SciPhysicsForums.com

[quote="Joy Christian"]***

Gordon, [color=#FF0000]it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism[/color]. See this proof: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566.

***[/quote]

Thanks Joy, but I see a mathematical error in Bell's theorem, not anti-realism. Those who dismiss my contention are bound by the consequence of the error (ie, in their view there is no math error). They are therefore bound by its compensatory equivalent -- naive-realism. Now, under naive-realism, Bell's "famous" inequality -- Bell's 1964:(15) -- goes through. Test it with objects under the assumption of naive-realism -- see d'Espagnat and the assumption of naive-realism at work [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf[/url]; an essay which Bell endorsed -- and Bell's 1964:(15) holds.

WRT to your example of NYC and LA, place/time is irrelevant [u]under the naive-realism in Bell's theorem[/u]. [u]Under naive-realism you can test identical objects anywhere anytime anyhow[/u]; NYC, LA, Paris, Cambridge: see d'Espagnat.

Glad we agree on this one thing, though: BT is nonsense!

With best regards; Gordon

Dirkman, with thanks for you clippings and wrt to my last posting here re Bell's theorem and naive-realism:

The last sentence in your second clipping mentions the "[u]need to remove the use of the setting variable[/u] [b]j[/b]".

IMO, Bell's theorem in its original 1964 form goes through with the setting variables [b]a[/b] and [b]b[/b] that Bell offers: no need to add or remove anything!

[u][b]However[/b][/u]: In that case, Bell's mathematical error is equivalent to a surreptitious assumption of naive-realism. So Bell's theorem shows that naive-realism cannot explain EPRB - a fact known since the birth of QM!

Hence my view that Bell's theorem is nonsense; a subject that I'll happily discuss in detail at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=281 since my view is tangential to the Hess/De Raedt/Michielsen clippings.

With best regards; Gordon

***

Gordon, [color=#FF0000]it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism[/color]. See this proof: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566.


***

From Joy : The main lesson of my uncontested challenge is that [color=#FF0000]it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism[/color]

Having no wish to hijack this thread re Hess/De Raedt/Michielsen: I believe Bell's theorem can be derived from the assumption of naive-realism.

Now (surely) that was not Bell's intention (since he was supposedly challenging EPR and Einstein)? But imo a mathematical error by Bell (an error in reducing one equation to another) is equivalent to the assumption of naive-realism. A link to my ideas is here:

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=281

and I will truly welcome critical comments there!

Cheers; Gordon

***
Indeed.

The following is what I wrote in a recent thread where my open challenge to Bell's theorem remains uncontested to date: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275&p=6738#p6734.

[quote="Joy Christian"][quote="thray"]And where does that leave Bell's theorem? A purely philosophical trope that satisfies none of the 'elements of reality' advanced by EPR.[/quote]
Indeed, Tom. The main lesson of my uncontested challenge is that [color=#FF0000]it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism[/color]. :)
[/quote]
I think it is high time we start throwing back the word "c****pot" to those who are very fond of using that word against rational, logical, and competent scientists.

I think it is high time we declare that only c****pot believe in Bell's theorem.

***

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.04889.pdf

[img]http://i67.tinypic.com/o5utq8.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i64.tinypic.com/124gdv9.png[/img]