Bell's Theorem and Negative Probabilities

[DrChinese]

The idea that you can produce a meaningful general formula for the probability of loopholes causing a given bias does not make sense. Every experiment is different.

...Take it or leave it, DrChinese! I merely report what I believe to be the facts.

You aren't reporting any facts, and that is my point. You acknowledge that every experiment is different and yet they all produce exactly the same results - i.e. exactly the same amount of bias and error! How can this be if you are right? If you were right, there would be an exact formula that yields precisely the difference between observation and prediction by LR - at every angle. We could then come to understand the reason for it. But there is no such experimental bias - repeatable loopholes that always affect measurements in exactly the same way regardless of experimental setup! That is why you cannot get from here to there.

It is not science to throw out repeatable experiments and put nothing better in its place. Your logic is wiggling like jello. Make a specific prediction, and specifically explain experimental bias and you have something.

 

[Caroline Thompson]

You aren't reporting any facts, and that is my point. You acknowledge that every experiment is different and yet they all produce exactly the same results - i.e. exactly the same amount of bias and error!

They don't all have the same bias! They start from situations that have varying natural (hidden variable) correlations, then the experimenters select from among the various trial runs those conditions that produce "good strong correlations". Local realist theories and QM agree about the general shape of the correlation curve. It is, to a good approximation, sinusoidal. [NB if you read that it is a zig-zag you are behind the times: it is universally recognised that for optical tests the LR prediction is a sine curve.] They disagree only in the value of a constant term: zero under QM, positive under the basic LR theory.

I'm getting tired of this discussion, though, in which you endlessly criticize my conclusions without showing any sign of having read and understood my various papers. Have you actually tried to understand them? I can't personally see how it is possible to be aware of the various loopholes and yet bury your head in the sand and say you believe that they are unimportant -- that, in spite of them, it is QM that is correct, LR ruled out.

It is not science to throw out repeatable experiments and put nothing better in its place. Your logic is wiggling like jello. Make a specific prediction, and specifically explain experimental bias and you have something.

Local realists have predicted since 1970 that increasing quantum efficiency in an optical Bell test will, other things being equal, result in decreased values of the CHSH test statistic. If you want to argue your case, first find me evidence that this is not so! Persuade an experimenter to put it to the test.

We can also (as you must have realized by now) show that if you subtract accidentals you inevitably increase all the various Bell test statistics.

It is the Bell tests that count, not the numerical agreements of "normalised" coincidence rates.

Caroline
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/

 

[DrChinese]

1. They don't all have the same bias! They start from situations that have varying natural (hidden variable) correlations, then the experimenters select from among the various trial runs those conditions that produce "good strong correlations". Local realist theories and QM agree about the general shape of the correlation curve. It is, to a good approximation, sinusoidal. [NB if you read that it is a zig-zag you are behind the times: it is universally recognised that for optical tests the LR prediction is a sine curve.] They disagree only in the value of a constant term: zero under QM, positive under the basic LR theory.

2. I'm getting tired of this discussion, though, in which you endlessly criticize my conclusions without showing any sign of having read and understood my various papers. Have you actually tried to understand them? I can't personally see how it is possible to be aware of the various loopholes and yet bury your head in the sand and say you believe that they are unimportant -- that, in spite of them, it is QM that is correct, LR ruled out.

1. That is my point. There is no mathematical way that a bias can occur on every variant of the EPR tests and always come back to the QM prediction. If the QM prediction had nothing to do with anything, then some experiments would yield different values from the QM prediction - presumably closer to the LR formula you push sometimes. But that doesn't happen. 100% of the authors of EPR test papers report that the QM predictions are in the range of their results. You have never put forth an argument that you can quantify the loopholes; and then show that the net amount of those loopholes leads to the LR predicitons.

You say that QM and LR agree on the general shape of the curve? That is a laugh, because the predictions are miles apart at certain angles, such as 0 and 90 degrees where they differ radically.

2. You are tired? I guess that door swings both ways. I have reviewed the chaotic ball paper and you ought to be ashamed to cite it. It doesn't say anything more than: Maybe this, maybe that. You have done a lot better work than that.

I have asked for evidence, not speculation. We can speculate that a man did not walk on the moon, but there is plenty of evidence that he did.

Meanwhile, here is an example of the published record that you blow off at the drop of a hat:

Aspect, Physical Review Letters, 1981, peer reviewed: "As a conclusion, our results, in excellent agreement with quantum mechanics predictions, are to a high statistical accuracy a strong evidence again the whole class of realistic local theories;..."