Bell's Inequality is not valid for negative numbers

[Lazarus]

The Bell Inequality tests are only valid for non-negative numbers, which is reasonable because counts and probabilities cannot be negative. All the experiments that depend on the violation of Bell's Inequality use a negative number in the inequality. That invalidates the experiments.

 

Bell's Inequality can be violated by having a negative value.

For example:

P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d) <= 2

Which can be calculated as

a+b-a-d+c+b+c+d / a+b+c+d <=2

with

a=1, b=2, c=3 and d= - 4

then

1+2-1-(-4)+3+2+3+(-4) / 1+2+3+(-4) <= 2

10 /2 <= 2

5 <= 2

[swansont]

The Bell Inequality tests are only valid for non-negative numbers, which is reasonable because counts and probabilities cannot be negative. All the experiments that depend on the violation of Bell's Inequality use a negative number in the inequality. That invalidates the experiments.

 

 

 

Citation needed.

[Lazarus]

Why does it need a citation? It's 3rd grade arithmetic.

[swansont]

Why does it need a citation? It's 3rd grade arithmetic.

 

 

3rd grade logic.

 

You are claiming something is invalid, and that the people doing the work haven't noticed. IOW, they're all idiots.

 

On the assumption that they aren't, then either negative numbers are just fine, or they haven't been used. And you have to make your case, rather than just assert it. Because the null hypothesis here is that you're wrong.

 

What is the basis for claiming that all of the numbers in the inequality have to be positive? -or-

What is the basis for claiming that negative numbers have been used?

[Lazarus]

The reason for ALL experiments is that Bell's Inequality is solid as a rock for non-negative numbers. The only way to violate it is to use a negative number.

Since I am banned from discussing CHSH, I will leave it up to you to nane one experiment that violates Bell's Inequality using positive numbers. The negative numbers are generated in the experiments by using Correlation Coefficients rather than probabilities or counts. Probability to Correlation Coefficients is Probability times 2 minus 1.

[swansont]

The reason for ALL experiments is that Bell's Inequality is solid as a rock for non-negative numbers. The only way to violate it is to use a negative number.

Since I am banned from discussing CHSH, I will leave it up to you to nane one experiment that violates Bell's Inequality using positive numbers. The negative numbers are generated in the experiments by using Correlation Coefficients rather than probabilities or counts. Probability to Correlation Coefficients is Probability times 2 minus 1.

 

 

So it's perfectly fine to use negative numbers, because correlations can be negative, making your first claim false.

[Lazarus]

 

 

So it's perfectly fine to use negative numbers, because correlations can be negative, making your first claim false.

 

It is improper to use negative numbers in Bel's Inequality, no matter where you get them

[swansont]

 

It is improper to use negative numbers in Bel's Inequality, no matter where you get them

 

 

Citation needed. Just because you say so isn't enough. Where does the scientific literature say this?

[Lazarus]

I will citate me and plagiarize from one of my posts.

 

 

Bell’s Inequality simplified

P(a,b) -P(a,b’)+P(a’,b)+P(a’,b’) <= 2

a'=c, b'=d

P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d) <= 2

means

a+b-a-d+c+b+c+d On one line

------------------------ <=2 a+b-a-d+c+b+c+d / a+b+c+d <=2

a+b+c+d

b+c+b+c

----------- <=2 b+c+b+c / a+b+c+d <=2

a+b+c+d

2(b+c)

------------ <=2 2(b+c) / (b+c)+(a+d) <=2

(b+c)+(a+d)

2

------------ <=2 2 / [1 + (a+d) / (b+c)] <=2

1 + (a+d)

-------

(b+c)

As you can see there is no way to violate this inequality when a, b,c and d are all positive numbers.

[swansont]

I will citate me and plagiarize from one of my posts.

 

 

Your work is not a valid citation (and I don't see how one can plagiarize from themselves)

 

If you can't violate the inequality, how is it that experiments have done so? (hint: maybe your analysis isn't correct)

[Lazarus]

There are two questions that can resolve the issue.

 

Do the experiments put a negative number into Bell's Inequality

and

I Bell's Inequality valid for negative numbers in the form the experiments use?

[Mordred]

I really hate to say this Lazarus but the more I read your posts on Bells inequality the more I can see you simply don't properly understand the experiment.

 

Start with identifying what the correct terminology mathematically means.

 

The is a huge difference between state functions, position functions, phase functions, correlation functions and probability functions.

 

They each have a specific role.

 

Try sitting down and at least learn some statistical mechanics and how they apply to Bells inequality.

There are two questions that can resolve the issue.

 

Do the experiments put a negative number into Bell's Inequality

and

I Bell's Inequality valid for negative numbers in the form the experiments use?

depends on what numbers your talking about. Try studying the standard model and the mathematics. For example the correlation function with the conservation of energy/momentum via Dirac.

 

Maybe a good idea if you learn how to describe particle states in the first place you might have a better chance.

 

Second step after that learn how the two states are symmetric and the transformation between the two spin states.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Lazarus]

This is the way the experiments set up the inequality

 

CALCULATION OF BELL'S VALUE

E = (N11 + N00 - N10 -N01) / (N11 + N00 + N10 + N01)

S = E1 - E2 + E3 + E4 / E1 + E2 + E3 + E4

so that S > 2.

That is equivalent to P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d)

The situation is simple and if it is wrong it should be easy to point to an error.

[Mordred]

You keep looking at the simple math but miss the key aspects as it refers to functions and states your not familiar with.

 

Lets ask a simple question to demonstrate.

 

1) How are the entangled particles prepared prior to performing the experiment?

 

Ie what causes the entanglement in the first place.

2) what does question 1 do with the correlation function?

 

Address those two questions first.

 

When you answer that then figure out how QM handles polarization.

 

Then ask why does polarization under guage is a rotation translation.

 

As polarization varies according to observer. Where are you defining your observer in the above?

 

Every question I just asked are required in a mathematical proof of Bells inequality. You cannot arbitrarily ignore them.

 

Another example...

 

[latex]|\psi\rangle[/latex]

 

what does the Dirac symbols mean in the above? Is this a bra or a ket?

Edited July 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Lazarus]

Address those two questions first.

When you answer that then figure out how QM handles polarization.

Then ask why does polarization under guage is a rotation translation.

As polarization varies according to observer. Where are you defining your observer in the above?

Every question I just asked are required in a mathematical proof of Bells inequality. You cannot arbitrarily ignore them.

 

Lazarus:

None of that is relative to this issue. Proof of Bell's Inequality requires a lot. Disproof only requires one inconsistency..

 

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

Mordred

You keep looking at the simple math but miss the key aspects as it refers to functions and states your not familiar with.

Lets ask a simple question to demonstrate.

2) what does question 1 do with the correlation function?

 

Lazarus:

Nothing really. The question is whether or not a negative number is put into Bell's Inequality.

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

Mordred

1) How are the entangled particles prepared prior to performing the experiment?

IE, what causes the entanglement in the first place.

 

Lazarus:

THE CHSH/ASPECT EXPERIMENTS

 

Here is a description of the experiments and their problems.

 

Two type 1 Barium Borate Oxide crystals (BBO) are paced together with there optical axes perpendicular. A polarized pulse beam is aimed at the BBOs at 45 degrees from the optical axis of both of the BBOs. Each BBO will cause a Spontaneous Downconversion about once out of a billion photons and the resulting pair of lower frequency photons will exit the BBO is a cone shaped pattern. The two cones overlap and are detected by two detectors in the overlap. The Downconverted photons are assumed to then be in an indeterminate state of polariztion. That is suspicious. It sounds more like mixed rather than indeterminate and there are more serious logic flaws.

 

 

 

Two detectors are placed within the overlapped cones. Each detector has an adjustable beam splitting polarizer to receive the Downconverted photons. The vertically polarized photons go to one single photon detector and horizontally polarized photons go to the other.

 

 

 

 

 

The pulse beam is weakened to the point that only one Downconversion occurs about every 25 ns. The only occurrences that are counted are when both detectors are activated at the same time. The coincidence monitor remembers the results. The detections from the four detections at Ad+, Ad- Bd+ and Bd- are put together by the coincidence monitor as the number of simultaneous detections by both + detectors (N11), both - detectors (N00). A+ with B- (N10) and A- with B+ (N01). Four tests are run to feed into Bell's Inequality. Usually with the two polarizers set to 0 & 22,5. 0 & 67.5, 45 & 22.5 and 45 & 67.5. The difference in the settings of 3 of the tests is 22.5 degrees. That is a bit suspicious since both quantum assumptions and the experimental results depend on the difference in the settings not the raw settings.

 

The counts are put together as

E = (N11 + N00 - N10 -N01) / (N11 + N00 + N10 + N01)

S = E1 - E2 + E3 + E4

And inserted into Bell's Inequality IMPROPERLY, since E2 is a negative number.

 

Bell's Inequality is only valid for positive numbers and can be violated by having a negative value.

 

For example:

P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d) <= 2

Which can be calculated as

a+b-a-d+c+b+c+d / a+b+c+d <=2

with

a=1, b=2, c=3 and d= -4

then

1+2-1-(-4)+3+2+3+(-4) / 1+2+3+(-4) <= 2

10 /2 <= 2

5 <= 2

 

CHSH/Aspect uses Correlation Coefficients instead of counts or probabilities which forces negative numbers, so Bell's Inequality is not legitimate to use,

[Mordred]

Well its too bad you refuse to learn how Bells inequality works.

 

The advise I gave you was only a start on what is required to change the minds among the professional physics community.

 

Guess you will never make any worthwhile contributions or ever make the required details to ever get a peer review paper regardless of your efforts.

 

By the way you completely got the preparedness wrong.

 

CHSH is Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt inequality not the preparedness.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

But... but... Galileo?

 

...Guess you will never make any worthwhile contributions or ever make the required details to ever get a peer review paper regardless of your efforts....

[Lazarus]

Disparaging a poster is not an answer to an issue.

 

Please try to answer my 2 questions.

[Mordred]

Refusal to do the required mathematical steps will get you no where in any physics topic. If you looked at the steps I mentioned you wouldn't need anyone to answer the questions you asked.

 

You would be able to research and calculate the answers yourself.

 

Ah well guess you will always rely on others.

 

Here is a little golden rule on how I help others. I rarely answer their questions directly.

 

I teach them how to properly answer their own questions.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

Disparaging a poster is not an answer to an issue.

Open your mind then.

[Lazarus]

Open your mind then.

 

You too. Try to answer my 2 questions, please.

[StringJunky]

 

You too. Try to answer my 2 questions, please.

Not my ball park but it's clear you are not taking in what Mordred is giving you. Why waste your life doing things wrong when someone with a lot more experience than you could lift you onto a fruitful path?

[Mordred]

He obviously doesn't wish to learn the skills to answer his own questions.

 

example number two, well like I stated I teach people to answer their own questions.

I don't do their work for them

[Lazarus]

The questions and my answers are both in the posts.

 

I am just asking for someone to try to give a valid reason that they are wrong.

[Mordred]

Swansont already did that. You won't look at my questions which would help explain Swansonts previous answer.

 

 

So it's perfectly fine to use negative numbers, because correlations can be negative, making your first claim false.