Local realism generalized EPR refined Bell's theorem refuted

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Local realism generalized EPR refined Bell's theorem refuted

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:52 pm

http://vixra.org/pdf/1611.0033v1.pdf

Abstract: This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem – after Annals of Physics (2016:67) – ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism – CLR, commonsense local realism – the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem – nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony – it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.

As always: Critical comments, corrections, improvements, etc., are welcome.

Thanks, Gordon
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 67 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library