correlation not the SO(3) linear correlation function. As I said, that's the only part of his paper that makes no sense; obviously the classical SO(3) correlation should hold.

Anyway, you're assuming that all four combinations of the a's and b's will occur. That happens in a typical Bell experiment, allowing CHSH inequality to be derived easily. However in Christian's case he instructs us to pick only one (a, b) then use it with each of the experimental data points to produce the script-E terms. So you won't get these four terms to combine, because it's not symmetrical like a typical Bell experiment. This explanation is not very clear but I hope you see my point. Of course it doesn't invalidate your main conclusion but you can't use this straightforward CHSH proof, for this case.

@Thomas Ray,

Reading your "restaurant" paper, and considering the obvious fact that you're a reasonable intelligent person, I can come to only one conclusion. This is a parody! You're cleverly making fun of some of these papers that seem, sentence by sentence, to make sense but taken as a whole, don't. That's true not only of some "against-the-mainstream" papers, but also distressingly many "real" physics papers from people like David Deutsch, Sean Carroll and others of that ilk. They seem to make sense at first, but actually don't.

IF that's your object - to send up this whole gang of (*** insulting term censored ***)'s - congratulations! Very amusing.

However if you're actually trying to make sense ... well, I just don't get it.

Thomas Ray wrote: "Truth has no place in science.  Whatever facts support a theory consistently, are true subject to falsification (Popper). So when Popper appropriated Tarski's correspondence theory of truth for scientific method, he left this condition open. A theory is only as true as it can be. It needs to be understood that Joy has presented a measurement framework--not a theory--that supports spacetime as a real phenomenon. Anyway, Gill's and Weatherall's 'not even wrong' criticism is a straw man. My draft attempt to correct it is attached."

"Truth has no place in science": properly understood, I like this very much! Yes, Joy has presented a "measurement framework" which would support his point very nicely, if the experiment agreed with his conclusion. As mentioned, I doubt very much it would. Apart from that it's a pretty good paper.

You don't need to correct anyone's criticism, or explain Christian - to me, at least. AFAIK everything makes sense. Everyone's made some minor mistakes, no big deal. Our only real disagreement concerns the results of the exploding ball experiment. With luck someone will perform it and put the issue to rest.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-22-2016, 09:29 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)