#### DevilsAvocado

Gold Member

- 751

- 90

Not the angular difference, but theIt is only when Alice has collected all her pluses and minuses and Bob has done the same that they start comparing time-tags to see coincidences and then they can figure out what the angular difference was at the moment of detection!

*relative*angle (a-b).

[all bolding mine]

Misunderstanding; yes the angle is chosen randomly, but the experimental QMbillschnieder said:The photon gives no rodent's behind whether Alice's angle was chosen randomly or not! All it meets is a polarizer at a given angle resulting in an OUTCOME of (+, -, or non-detection).

*outcome*/result is also

**always random**50/50 (+/-).

More misunderstandings; we all know that it’s impossible to measure both +1 and -1 for one photon in one measurement, and most agree that if we repeat the measurement at the same angle – the result is 100% random.billschnieder said:I'm afraid you have seriously misunderstood. Nobody is assuming static/predetermined results. The result is random for a given photon, but once Alice has measured and obtained +1 for that photon at 67.5°, it is a mathematical/logical error to say Alice would have obtained -1 had she measure that specific photon at the same specific angle 67.5°! You can't set a realism assumption and them immediately gut it and expect it to stay put.

Most also agree that if some dude comes up with a theorem that shows “1 + 1 = 9” we don’t have to prove this theorem to be correct, before proving it to be incorrect. I think it is called common sense.

Your derivation is quite strange since you are claiming that to be able to use CFD in any theorem we are obligated to actually measure these values in experiments, which of course most understand is impossible:billschnieder said:Huh? I just show you that it is impossible to derive Bell's theorem without using CFD

billschnieder said:We do not need to sacrifice anything, because there is nothing there there to start with.The terms in Bell's inequality and the CHSH can never be tested experimentally, if reasoning correctly. The inequalities can never be violated if reasoning correctly. So I guess what has to be sacrificed is buffoonery.

No comment, speaks for itself.billschnieder said:We have three terms here C(a,b), C(a,c), C(b,c). Those terms can never be all factual as far as the EPR experiment is concerned. At least two of them MUST be counterfactual! There is no other way. Thinking otherwise is just buffoonery. The inequalities can NOT be derived UNLESS the other two terms are counterfactual. As soon as you see that,you realize immediately that NO EXPERIMENT can ever measure them all! None!You can measure one but not the other two. Is that clear enough?

I could be wrong, but to me it’s actually more mysticism in regarding all these highly educated/skilled peoples rigorously scrutinizing the mathematical and experimental result of Bell’s theorem – and not one see what you see...billschnieder said:So then, we are left with a lot of experimentalists who do not know what they are doing, publishing in lofty journals whose editors and reviewers do not know what they are doing, a many who love mysticism regurgitating what they've read without thinking for themselves. No news here.

Why thousands? If you were wrong, then one would have been enough!

A lot of ignorance out there, including Schrödinger et al., right?

More counterfactual confusion.billschnieder said:Having eliminated all the experiments, we now have QM left. How come then that QM can violate the inequalities? Because the terms that people calculate from QM and substitute into the inequalities in order to obtain violation, are not the correct terms.

They've calculated and used the following three terms (scenario X):

C(a,b) = QM correlation for what we would get if we measure (a,b)

C(b,c) = QM correlation for what we would get if we measure (b,c)

C(a,c) = QM correlation for what we would get if we measure (a,c)

When Bell's inequalities DEMAND that the correlations should be (scenario Y):

C(a,b) = QM correlation for what we wouldget if we measure(a,b)

C(a,c) = QM correlation for what we would havegotten had we measured(a,c) instead of (a,b)

C(b,c) = QM correlation for what we would havegotten had we measured(b,c) instead of (a,b)

Well, to me all the above is good example of flawed conspiracy spookiness. You mix performedbillschnieder said:Now what is the probability that we would have obtained + at Alice if Alice and Bob had measured at angles (a,c) instead of (a,b). Note this is counterfactual. If you answer 1/3 you need to learn some probability theory. The correct answer is 1, we already know that measuring the photon at angle a gives +, where is the conspiracy in that?!Knowing what was obtained in the factual experiment, changes the probability we calculate for the counterfactual situation, nothing spooky involved.Now we can carry this all the way and include coincidences and you will see that using scenario X correlations in Bell's inequality is deeply flawed.

**experimental outcomes**with mathematical counterfactual speculations. I have never seen anything like it. You need to learn some QM theory.

Sobillschnieder said:QM gives the correct answer for the experiments performed, but neither QM nor the experiments can provide the right answers for substitution in the inequalities.

*what are*the actual

**measured correlations**? I hope you understand the experimental difference between entangled and non-entangled photons?

I can see from the discussion that there is in fact some serious confusion about the word outcome:billschnieder said:Are you serious? You must have misunderstood something very fundamental about the EPR experiment. For each photon that leaves the source and heads towards Alice, you have a single outcome, (+, -, or non-detection). Alice's polarizer is set to a specific angle say 67.5° for that photon. Same thing for Bob.

1. a final product or end result; consequence; issue.

2. a conclusion reached through a process of logical thinking.

2. a conclusion reached through a process of logical thinking.

You seem to wobble between 1 & 2 without any specific notion on what you actually mean. Let me give you some examples:

billschnieder said:It still does not change the fact thatwe have outcomes at 4 angles. For each angle there is an outcome.

billschnieder said:Are you sure? If you insist, I suppose you can provide a NON-LOCAL dataset ofoutcomes for three angles a, b, c which violates the inequalities.

billschnieder said:The only condition isthere are 3 outcomes for 3 angles for each photon measured.

billschnieder said:For each photonthat leaves the source and heads towards Alice,you have a single outcome, (+, -, or non-detection).

billschnieder said:The photon gives no rodent's behind whether Alice's angle was chosen randomly or not! All it meets is a polarizer at a given angleresulting in an OUTCOME of (+, -, or non-detection).

billschnieder said:So? Who said any thing aboutthe stream of outcomes appearing at Alice or Bobappearing other than random. That does not change the fact thatthere is an outcome. I have the files from Weihs' experiment andthere is one outcome for each photon detected.

billschnieder said:As soon as you see that, you realize immediately thatNO EXPERIMENT can ever measure them all! None! You can measure one but not the other two. Is that clear enough?

billschnieder said:Consider a pair of photons heading toward Alice and Bob resp, with polarizesr set to the angles (a,b). Let us saythe possible outcomes are (+, -, 0 for nondetection)for each side and they are all equaly likely.

billschnieder said:is not a conditional probability statement but a statement for theexpectation value of the paired product of outcomes at A and B,

billschnieder said:The Expectation value for the paired product at two stationsis necessarily factorable whether or not the processes generating the outcomes are local or non-local.

billschnieder said:is actuall <ab> where a representsthe outcomes at angle αand b representsthe outcomes at angle β.

billschnieder said:Yes, Yes, Yes! For Alice,the outcomes are:

- F(a,λ)if she measuresat angle (a)

- F(b,λ)if she had measuredat angle (b) instead of at the (a) at which she actually measured

- F(c,λ)if she had measuredat angle (c) instead of at the (a) at which she actually measured

billschnieder said:Don't you see that those arenot the outcomes measured in any real experiment.

billschnieder said:Let us start withthe first photon pair arriving at Alice and Bobrespectively, and assume thatthe outcome was +1 for Alice and -1 for Bobfor the angle pair (a,b).

billschnieder said:Thereforethe outcomes used to calculateC(a,c), and C(c,b) are not independent of those used to calculate C(a,b).

billschnieder said:We are allowed to obtain F(a,λ1)=+1 for Alice forthe first outcome used to calculate the C(a,b)correlation and F(a,λ1) = -1 for Alice forthe first outcome used to calculate the C(a,c)correlation etc.

billschnieder said:Note I'm using the shorthand a,b,c to represent Fa, Fb, Fcwhich are outcomes not angles. I'm using the3-term Bell inequality|ab + ac| - bc <= 1in which each term shares outcomes with the other two terms.

billschnieder said:* Note that no violation is ever obtained for anyindividual pair of outcomes, and consequently no violation is possible for the correlations which are essentially averages of paired products |<ab> + <ac>| - <bc> <= 1

* Note that there are only8 distinct possible outcome combinationsfor this scenario each of which always satisfies the inequality

billschnieder said:No two terms share the same outcomecontrary to scenario Y.

Get the point? How can we ever discuss this when you are jumping freely between:billschnieder said:* Note thatthere are 64 distinct possible outcome combinationsin Scenario X as opposed to just 8 in Scenario Y.

- outcome = experimental result
- outcome = logical derivation
- outcome = calculated expectation
- outcome = probabilities

*impossibility of experimentally verify*the outcome one would have obtained if one had measured a different angle:

- outcome = counterfactual paradox

Care to straighten out some question marks?

Counterfactual definiteness - Wikipedia said:Counterfactual definiteness is a basic assumption, which, together with locality, leads to Bell inequalities.In their derivation it is explicitly assumed that every possible measurement, even if not performed, can be included in statistical calculations. The calculation involves averaging over sets of outcomes which cannot all be simultaneously factual—if some are assumed to be factual outcomes of an experiment others have to be assumed counterfactual. (Which ones are designated as factual is determined by the experimenter: the outcomes of the measurements he actually performs become factual by virtue of his choice to do so, the outcomes of the measurements he doesn't perform are counterfactual.)Bell's Theorem actually proves that every type of quantum theory must necessarily violate either locality or CFD.

Last edited: