by gill1109 » Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:04 am
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Your paper contradicts very well known and generally accepted mathematical theorems. You don’t explain what is wrong with the proofs of those theorems.
It is completely clear that the parameters alpha and beta must appear in a model, simply because these are freely selectable boundary conditions. One cannot conclude from this that the model is not local or wrong. In order to refute the model, one must deal with the course and the details of the derivation.
Bell's theorem is not a mathematical proof (his inequality is mathematically correct) but the claim that there can be no local model. He overlooked contextual models. This is also stated in the paper. This is not about mathematical questions, but about the physical question of what effects the indistinguishability of particles has.
Physical discussions can be decided without a computer program. Computer programs are not proof and only cover up the essence that matters.
Bell did *not* overlook contextual models. I am not talking about his inequality. I'm talking about his claim that QM and local realism are incompatible. That's also a mathematical theorem.
I don't have to refute your model because I have mathematical proof that your model is not local, and I believe that my proof is correct. You don't believe or don't understand my proof. You do not point out where it is wrong, either.
I don't need to convince you, or anyone else. Go ahead and submit your paper to a journal and try to convince someone else.
I just point out that you will easily convince the whole world, including me, and moreover get the Nobel prize, if you can implement your model in computer code. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I, and many others, are justified in believing you just have words, no proof of anything.
I am interested to know why you don't go ahead and do that.
[quote="Esail"][quote="gill1109"]
Your paper contradicts very well known and generally accepted mathematical theorems. You don’t explain what is wrong with the proofs of those theorems. [/quote]
It is completely clear that the parameters alpha and beta must appear in a model, simply because these are freely selectable boundary conditions. One cannot conclude from this that the model is not local or wrong. In order to refute the model, one must deal with the course and the details of the derivation.
Bell's theorem is not a mathematical proof (his inequality is mathematically correct) but the claim that there can be no local model. He overlooked contextual models. This is also stated in the paper. This is not about mathematical questions, but about the physical question of what effects the indistinguishability of particles has.
Physical discussions can be decided without a computer program. Computer programs are not proof and only cover up the essence that matters.[/quote]
Bell did *not* overlook contextual models. I am not talking about his inequality. I'm talking about his claim that QM and local realism are incompatible. That's also a mathematical theorem.
I don't have to refute your model because I have mathematical proof that your model is not local, and I believe that my proof is correct. You don't believe or don't understand my proof. You do not point out where it is wrong, either.
I don't need to convince you, or anyone else. Go ahead and submit your paper to a journal and try to convince someone else.
I just point out that you will easily convince the whole world, including me, and moreover get the Nobel prize, if you can implement your model in computer code. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I, and many others, are justified in believing you just have words, no proof of anything.
I am interested to know why you don't go ahead and do that.