Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[my_wan]

Not data sets? They are exactly the datasets you'd get measuring the photons that a polarizer measure at that polarization at those angles, or any other angles for that matter.

Edit: for randomized polarization anyway.

 

[my_wan]

Do you want a photon count to insure the polarizer is actually passing 50%?

 

[DrChinese]

Not data sets? They are exactly the datasets you'd get measuring the photons that a polarizer measure at that polarization at those angles, or any other angles for that matter.

I cannot for the life of me understand how DATASET is not clear. A formula is a general case. A dataset is the specific. The purpose of the dataset is to demonstrate your point, because saying the formula isn't.

 

[DrChinese]

Do you want a photon count to insure the polarizer is actually passing 50%?

No, experiments use beam splitters with detectors for both the H and V cases (of course the designation H and V is more or less arbitrary).

So if you can label as H/T or +/- or 0/1, that would be great. Show me a dataset and repeat your point.

 

[my_wan]

2. This is a good question!

When I got into this debate I knew I was on thin ice. You had a much more defensible position. The empirical facts about how polarizers measure polarization of randomly polarized light, irrespective of interpretation, is a game changer. Here's what it does:

It provides a mechanism by which the overcount of coincidences, over and above Bell's inequalities, can be fully defined by the local properties of the measuring instrument, so long as conservation laws perfectly specify anti-correlations. Because the same correlations can be counted at different detector settings.

 

[my_wan]

I cannot for the life of me understand how DATASET is not clear. A formula is a general case. A dataset is the specific. The purpose of the dataset is to demonstrate your point, because saying the formula isn't.

Property K is measured at 3 settings: A, B, and C.
Formula: If property K at A+B+C > 100%, then the properties associated with K must be measurable at more than one detector setting.
A=50%, B=50%, C=50% = 150%

 

[my_wan]

Note: The proof does not involve any correlated particles. Merely randomized polarization of a local particle source.

 

[my_wan]

No, experiments use beam splitters with detectors for both the H and V cases (of course the designation H and V is more or less arbitrary).

So if you can label as H/T or +/- or 0/1, that would be great. Show me a dataset and repeat your point.

I am not using any beam splitters, correlations, etc, etc. I specified a randomly polarized light source only, with a single local polarizer/detector at 3 settings.

 

[DrChinese]

I am not using any beam splitters, correlations, etc, etc. I specified a randomly polarized light source only, with a single local polarizer/detector at 3 settings.

Are entangled pairs involved?

EDIT: I see that now that we are not talking about entangled pairs. See my next post.

 

[DrChinese]

The empirical facts about how polarizers measure polarization of randomly polarized light, irrespective of interpretation, is a game changer. Here's what it does:

It provides a mechanism by which the overcount of coincidences, over and above Bell's inequalities, can be fully defined by the local properties of the measuring instrument, so long as conservation laws perfectly specify anti-correlations. Because the same correlations can be counted at different detector settings.

1415926535 is a dataset of digits. What correlations, what is the setup?

I would be glad to discuss polarized beams, unpolarized beams, and a sequence of 2/3 polarizers with their variations. I happen to think it is very interesting, and agree with you that even these examples involved conceptual issues. But keep in mind that the QM formalism handles these situations nicely regardless. A lot of folks also think classical wave theory handles this too (which it does) but of course the same wave theory does not explain the particle nature of light. Which QM does.

There are a lot of experiments out there that can confirm or deny any proposed hypothesis you might put forth. So don't forget my point about light's particle behavior. There is no classical analog. And when we talk about polarizers, all QM states is that the cos^2 rule is in effect for polarized beams. For unpolarized beams, the rule is 50%. I am curious as to what you hope to make with this. Good luck.

 

[DrChinese]

I thought it might be worthy to post the words of Phillippe Grangier (2007) from his refutation of Christian:

"More generally, Bell’s theorem cannot be 'disproved', in the sense that its conclusions follow from its premices in a mathematically correct way. On the other hand, one may argue that these premices [sic] are unduly restrictive, but this is discussing, not disproving."

I.e. he is saying that you are indeen free to ignore Bell's definition of Realism. Of course, you are stuck with trying to replace it with a definition of Realism that does NOT follow the Bell result. No easy task, because such definition ends up being useless (i.e. has no utility, which is an important measure within scientific theory). Grangier mentions this point too.

 

[my_wan]

Coming in a few moments is an attempt at a more thorough description, including very careful distinction between what I claimed to prove, and more general claims that appear to follow from it. I'm well aware that QM handles this perfectly, without interpretation, and anything that I claim in 'empirical' contradiction to QM is patently false. That does not restrict me to a 'literal' reading of the stated principles as 'the' reality. The QM formalism is as perfect a proxy for the truth of an empirical claim as can be imagined at this time, though in principle empiricism can potentially trump it. Hard to imagine how.

 

[my_wan]

The elements of reality is the part that EPR and Bell agree on. This is the so called perfect correlations. To have a Bell state, in a Bell test, you must have these. The disagreement is whether these represent SIMULTANEOUS elements of reality. EPR thought they must, in fact thought that was the only reasonable view. But Bell realized that this imposed an important restriction on things.

One of these important restrictions assumed that a particle, measured with particular detector setting, is unique to that detector setting. Thus counterfactually assumed that another detector setting would not have detected the same correlation with an alternative detector setting, i.e., definite variable value. Yet we can invalidate this without the use of any correlated/entangled particles.

We have a particle source emitting a single beam of particles with randomized polarizations. We use a single polarizer as our detector to measure polarizations, and all we are interested in is the percentage of the particles in the beam that has a polarization property consonant with a particular detector setting.

Question: Does our detector setting uniquely identify a property 'value', or can this property 'value' of a single particle be counterfactually detected with multiple detector settings?

Assertion: We know the polarization is randomized. Thus if we can add the particle detections from two or more detector settings, of the same particle beam, to add up to more than 100% of the detectable particles, then counterfactually we know the same particles can be detected from more than one detector setting.

We have property K, which we measure at unique detector settings [A, B, C, ...]. If A+B+C+... > 100% of the detectable particles, then we are measuring the same property K at multiple detector settings, and can't call a unique detector setting a unique '''value''' of that property of that unique particle.

Now we choose 3 settings: [A, B, C] at setting [0°, 45°, 90°].
Our results, per QM, is:
50% of particles have property K with a 'value' of 0°.
50% of particles have property K with a 'value' of 45°.
50% of particles have property K with a 'value' of 90°.
A+B+C=150%

Conclusion: Detector settings do not uniquely identify the '''value''' of property K, rather unique detector settings can include a range of possible values for the singular property K. K is of course polarization in this case. Per conservation law, we are forbidden to add extra particles to account for this discrepancy, but no such restriction exist for counterfactually measuring the same unique particle/property using multiple detector settings. Thus we cannot assume the value of property K, as provided by our measuring device, uniquely identifies the property K. The same property K can also be detected, counterfactually, with alternative detector settings.

Relevance to the EPR paradox:
This merely proves the counterfactual condition used in conjunction Bell's inequalities to label 'real' values as a proxy for realism is invalid. It does not invalidate the reality (or lack of) property K itself. Nor does it prove the this property of measurement alone is enough to account for the specific empirical statistical profile of QM in violation of Bell's inequality. That requires a little more than the simple proof that the counterfactual assumption used is invalid. If those are the numbers you wanted, those are in the process of being polished.

What I'll say, without proof, atm:
This entails that, under arbitrary detector settings, our detector can include a range of possible values for K, not just those with a particular value of K. In any EPR correlation experiment the polarization, from the perspective of anyone detector, is randomized. The detector, at any given setting, empirical has a 50% chance of detecting property K, not necessarily value, from this random sequence of correlated particles. Preferentially those nearest the polarization of the measuring device, as other empirical test demonstrate. Thus, with minor changes in the detector settings, minor changes are made in which individual particles it couterfactually detects. This entails that the relative difference in detector settings on both ends is all that matters in capturing coincidences. The fact that value of K, as provided by the detector setting, is assumed to uniquely define property K leads to an overcount of coincidences when added over all arbitrary detector settings. As noted, small changes in detector settings have similarly small effects on which particular particles are couterfactually detected. This means the arbitrary detector setting choices act exactly as they should, relative settings. And can fully characterize Bell inequality violation solely by the local empirical detection properties of a polarizer, if the anti-correlations, per conservation law, is real.

Want proof of that last paragraph? Sorry, work in progress. But if you'll look at it yourself...

Ask any questions I wasn't clear on.

 

[ajw1]

For those acquainted with c-sharp, I have the same de Raedt simulation, but converted in an object oriented way (this allows a clear separation between the objects(particles and filters) used in the simulation).

And here it is:

 

[my_wan]

A lot of folks also think classical wave theory handles this too (which it does) but of course the same wave theory does not explain the particle nature of light. Which QM does.

Actually consider these:
A[/PLAIN] Soliton Model of the Electron with an internal Nonlinearity cancelling the de Broglie-Bohm Quantum
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3m4p4026332r455/"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9812009"

Your still essentially correct. The whole classical wave theory approach is basically a disparate collection of works of wildly varying quality, with lots of toy models. About the only universal thread tying them together is a rough connection to classical thermodynamics. Of course QM already has a strong connection to generalized thermodynamics. Such classical leaning models lack a true foundational groundwork to build from. Then there's the problem of QM+GR, but then there's this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0823"

As intriguing as this is as a whole, with a few intriguing individual works, something needs to break to provide a cohesive foundation, so it don't look so much like an ad hoc force fit of disparate elements of the standard model on a classical thermodynamic model, like Christmas tree lights on a barn. The QM modeling has been improving, but even at its best it still looks more interpretive than theoretical.

 

[DrChinese]

One of these important restrictions assumed that a particle, measured with particular detector setting, is unique to that detector setting. ...
Assertion: We know the polarization is randomized. Thus if we can add the particle detections from two or more detector settings, of the same particle beam, to add up to more than 100% of the detectable particles, then counterfactually we know the same particles can be detected from more than one detector setting.

We have property K, which we measure at unique detector settings [A, B, C, ...]. If A+B+C+... > 100% of the detectable particles, then we are measuring the same property K at multiple detector settings, and can't call a unique detector setting a unique '''value''' of that property of that unique particle.

Now we choose 3 settings: [A, B, C] at setting [0°, 45°, 90°].
Our results, per QM, is:
50% of particles have property K with a 'value' of 0°.
50% of particles have property K with a 'value' of 45°.
50% of particles have property K with a 'value' of 90°.
A+B+C=150%

Conclusion: Detector settings do not uniquely identify the '''value''' of property K, rather unique detector settings can include a range of possible values for the singular property K. K is of course polarization in this case. Per conservation law, we are forbidden to add extra particles to account for this discrepancy, but no such restriction exist for counterfactually measuring the same unique particle/property using multiple detector settings. Thus we cannot assume the value of property K, as provided by our measuring device, uniquely identifies the property K. The same property K can also be detected, counterfactually, with alternative detector settings.

Relevance to the EPR paradox:
This merely proves the counterfactual condition used in conjunction Bell's inequalities to label 'real' values as a proxy for realism is invalid. It does not invalidate the reality (or lack of) property K itself. Nor does it prove the this property of measurement alone is enough to account for the specific empirical statistical profile of QM in violation of Bell's inequality. That requires a little more than the simple proof that the counterfactual assumption used is invalid. If those are the numbers you wanted, those are in the process of being polished.

... The fact that value of K, as provided by the detector setting, is assumed to uniquely define property K leads to an overcount of coincidences when added over all arbitrary detector settings. ...

Ok, you have discovered a variation of some old logic examples: All boys are human, but not all humans are boys. And a little thought would indicate that 100% of all particles have either H or V values at ALL angles. By your thinking, A + B + C + D ... infinity means that the sum is actually infinite. Not what I would call a meaningful formula.

But where does Bell say anything remotely like this? Or EPR for that matter? A quote from Bell would be a good response.

In fact: Bell does NOT in any way require the outcomes to be unique to a measurement setting. Nor does Bell require all of the "rules" to relate to the particle itself. Some could relate to the interaction with the polarizer. All Bell requires is that whatever they are, there are 3 of them simultaneously.

I understand you have something in the back of your head, but you aren't making it easy. You obviously don't think the Bell result means that Local Realism is ruled out. Well, I can lead a horse to the bar but I can't make him take a drink. But it is wildly unreasonable for you to say the drinks are no good when everyone in the bar is having a grand time. That would be, for instance, because we are celebrating new and more exotic entanglement experiments daily. There were probably about 10 this week alone. The point being that nothing you are saying is useful. If these experimentalists followed your thinking, none of these experiments would ever be performed. Because every one of them involved finding and breaking Bell Inequalities.

I will leave you with 2 thoughts on the matter: a) Can you put forth a local realistic model that yields the same predictions as QM? If you did, it would be significant.

The De Raedt team has worked diligently on this matter, and so you would find it difficult to out-gun them. They have yet to succeed, see my model for a proof of that.b) Can you explain how, in a local realistic world, particles can be perfectly correlated when those particles have never existed within a common area of spacetime? If you could explain that, it would be significant.You will see soon enough that the combination of a) and b) above will box you in.

 

[ThomasT]

Forget it. You're the one out on the limb with your non-standard viewpoint.

On the contrary, it's the advocates of nonlocality that hold the nonstandard viewpoint. One can't get much more unscientific, or nonscientific, than to posit that Nature is fundamentally nonlocal. The problem with it as an explanation for entanglement correlations is that it then remains to explain the explanation -- and I don't think that can be done.

On the other hand, there's a much simpler explanation for the correlations in, say, the Freedman and Clauser experiment, or the Aspect et al. experiments, that fits with the fundamental theories and assumptions on which all of modern science has been based -- and that explanation begins with the notion that the entanglement is due to the photons being emitted during the same atomic transition (ie., that there is a relationship between properties imparted at emission that, wrt analysis by a global measurement parameter, results in correlations that we refer to as entanglement stats).

What's being suggested is that, before we trash relativity or posit the existence of an underlying preferred frame where ftl propagations or instantaneous actions at a distance (whatever that might mean) are happening, perhaps it would be more logical (in light of what's known) to explore the possibility that Bell inequalities are violated for reasons that have nothing to do with ftl propagations or instantaneous actions at a distance. To that end, it's been suggested that Bell's lhv ansatz is incompatible with the experimental situations for which it was formulated for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not Nature is exclusively local. In another, recent, thread it was demonstrated that there's a contradiction between probability theory, as utilized by Bell to denote locality, and probability theory as it should correctly be applied to the joint experimental situations that Bell's lhv ansatz purports to describe. What this entails is that Bell inequalities are violated because of that contradiction -- and not because the photons (or whatever) are communicating ftl or instantaneously. You responded to that OP's consideration in a decidedly nonsequiter, and yet charming, way, asking for ... a dataset. To which the OP responded, appropriately I think, something to the effect, "What's that got to do with what I was talking about?". The point is that there are considerations pertinent to the issue of evaluating the physical meaning of Bell's theorem that don't mean or require that the presenters of those considerations are advocating that an lhv interpretation of qm is possible. (Maybe the OP in the other thread is advocating the possibiltiy of an lhv interpretation of qm, but that's his problem. Anyway, he wasn't advocating that wrt the consideration he presented in that thread, afaict. )

By the way, DrC, please don't take my sarcasm too seriously (as I don't take yours that way). As I've said before, I admire your abilities, and contributions here, and have learned from you. But sometimes discussing things with you can be, well, a bit ... difficult.

Here's some light reading for those who care to partake:

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

Apparently, Jaynes viewed 'nonlocalists' with as much contempt as Mermin. I do hope that no one thinks that these guys (Jaynes and Mermin) are crackpots.

I can't prove the unprovable.

And no one is asking anyone to do that. What would be nice is that contributors to these discussions at least try to discuss the issues that have been presented.

Of course, as usual with foundational issues, there are several 'threads' within this thread.

RUTA presents a conceptualization (and,at least symbolically, a realization) of quantum nonseparabiltiy which is both fascinating and, it seems, impossible to reconcile with the way I think it's most logical to presume that Nature is and the way she behaves. (OK, I don't understand it. Look, if it took Bub three, that's THREE, epiphanies to get it, then what hope do us normal people have to understand what RUTA's done . Anyway, I have a simpler conception of the physical meaning of quantum nonseparability which hasn't been refuted.)

DrC's instructive and informative VisualBasic construction I do understand (not that I could replicate it without months of getting back up to speed wrt programming), and it does what it purports to do.

I don't yet understand My_wan's considerations, having not had time to ponder them. But I will.

Zonde's consideration, wrt fair sampling, is certainly relevant wrt the proper application of the scientific method. However, it's preceded by considerations of the applicability of Bell's lhv ansatz to the experimental situation, and to the extent that these prior considerations effectively rule out inferences regarding what's happening in Nature from violations of BI's, then the fair sampling loophole is mooted wrt the OP of this thread. Anyway, I see no reason to assume that if an experiment were to simultaneously close all the technical loopholes, that the qm predictions would then, thereby, be invalidated. I'm not sure if Zonde thinks otherwise, or, if he does, what his reasons are for thinking this.

There is a formula, yes, I can read that.

Ok, that's a step in the right direction.

But it is not a local realistic candidate ...

I don't think it's meant to be -- at least not in the sense of EPR-Bell. Anyway, it's at least local. Explicitly so. It's just local wrt a different hidden parameter than Bell's lhv ansatz. And the fact that it's explicitly local, and reproduces the qm predictions, is all that matters wrt this thread.

I keep saying this, and you are, apparently, not reading it: An lhv interpretation of qm compatible with Bell's requirements is impossible.

... and there is no way to generate a dataset.

If his formula matches the qm formula for the same experimental situation, then they'll predict the same results. Right? So, does it, or doesn't it?

Folks, we have another local realist claiming victory after demonstrating... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AGAIN.

I don't recall claiming any sort of victory. The goal here is to get at the truth of things, collectively. Then we all win.

Naaaaaaaaah!
----------------------------------------------------

The following are some points to ponder -- more neatly presented than before.

WHY ARE BELL INEQUALITIES VIOLATED?

... USING LOCALITY ...

(1) Bell tests are designed and prepared to produce statistical dependence between separately accumulated data sets via the joint measurement of disturbances which have a local common origin (eg. emission by the same atom during the same transitional process).

(2) A correct model of the joint measurement situation must express the statistical dependence that the experiments are designed and prepared to produce.

(3) The assumption of locality is expressed in terms of the statistical INdependence of the separately accumulated data sets.

Conclusion: (3) contradicts (1) and (2), hence BIs based on limitations imposed by (3) are violated because an experimental situation designed to produce statistical dependence has been modeled as an experimental situation not designed to produce statistical dependence (ie., it's being modeled as a situation designed to produce statistical INdependence).. And since statistical dependencies can be due to local common causes, and since the experiments are jointly measuring disturbances that have a common origin, then no nonlocality is necessary to understand the violation of BIs based on (3).

... USING ELEMENTS OF REALITY ...

(4) Bell tests are designed and prepared to measure a relationship between two or more disturbances.

(5) The relationship between the measured disturbances does not determine individual results.

(6) EPR elements of reality require that a local hidden variable model of the joint measurement situation be expressed in terms of the variable or variables which, if it(they) were known, would allow the prediction of individual results.

Conclusion: (6) contradicts (4) and (5), hence the 'no lhv' theorems (eg., GHZ) based on limitations imposed by (6) are violated because the limitations imposed by (6) contradict an experimental situation designed to produce correlations based on a relationship between disturbances incident on the measuring devices. And since the relationship between the incident disturbances can reasonably be assumed to have been created locally during, say, an emission process, then no nonlocality is necessary to understand contradictions revealed by 'no lhv' theorems.

-------------------------------------

ARE LHV FORMULATIONS OF ENTANGLEMENT POSSIBLE?

No. Unless we want to change the historical meaning of 'local hidden variables', then Bell demonstrated that lhv formulations of entanglement are impossible. To paraphrase Bell, the statistical predictions of qm for the joint entangled state are incompatible with separable predetermination. In other words, a theory in which parameters are added to qm to determine the results of individual measurements cannot use those same parameters to determine the results of joint measurements. The relationship between jointly measured disturbances is nonseparable wrt the joint measurement parameter.

-------------------------------------

IS NONLOCALITY POSSIBLE?

Obviously, nonlocality is impossible if our universe is evolving in accordance with the principle of locality. Since there's presently no reason to suppose that it isn't, then, for now at least, based on what is known, the answer to that question has to be no.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

You may believe that non-locality is incorrect, or even absurd, but it is standard. To say otherwise distorts the meaning of "standard". For the rest, you conclude that non-locality is impossible,"obviously", which makes me wonder why you've bothered to discuss such a "silly" topic with we poor fools who believe mounting evidence contrary to your a priori prejudice.

 

[my_wan]

Ok, you have discovered a variation of some old logic examples: All boys are human, but not all humans are boys. And a little thought would indicate that 100% of all particles have either H or V values at ALL angles. By your thinking, A + B + C + D ... infinity means that the sum is actually infinite. Not what I would call a meaningful formula.

But the point is that A+B+C+.. can't exceed the total number of particles emitted.

But where does Bell say anything remotely like this? Or EPR for that matter? A quote from Bell would be a good response.

Counterfactual definiteness is a fundamental assumption when Bell's theorem is used to elucidate issues of locality. The clearest presentation puts it this way: The theorem indicates the universe must violate either locality or counterfactual definiteness.

What I have pointed out, by the fact that a single polarizer always measures 50% of randomly polarized light as having a single polarization, is that there is a specific empirically consistent way in in which we can talk about counterfactual measurements, at least statistically. Provided we can't measure more particles than was emitted. This not only results in a violation of Bell's inequalities, though by exactly how much I can't say yet, it requires the violations to be dependent only on the relative polarization settings. Thus no incongruencies in arbitrary settings, because many of the coincidences counted at one detector setting would also have counted by most other detector settings also.

Of course you have every right to ask for proof of this stronger claim, where I only proved that counterfactual definiteness as assumed by the use of Bell's inequalities isn't valid. I'll make one more post after this one to point it out again. Then hold off to provide at least a toy model to demonstrate.

In fact: Bell does NOT in any way require the outcomes to be unique to a measurement setting. Nor does Bell require all of the "rules" to relate to the particle itself. Some could relate to the interaction with the polarizer. All Bell requires is that whatever they are, there are 3 of them simultaneously.

Your own words:
"Yes, you are required to maintain a strict adherence to Bell Realism."
"It does NOT say that tails up itself is an element of reality."
Bell Realism is defined as a measurement we can predict, but that in some circumstances "tails-up" is a quiet predictable measurement.

But Bell inequalities goes further, it counts those predictions at a given polarizer setting and says whoa, there's too many coincidences to "realistically" account for at this one polarizer setting. Yet as I pointed out, the particles have a random polarization wrt one detector, and more importantly, one polarizer setting is detecting 50% of ALL the particles that come in contact with it, regardless of actual polarization prior to measurement. The only particles not subject to detection at all at a given polarizer angle are those exactly orthogonal, very few. How else do you account for 50% of all randomly polarized particles getting detected, even without correlations/entanglements. Thus any given photon has a 50% chance of being detected at any random detector setting, and tested for a correlation.

I'll construct a simple model to demonstrate the stronger claims I made.

 

[DrChinese]

1. But sometimes discussing things with you can be, well, a bit ... difficult.

2. Here's some light reading for those who care to partake:

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

Apparently, Jaynes viewed 'nonlocalists' with as much contempt as Mermin. I do hope that no one thinks that these guys (Jaynes and Mermin) are crackpots.

1. Pot calling the kettle...

2. You apparently don't follow Mermin closely. He is as far from a local realist as it gets.

Jaynes is a more complicated affair. His Bell conclusions are far off the mark and are not accepted.

--------------------

I am through discussing with you at this time. You haven't done your homework on any of the relevant issues and ignore my suggestions. I will continue to point out your flawed comments whenever I think a reader might actually mistake your commentary for standard physics.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

1. Pot calling the kettle...

2. You apparently don't follow Mermin closely. He is as far from a local realist as it gets.

Jaynes is a more complicated affair. His Bell conclusions are far off the mark and are not accepted.

--------------------

I am through discussing with you at this time. You haven't done your homework on any of the relevant issues and ignore my suggestions. I will continue to point out your flawed comments whenever I think a reader might actually mistake your commentary for standard physics.

I would not worry, no one could mistake personal fanaticism for scientific inquiry here, I hope.

 

[DrChinese]

1. But the point is that A+B+C+.. can't exceed the total number of particles emitted.

2. But Bell inequalities goes further, it counts those predictions at a given polarizer setting and says whoa, there's too many coincidences to "realistically" account for at this one polarizer setting.

3. I'll construct a simple model to demonstrate the stronger claims I made.

1. This is fairly absurd. You might want to re-read what you are saying. Why would A+B+C... have any limit? I asked for a quote from Bell, where is it?

2. It is true that Bell Inequalities are usually expressed in terms of a limit. But that is a direct deduction from the Realism requirement. Which is essentially that counterfactual cases have a likelihood of occurring between 0 and 100%. Most consider this a reasonable requirement. If you use the cos^2 rule for making predictions, then some cases end up with a predicted occurance rate of less than -10% (that's a negative sign). If that is reasonable to you, then Local Realism is a go.

3. I truly look forward to that! And please, take as much time as you need.

----------------------

Again, a pattern is developing: I am challenging you on specific points. Here are 3 more. I recommend that you stop, read the above, and address them BEFORE going on to other points. I realize you have a lot to say, but we are simply going around in circles as you abandon one line of thinking in favor of another. So please, do us both a favor, let's discuss the 3 above before going elsewhere. I have provided very specific criticisms to what you are saying, and they should be taken seriously. That is, if you want me to take you seriously.

 

[DrChinese]

I would not worry, no one could mistake personal fanaticism for scientific inquiry here, I hope.

I hope not, thanks for your welcome comments and support.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I hope not, thanks for your welcome comments and support.

Thanks for your tireless efforts to educate and further the discussion of Bell and N-L issues here. I've been reading through your threads, and truly you have the patience of a saint. I don't follow everything, but I really learn when I read these discussions. Some of this is a real challenge to accept and visualize, even when I believe it to be true.

 

[RUTA]

On the other hand, there's a much simpler explanation for the correlations in, say, the Freedman and Clauser experiment, or the Aspect et al. experiments, that fits with the fundamental theories and assumptions on which all of modern science has been based -- and that explanation begins with the notion that the entanglement is due to the photons being emitted during the same atomic transition (ie., that there is a relationship between properties imparted at emission that, wrt analysis by a global measurement parameter, results in correlations that we refer to as entanglement stats).

You can entangle atoms that have not interacted with each other by using interaction-free measurement in an interferometer. Accordingly, these atoms don't interact with the photon in the interferometer either.

 

[my_wan]

Yeah, the limit in the case I described is the total number of particles emitted, 100%. You still talking 'as if' I'm was talking about correlations, when there weren't even any entangled particles involved.

Yeah, the so called negative predicted occurrence rate occurs when detections are more likely in only one of the detectors, rather than neither or both. You almost made it sound like a "probability".

 

[billschnieder]

b) Can you explain how, in a local realistic world, particles can be perfectly correlated when those particles have never existed within a common area of spacetime? If you could explain that, it would be significant.

This is trivial. Every clock is correlated with every other clock whether or not they've ever been in a common area of spacetime. Any two harmonic signals are correlated irrespective of differences in amplitude, phase and frequency.

 

[DrChinese]

This is trivial. Every clock is correlated with every other clock whether or not they've ever been in a common area of spacetime.

That's bull. I am shocked you would assert this. Have you not been listening to anything about Bell? You sound like someone from 1935.

 

[DrChinese]

This is trivial. Every clock is correlated with every other clock whether or not they've ever been in a common area of spacetime. Any two harmonic signals are correlated irrespective of differences in amplitude, phase and frequency.

There are no global correlations. And on top of my prior post, I would like to mention that a Nobel likely awaits any iota of proof of your statement. Harmonic signals are correlated in some frames, but not in all.
There can be no entanglement - in a local realistic world - and classical particles will NOT violate Bell Inequalities. All of which leads to experimental disproof of your assertion. That being that perfect correlations are some easy to achieve feat, and do not require shared wave states. They only occur with entangled particles. Look at unentangled particle pairs and this will be clear.

 

[my_wan]

I'm tired and getting sloppier, but I read your negative probabilities page at:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Negative_Probabilities.htm
I was thinking in terms of the of a given value E(a,b) from possible outcomes P(A,B|a,b) in the general proof of Bell's theorem. You had something else in mind.

What you have, at your link, is 3 measurements at angles A=0, B=67.5, and C=45. A and B are actual measurements where C is a measurement that could have been performed at A or B, let's say B in this case. This does indeed lead to the given negative probabilities, if you presume that what you measured at B cannot interfere with what you could have measured at C, had you done the 3 measurements simultaneously. The counterfactual reasoning is quoted: "When measuring A and B, C existed even if we didn't measure it."

So where do the negative probability come from here? What I claimed, and empirically justified on the grounds that a polarizer always detects 50% of all randomly polarized light (an absurdity if only light at that one polarization is being detected), is that some subset of the same particles detected at B would also have been detected at C, had that measurement been done. Since the same particle, presumed real, cannot be detected by both detectors, detection at one detector precludes a detection at the other detector, because the particles are considered real regardless of the variation of angles capable of detecting it. Therefore measuring the particle at B can negatively interfere with the measurement of that same particle at C.

So the page quote: "When measuring A and B, C existed even if we didn't measure it." Not when some subset of the particles, when measures are performed separately, are measured by both B and C. Thus when you consider simultaneous measures, at these detectors, the same particles must be detected twice by both B and C simultaneously to be counterfactually consistent with the separate measures.

Now I know this mechanism can account for interference in counterfactual detection probabilities, but you can legitimately write it off until the sine wave interference predicted by QM is quantitatively modeled by this interference mechanism. But I still maintain the more limited claim that the counterfactual reasoning contained in the quote: "When measuring A and B, C existed even if we didn't measure it" is falsified by the fact that the same particles cannot simultaneously be involved in detections at B and C. Yet it still existed, at one or the other detector, just not both. Probability interference is a hallmark of QM.