New paper Hess/De Raedt/Michielsen

[Dirkman]

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

[Joy Christian]

***
Indeed.

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

And where does that leave Bell's theorem? A purely philosophical trope that satisfies none of the 'elements of reality' advanced by EPR.

Indeed, Tom. The main lesson of my uncontested challenge is that it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism.

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.

***

[Gordon Watson]

From Joy : The main lesson of my uncontested challenge is that it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism

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:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=281

and I will truly welcome critical comments there!

Cheers; Gordon

[Joy Christian]

***

Gordon, it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism. See this proof: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566.


***

[Gordon Watson]

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 "need to remove the use of the setting variable j".

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

However: 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 viewtopic.php?f=6&t=281 since my view is tangential to the Hess/De Raedt/Michielsen clippings.

With best regards; Gordon

[Gordon Watson]

***

Gordon, it is impossible to prove Bell's theorem without physically unrealistic assumption of anti-realism. See this proof: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=267&p=6566#p6566.

***

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 http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf; an essay which Bell endorsed -- and Bell's 1964:(15) holds.

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

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

With best regards; Gordon