FrediFizzx wrote:
??? I don't understand what the challenge is. Just email Gregor Weihs and get the 1998 data for the above.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
??? I don't understand what the challenge is. Just email Gregor Weihs and get the 1998 data for the above.
No need to email anyone. The challenge is to simply fill out the table using actual data, as I have explained. No one will be able to do that, including Gregor Weihs or Alain Aspect.
The important point here is that quantum mechanics does not predict what Bell-believers demand from a local-realistic theory. Quantum mechanics does not predict the above table.
If anyone disagrees with me, then all they have to do is to fill out the table, as I have explained, using actual data, and providing a published reference to the actual experiment.
***
FrediFizzx wrote:
Nobody is going to respond to that.
FrediFizzx wrote:
Of course QM does not predict the individual events. That is not the point of the experiments.
FrediFizzx wrote:
But they do cheat when comparing to the Bell inequalities. No experiment has ever violated the inequalities. Exceed the Bell bounds, yes; violate, no. They simply shifted to an inequality with a higher bound which they never exceed that bound.
FrediFizzx wrote:The experimenters are simply observing what Nature does. Here is a link to download the raw dataset.
https://data.4tu.nl/repository/uuid:6e1 ... 60bf3c0a31
Download the zip file at the bottom of the page. You can decipher the raw dataset on your own by reading all the instructions in the paper, etc. There is nothing funny going on with table above. It is simply what the experimenters observed. I will run my own CHSH analysis on it to see what the result is.
FrediFizzx wrote:
The Bell fans expect that if a theory is completely and thoroughly realistic, it should be able to predict the correct A and B outcomes event by event if one knows all the variables.
FrediFizzx wrote:
For me, Nature does it the same every time so if a theory can't do that, then you simply are missing some variable(s). If it was a coin toss situation, Nature wouldn't do it the same every time.
FrediFizzx wrote:
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics at all. It only has to do with what Nature does. So forget about quantum mechanics. The solution will not be quantum mechanical.
You don't know that Nature would get -- for that event. If you know all the variables, you could predict ++ every time.
FrediFizzx wrote:
I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.
Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.
***
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.
Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.
***
Thanks, but I am not so sure about "revolutionize" since it is just another logical step in progress. But it sure would show that QM is not a complete theory without the hidden variable(s). And kill Bell's junk physics theory for good. :D It will be unrefutable.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:
The Bell fans expect that if a theory is completely and thoroughly realistic, it should be able to predict the correct A and B outcomes event by event if one knows all the variables.
YetAnotherGuest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
I'm working on the completeness mystery and am getting closer to solving it as each day passes.
Good luck with it. I don't think you will succeed; but if you do, then you will have gone beyond what quantum mechanics predicts. At the very least, that would revolutionize physics.
***
Thanks, but I am not so sure about "revolutionize" since it is just another logical step in progress. But it sure would show that QM is not a complete theory without the hidden variable(s). And kill Bell's junk physics theory for good. It will be unrefutable.
.
Bell's analysis is not physics. It's a simple little bit of logic and mathematics. Every physicist is allowed to do with it just whatever they like, but they can't deny it. They can't deny that in mathematics (talking about the integers) 1 + 1 = 2. It's a tautology. It applies to the real world, if we are careful. 1 apple plus 1 orange = 2 items from the fruit bowl on my dining room table.
Bohr would have ignored it. He would simply have said "I told you so". Einstein would, however, not have been so happy. Bell himself concluded as follows:
"For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory".
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests