local wrote:Thank you. Please don't overlook my post about limiting both functions depending on a.
local wrote:You haven't addressed my point. The calculation is nonlocal.
local wrote:I asked why a limit operation is even necessary and pointed out that applying a limit based on a to the function for b is illegitimate. You haven't addressed either of those points. Unless you answer in a coherent way, I'm just no longer interested and don't think you have kaboshed anything.
Of course -a.b is nonlocal! It cannot be achieved with marginal (separated) sampling.
FrediFizzx wrote:We can simplify this calculation a bit more,
So, easier now to see we just have the product of two scalar numbers. Of course the Bell fans will take local's position that scalar numbers can have some kind of locality which is of course absurd.
Basically what is going on here is we are circumventing a flaw in the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:So, here we have it folks. The Bell fans are now caught between a rock and a hard place. Either the local QM product calculation is correct and QM is local or local and Graft are correct that the -a.b prediction cannot be obtained from separated measurements. Fortunately we have a clue from the GA model that Nature is in fact local so I will be picking door #1. Either way, entanglement is screwed.
.
gill1109 wrote:“Local” and Graft are also correct in the sense that the -a.b prediction can’t be reproduced by local realistic models.
gill1109 wrote:Maybe someone here has a good reference?
Heinera wrote:gill1109 wrote:Maybe someone here has a good reference?
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:gill1109 wrote:Maybe someone here has a good reference?
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm
I don’t see a calculation here according to quantum mechanics for two entangled particles.
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:gill1109 wrote:Maybe someone here has a good reference?
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm
I don’t see a calculation here according to quantum mechanics for two entangled particles.
Heinera wrote:gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:gill1109 wrote:Maybe someone here has a good reference?
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm
I don’t see a calculation here according to quantum mechanics for two entangled particles.
It's embedded in the text from the paragraph starting with "These quantum mechanical predictions (which have been well supported by experiment)...".
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:gill1109 wrote:Maybe someone here has a good reference?
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm
I don’t see a calculation here according to quantum mechanics for two entangled particles.
The quantum mechanical calculation is trivial and you can find it in Eqs. (1) to (4) of my paper (or in Peres' book): https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0703179.pdf.
All that is required is the rotational invariance of the singlet state to derive E(a, b) = -a.b.
***
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests