FrediFizzx wrote:The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup.
Yablon wrote:And especially, why don't we see if we are overlooking something in quantum mechanics itself, which actually reveals QM to be an LRHV theory which to date has simply not been understood as such?
Jay
Heinera wrote:There can thus be nothing we have overlooked in QM itself that makes it a classical LHRV theory, unless it takes the CHSH expression below 2. Which would then no longer make it QM (and also empirically wrong, given the latest experiments.)
Yablon wrote:Heinera wrote:There can thus be nothing we have overlooked in QM itself that makes it a classical LHRV theory, unless it takes the CHSH expression below 2. Which would then no longer make it QM (and also empirically wrong, given the latest experiments.)
I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.
Yablon wrote:I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.
Heinera wrote:Yablon wrote:I did not say that if QM would become a classical theory. I just said that it might actually contain some previously overlooked attributes which make it a LRHV theory, but still non-classical, which explains strong correlations. I will post something soon with more details about what I have in mind.
But an LHRV theory is basically the definition of a classical theory. I prefer "local realistic" to "hidden variables", but that's more a preference for phrases.
The point is that if a theory is "realistic", (i.e. you can compute definite outcomes even for experiments not performed, but only thought of), and "local" (Alice's choice does not influence Bob's result), then it's classical in my view. And for these theories, the CHSH expression has an upper bound of 2.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup.
Ah, so you think that it is the possibility to do multiple measurements with different detector settings on the same particle that is the culprit here. I will come back to you why this doesn't really matter, since this is the thing I overlooked at first (ref my earlier post, where you requested I be concrete about what I initially overlooked when I first encountered Bell's theorem). ...snip...
FrediFizzx wrote:What did I tell you folks? Bizarre rationalization that an inequality with a higher bound is used for QM and the experiments. The assumption that has to go is the interdependency that Bell setup. It doesn't apply to QM or the experiments or anything really. Bell's inequalities are never violated. Does QM and the experiments obtain a higher value than the bound on the Bell inequalities? Sure, but it is also possible for a classical system to have a higher bound than what Bell setup because the interdependency Bell setup is false as witnessed above by how QM seemingly violates his bound which it never does. IOW, he has the wrong bound on the inequalities. Bell screwed up thus his theory is junk physics.
"Therefore, if we have a violation of a non-trivial Boole inequality, then we must conclude that we have not achieved a one to one correspondence of our variables to the elementary eternally true logical variables of Boole and that we need further “coordinates” that will then remove the cyclicity."
FrediFizzx wrote:The Lorentz Center looks like a very nice place. It looks like they are booked up pretty good for the rest of this year. Are you going to be able to get a spot early next year?
gill1109 wrote:Below are links to the two relevant RSOS web pages, and to Lorentz Center mission and workshop organization.
gill1109 wrote:Below are links to the relevant RSOS web page and to the Lorentz Center mission and workshop organization webpages.
Richard D. Gill wrote:
I think Joy should aim at convincing others. The point of the symposium is to give Joy a podium on which to do so. I offered him this symposium in order to atone, as far as I can, for the anguish I caused him in the past. I should not have pursued him, like I did, to all far corners of the internet! It was an unhealthy obsession on my part, and it caused harm to Joy and to others, which I'm deeply sorry for.
Joy Christian wrote:Richard D. Gill wrote:
I think Joy should aim at convincing others. The point of the symposium is to give Joy a podium on which to do so. I offered him this symposium in order to atone, as far as I can, for the anguish I caused him in the past. I should not have pursued him, like I did, to all far corners of the internet! It was an unhealthy obsession on my part, and it caused harm to Joy and to others, which I'm deeply sorry for.
Apology accepted, as long as it is sincere.
***
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 1 guest