guest wrote:There is a nice proof of Bell's theorem by Steve Gull which uses Fourier analysis instead of the usual algebra.
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent2009/
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf
Joy Christian wrote:***
Well, well, well. Ain't this rather funny? It has been four days since I posted this challenge, but there are no takers so far.
The claim by Bell and his followers that the bounds on CHSH are +/-2 has been around for some 52 years! There are literally hundreds of thousands of papers written on Bell's so-called theorem. There are equally many "derivations" of the Bell-CHSH inequality. One would think that it would be a piece of cake for the Bell-believers to come along and set me straight. It would be a piece of cake for them to derive the bounds of +/-2. After all, some of them believe in Bell's theorem implicitly.
***
Joy Christian wrote:So it has been over a week since I posted this challenge. So far there has been only one failed attempt to take up the challenge. This is absolutely astonishing to me, considering how far the Bell-fanatics like Richard D. Gill and other Bell-mafia have stooped -- both publicly and behind the scenes -- to hurt me personally, financially, and academically, simply because I exposed their irrational belief-system to be scientifically flawed. To justify their actions, all they have to do is meet my challenge.
FrediFizzx wrote:Well they haven't done it because it is impossible. Boolean tried to post his argument based on probability theory again which violates your rule (2) so it was rejected.
In https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917 ... m-physics/
it says: "Pysicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality."
And
"Because “we know that ultimately, we need to find a theory that doesn’t have” unitarity and locality, Bourjaily said, “it’s a starting point to ultimately describing a quantum theory of gravity.” "
Also:
"... the scattering amplitude equals the volume of a brand-new mathematical object — the amplituhedron. The details of a particular scattering process dictate the dimensionality and facets of the corresponding amplituhedron. The pieces of the positive Grassmannian that were being calculated with twistor diagrams and then added together by hand were building blocks that fit together inside this jewel ..."
thray wrote:And where does that leave Bell's theorem? A purely philosophical trope that satisfies none of the 'elements of reality' advanced by EPR.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest