FrediFizzx wrote:
It is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of the Bell inequalities.
.
Joy Christian wrote:***
Your model respects parameter independence, but violates outcome independence and thus it is as non-local as quantum mechanics.
***
Esail wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***
Your model respects parameter independence, but violates outcome independence and thus it is as non-local as quantum mechanics.
***
This is not true. See page 895 of my paper:
"The rule that determines which polarizer exit a photon will take is the same for both sides. Dependencies between the photons on either side originate from the shared parameter lambda and not from a nonlocal influence of photon 1 upon photon 2."
Joy Christian wrote:But in your paper I do not see the averages < AB > = -a.b, < A > = 0, and < B > = 0 for a pair of local functions A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1. Until you demonstrate these averages, your paper has nothing much to do with Bell's claim.
Esail wrote:Bell has argued imprecisely. His theorem is valid only if the dependency of the polarization measurement results on polarizer position and hidden parameter is the only one possible. [In my model, the] measurement results also depend on the polarization of the incoming photons.
Joy Christian wrote:This makes your model non-local, even if the mathematics in it is all correct. It is not easy to refute Bell's argument without falling into many traps of non-locality.
***
Esail wrote:Joy Christian wrote:This makes your model non-local, even if the mathematics in it is all correct. It is not easy to refute Bell's argument without falling into many traps of non-locality.
***
I recommend you better read my paper and reply to the arguments in it. There is a proof of locality after equation 11.
Heinera wrote:Esail,
On page 895 you write "the polarization of the incoming photon at side 2 depends on the setting of the polarizer at side 1 although there is no nonlocal action."
But this is the very definition of non-local. What kind of mechanism do you propose for the setting of the polarizer at side 1 to influence the polarization of the photon at side 2?
Heinera wrote:Esail,
On page 895 you write "the polarization of the incoming photon at side 2 depends on the setting of the polarizer at side 1 although there is no nonlocal action."
But this is the very definition of non-local. What kind of mechanism do you propose for the setting of the polarizer at side 1 to influence the polarization of the photon at side 2?
Esail wrote:Heinera wrote:Esail,
On page 895 you write "the polarization of the incoming photon at side 2 depends on the setting of the polarizer at side 1 although there is no nonlocal action."
But this is the very definition of non-local. What kind of mechanism do you propose for the setting of the polarizer at side 1 to influence the polarization of the photon at side 2?
P1 is set to alpha. Then the polarizer at side 1 selects all photons with p-state alpha from the incoming photons having polarization 0° or 90°.
Those photons have peer photons at side 2 (polarization 90° or 0°) with p-state alpha+90°from the time of their creation in the source. This is clearly local.
According to model assumption M3 the polarization of the selected ensemble of photon 2 is then equal to the p-state alpha+90°. This is also local reasoning as it only refers to what is already present at side 2.
Heinera wrote:Esail wrote:Heinera wrote:Esail,
And what happens if the experimenter changes P1 from alpha to something else a split second before a photon arrives? What happens then to the polarization of the photon at side 2?
Esail wrote:
The ensemble for the measurement is selected by P1. If you change alpha no matter at what time you get a different ensemble at side 1 as well as at side 2, of course with a different polarization.
Heinera wrote:
Then it sounds like you are exploiting the detection loophole (also known as the fair sampling loophole).
Esail wrote:Heinera wrote:
Then it sounds like you are exploiting the detection loophole (also known as the fair sampling loophole).
Can you explain why you think I'm exploiting a loophole?
Heinera wrote:If you by changing the polarization of P1 can can cause a statistically different ensemble of photons to be detected at station 2, this violates the fair sampling assumption.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 41 guests