Debate Sanctuary Update

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hello,

Update on the Gill/Sanctuary Debate on the add/average issue.

The debate has been stimulating for me, focussing and helpful.  The engagement of judges, Dennis Dieks and Jonte Hance, was very useful and gave me something new. So indeed, my thanks go out to them.  Progress has been made on my end at least.

To focus the debate, I wrote up my ideas which I now post here as a draft. No errors have been found by Dennis or Jonte, but finding errors was not in their mandate. They state my construction does not evade Bell's theorem because, in their view, it still functions as a non-separable or global hidden-variable structure; therefore, my model either violates locality or fails to provide the separable predetermination required to reproduce the EPR correlations without invoking the standard Bell framework. That is, they say I have not beaten Bell. 

Simply stated, my response is I have not yet convinced them of my assertion about Bell’s Theorem. The basis of my argument is:  Bell’s assumption of a single Kolmogorov probability space does not describe bivector spin.   Therefore, Bell is not applicable and the CHSH \le 2 can be violated. Dennis and Jonte disagree.

In the attached, I have attempted to use the language of math rather than physics. This was motivated in part in deference to Richard Gill who claims little knowledge of physics and prefers math. He has just posted, however, that the debate is over and closed.  He says our positions have not changed.   He has not made objections to the attached, nor has he disproven my theorem. He simply backed out and I am not unhappy about that.

Despite what Richard said, my position has changed. I will now work on finishing the attachment and add to it a simulation that agrees with the observed experimental EPR results yet contains only a single stream of \pm 1 clicks. In such a simulation, no add/average issue will exist.

I welcome constructive responses. 

Warm regards to all,

Bryan            

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

You are a fraud. You either cannot do high school maths ( I think you can ) or you are deliberately presenting false work to us.

Your original bet did not require you to be right, it required you to convince the community you were right,  and to do so in a remarkably short time. that date has passed You have lost the bet.

I have already shown with simple maths how to write your bivector distributions as A(a, lambda). This proved that your approach could not violate CSHS.

I, along with many others, have shown the other mistake in your maths where you incorrectly combine two distributions. It is high school algebra. It proves you are wrong.

A few pages of nonsense won't convince anyone when simple algebra has already found your mistake  and proven your work wrong.

Time to pay up and shut up.

Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YyftXjDrt53osxsDk38VVBLAxMNV_T5B1Ox5FZ2%2BpMo3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

I noted that the figures had not come through in the draft.  Sorry, here is the replacement

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

I was indeed wrong to say that our positions had not changed. Bryan’s seems to be completely reversed. Bell’s theorem is no longer false. Instead, one of its assumptions (counterfactual definiteness) is not true, for his new concept of bivector spin.

I have been reminded of Bell’s last paper “La Nouvelle Cuisine”. Bell introduces a new concept “local causality”. He argues that counterfactual definiteness follows from local causality. And from that, we get CHSH. Hence (he says), QM does not satisfy “local causality”. By the same reasoning, Bryan’s model does not satisfy “local causality”. In short, neither QM, nor “bivector spin”, are local theories.

I’m looking forward to seeing Bryan’s simulation program. If it reproduces the negative cosine, it will violate locality. This will be obvious from the structure of the code, no need to study GA.

Richard

PS This is what I see as a normal EPR-B experiment:

Setting A -> Alice’s detector

Setting B -> Bob’s detector

“lambda" from source -> Alice’s detector

“lambda” from source -> Bob’s detector

Both detectors output X, Y = +/–1

So there are two output streams, not one.

Will Bryan’s simulation code adhere to this protocol? If so, it won’t violate CHSH

[Richard Gill]

By the way, maybe Bell’s “local causality” should be called “classical local causality”. And my conclusion would be: QM and Bryan’s GA alternative both violate classical locality (or are wrong). And: reality can’t be described in a classical way, thanks to phenomena which can justly be called non-local.