I see your site is back up DrC.
I'll go over it soon.
DrChinese said:
OK, you are really going off the deep end now. (And I mean that in a nice way.)
Everything you are saying has been refuted a zillion times already. I can demonstrate it either by theory or by experiment, pick your poison. But first, like ThomasT, you will need to show me something! I can't refute NOTHING!
Walk me through some examples. Provide me a dataset. If you want, I will make it easy and you can talk through the perfect (EPR) correlation cases first before moving on to the Bell cases (like 0/120/240 I always mention).
And by the way, I will make a little prediction: when we are done, I will have proven your example wrong. But you won't change your opinion because you will say that there is an example that proves you right, you just haven't found it yet.
So if you are going to follow this line, you can just say so now and save us both time. The question comes down to: are you asking or are you telling? Because I'm *telling* you that your thinking does NOT follow from the facts. I mean you might want to consider this little tidbit before you go much further: photons can be entangled that have NEVER existed within the same light cone. How do you propose to explain that? That certainly would have turned Einstein's head.
Ok, you may have a point, but I'd like to see it. I hope you deliver, I'm arguing in the hopes of learning something new. I have a preference for experiment in empirical matters but without ignoring theory, as theory is what is at issue here. As for whether I'm asking or telling: Neither. I'm taking a position to be debated to sharpen the articulation of the controversial points. The example I'll go through is from 0 to 45, and explain how counterfactual reasoning can be interpreted in those discrepancies. In particular, when you say on your website:
[PLAIN said:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm]Yet[/PLAIN] according to EPR, an element of reality exists independent of the act of observation. I.E. all elements of reality have definite values at all times, EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW THEIR VALUES.
When you say, A i.e. B, I agree with A but will argue B implies properties that don't necessarily follow from A. I think it was the above interpretation you placed on the "realism" I used in my prior post.
Consider the following detection rates:
0
0 = 1
5
0 = 0.985
10
0 = 0.940
15
0 = 0.867
20
0 = 0.767
25
0 = 0.643
30
0 = 0.5
35
0 = 0.342
40
0 = 0.174
45
0 = 0
This pattern inversely after every 45 degrees.
To show the discrepancy with realism as defined, let's consider a set of string detections where any common setting of detector pairs matches this (rounded). [0] is a 'coincidence' non-detection and [1] is a 'coincidence' detection.
0
0 = [1111111111] (100% coincidences)
5
0 = [1111111111]
10
0 = [1111111110]
15
0 = [1111111110]
20
0 = [1111111100]
25
0 = [1111111000]
30
0 = [1111100000]
35
0 = [1111000000]
40
0 = [1100000000]
45
0 = [0000000000]
Now if we pick a pair of arbitrary angles 10
0 and 40
0 we get:
10
0 = [1111111110]
Diff 30
0 = 0.5 (empirical) :: 0.766 if reality match (falsified) -> [1111100000] verses [1111111100]:20
0 = 0.767
40
0 = [1100000000]
Now what went wrong with realism here? Note that the strings represent coincidences, not detections. Furthermore, for any given detection potentially an arbitrarily large, perhaps infinite, number individual states, vectors, etc., went into defining that detection. Thus when looking at "coincidences", not detections, we can't automatically presume that the detections that define the coincidences between 10
0 and 40
0 are the same coincidences in detections between 0
0 and 30
0. Yet the 'reality' condition being imposed presumes only a single coincidence pattern can be involved in a given coincidences rate. Thus each coincidence profile would have a distinct detection and coincidence profile for each particle and relative angle of detector, which can only be repeated on a twin to the degree that the relative detector angle matches the original relative detector angle, as define relative to the polarization of that particle.
In principle, you can take each coincidence term in [1111111111...], [], ..., at each angle, expand each term [1] to contain its own coincidence profile with the other coincidence elements for each variation of angle. Then repeat for those coincidence elements. This would diverge rather quickly, but presumably converge quickly with a measurement for the same reason. I can't prove this, but in some sense if you want to take Hilbert space and wavefunctions seriously as real requires taking infinities pretty seriously. as in actual infinities.
Am I convinced by this? Perhaps on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but it is as reasonable as anything else proposed, and I've seen no argument to escape it. Even if it flies in the face of indeterminism in principle, it doesn't even in principle allow an escape in practice, EPR notwithstanding. This mutual dependence on individual 'real' particle properties verses detector settings, and the resulting variation in specific detections verses coincidences is how relational interpretations escape EPR while maintaining realism in the event sets that define them.
The key point here is that the specific detection pattern of a series of particles at one angle can't be the same detection pattern at another angle, cross setting counterfactual assumptions are presumptuous with or without realism. Thus the coincidences between two pair of detector patterns and settings is even further removed from counterfactual claims from alternative settings. Yet the "realism" as defined by impossibility claims requires coincidences from random sequence pairs to counterfactually match entirely different coincidences in entirely different random sequences as a proxy for "realness" in values. The summation of events that define the outcome can nonetheless be real, so long as you don't require a summation of them in one physical configuration, defined my the detector settings, to match the summation of the same events with another set of detector settings. It would be analogous to saying mass, space, time, etc., can't be real because observer measure it differently in different circumstances.
About your "prediction" (I hope so):
Hopefully my point is fairly clear now, I hope you can offer more, because this is where I'm stuck atm. To tell me I have to explain it isn't realistic as the alternative hasn't explained anything either. To say I will not change my mind presumes I have made up my mind, but so long as a fundamental weakness exist in FTL claims through counterfactual reasoning, and reasonable arguments exist that justify invalidating counterfactual reasoning even if in realism based toy models, I'll be stuck with uncertainty. Yes, counterfactual reasoning is a 'fundamental' weakness of Bell's theorem et al. Not to mention the trouble it creates for realism based FTL theories. My position will remain a mere choice, which I can only hope helps lead me forward in some way, unless you can deliver.
