Bell's Inequality is not valid for negative numbers

[Lazarus]

Correlations can be negative but negative numbers are not valid in Bell's Inequality.

[Mordred]

In order to answer your question you need to understand how the linear polarization states determine the correlation functions.

 

You didn't want to look at my questions in detail to understand any accurate reply I could directly apply

Correlations can be negative but negative numbers are not valid in Bell's Inequality.

This is false as functions can and do have negative values. Depending on each function separately.

 

Get out of the high school math you've been posting for months. Learn how to describe each particle state according to their polarization angles.

 

Then and only then are you getting serious about solving Bells inequality.

 

First step first and foremost understand what each number in Bells inequality represents. Every number is mathematically defined for its valid ranges.

So assuming every number must be positive is patently false. Correlation numbers being one example.

 

Particle states describe by a complex conjugate under rotations (polarizations) being another.

 

lets put this into Full physics terminology. A entangled state is one where you cannot completely (factorize) two individual particle states. This is the entangled state. the polarization state is entangled.

 

Now mathematically define the polarization state above. Then we can calculate the correlation coefficient. After we assign the observers that is...

 

Would you like the formula to determine the correlation coefficient? What is the valid ranges of that complex conjugate function?

 

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

This was your response which I just explained is false.

 

Here is a video on the correlation coefficient.

 

http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-the-correlation-coefficient-formula/

 

See negative correlations are valid just as Swansont answered.

 

Get my point about learning the meaning behind the terminology.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[Lazarus]

Mordred::
This was your response which I just explained is false.

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

 

Lazarus::

What happens before the numbers are put into Bell's Inequality is irrelevant. If a negative number is put into the inequality it makes the inequality invalid.

[Mordred]

What happens before the numbers are put into Bell's Inequality is irrelevant. If a negative number is put into the inequality it makes the inequality invalid.

Wow talk about a lack of effort response.

 

Talk about wasting our time. Here is a news flash

 

Solving Bells isn't just about some math formula that can match an outcome.

 

It is also about what causes the probable outcomes

 

What did you think the whole debate about hidden variables is all about?

 

What is local vs global in terms of the states?

 

Lol for those other readers serious about physics and the true nature of Bells inequality experiment. (Which Lazarus you have proven your not interested in)

 

All observables are local operators. Hidden variables are propogators.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[Lazarus]

Mordred:

 

Solving Bells isn't just about some math formula that can match an outcome.

It is also about what causes the probable outcomes

What did you think the whole debate about hidden variables is all about?

What is local vs global in terms of the states?

 

 

Lazarus:

Bell's Inequality is a mathematical formulation.. It is valid for non-negative numbers but not valid for negative numbers. If you put in a negative number, it is invalid. Nothing else affects it. It is that simple. .

[Mordred]

That math formulation has a purpose

 

enough said. Anyone can do a Fourier series transform and show all probable outcomes.

 

The point is what causes those outcomes in terms of the particle polarization states.

 

In other words a physics problem. Not merely a statistical problem

 

Well obviously you can't as you couldn't even be bothered with what those numbers represent in the first place.

 

Hence why Swansont was able to so quickly falsify your premise.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[Lazarus]

I will never convince you and you will never convince me that a physical experiment with a math error is valid.

Do we agree that a negative number is put into Bell's Inequality and agree that lots of negative numbers can violate the inequality?

Thanks to all of you. I really appreciate your replies.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Lazarus

[Mordred]

You never described the gedanken of the experiment up in the first place to invalidate it.

 

If you don't even know what the numbers mean how can you define what is a valid number ?

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[Lazarus]

I assume you do not agree with either of those statements.

[Mordred]

I will never convince you and you will never convince me that a physical experiment with a math error is valid.

Do we agree that a negative number is put into Bell's Inequality and agree that lots of negative numbers can violate the inequality?

Thanks to all of you. I really appreciate your replies.

I assume you do not agree with either of those statements.

Precisely I do not agree You must define what the negative number represents. Why is that so impossible for you to understand?

 

You cannot invalidate any number without defining what the number represents.

 

In Bells the primary numbers of importance is the polarity states of the two particles. How the two are correlated and what affects the correlation. However first you must define what the correlation number represents.

 

You mentioned CHSM fine here is the expression.

 

[latex]\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=-\hat{m}\cdot\hat{n}=-cos\theta[/latex]

 

now show the difference in orientations of Alice and Bobs detectors given by [latex]\theta[/latex]

You need to determine which outcomes are

1)correlated,

2)anti correlated

3) no correlation.

 

That is the CHSM inequality.

 

correlated=[latex]\theta=0,\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=-1[/latex]

anticorrelated [latex]\theta=\pi,\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=1[/latex]

no correlation [latex] \theta=\frac{\pi}{2},\langle\sigma_m\otimes\sigma_n\rangle=0[/latex]

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

Correlations can be negative but negative numbers are not valid in Bell's Inequality.

 

 

Correlations are used in Bell's inequality, so this statement is not true.

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.

 

 

Where did you get that?

 

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

 

 

Correlations come from counts, but correlations can be negative. Correlations are in the frikkin' equation. Ergo, your claim is codswallop.

 

If a negative number is put into the inequality it makes the inequality invalid.

 

 

How many times have you asserted this without any support for it whatsoever? Six?

[Mordred]

lol I have no idea where he got his S expression as it isn't CSHS.

 

[latex]S=E(a,b)-E(a,\acute{b}+E(\acute{a}),b)+E(\acute{a},\acute{b})[/latex]

 

is the proper expression

 

where a and [latex] \acute{a}[/latex] are detector settings on side A. and the same goes for thee detector settings on B.

 

where the coding is + for the + detector A and - for the detector setting for the - channel B.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

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

 

!

Moderator Note

It seems clear you aren't accepting the valid reasons you've been given, even when they're pointed out to you repeatedly. In cases like these, where the OP is looking for something beyond mainstream and ignoring the mainstream explanations, it's unfair to those trying to give a decent answer to let the thread stay open.

 

This looks a lot like other stubborn attempts to force misunderstandings into a wonderful opportunity for learning. You know by now what you need to do to keep the thread open, so please engage. Fair warning.

[Lazarus]

OK, I'll go away. But before I go, I will make one last attempt to get someone to refute this simple proposition.

 

Bell's Inequality is not valid for negative numbers.

CHSH violates Bell's Inequality with a negative number in it.

Therefore, CHSH is invalid.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Bell's Inequality is not valid for negative numbers.

You have not justified why this should be the case. Simply repeating the claim does not make it true.