gill1109 wrote:Clearly there are a lot of scientists doing interesting work who feel strongly that Bell was wrong. There should be a Wikipedia page on that topic. I have started drafting something on my Wikipedia user talk page. In order for such an article to stay reasonably stable, it is important to follow Wikipedia’s rules very carefully and completely in good faith, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gill110951
A first question is what should the name of the article be. It must be completely uncontroversial. I suggest “Opposition to Bell’s theorem”
Gordon Watson wrote:gill1109 wrote:Clearly there are a lot of scientists doing interesting work who feel strongly that Bell was wrong. There should be a Wikipedia page on that topic. I have started drafting something on my Wikipedia user talk page. In order for such an article to stay reasonably stable, it is important to follow Wikipedia’s rules very carefully and completely in good faith, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gill110951
A first question is what should the name of the article be. It must be completely uncontroversial. I suggest “Opposition to Bell’s theorem”
Good idea Richard.
Suggestion. Use different categories (subsets) for different interests. For me, I'd help with Bell's theorem: mathematical objections.
After all, BT is first and foremost a mathematical error! See this 2-page PDF: https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0068
To help separate the wheat from the chaff, there might also be: Bell's theorem: physical objections, Bell's theorem: philosophical objections.
Best, Gordon
Gordon Watson wrote:Thanks Richard,
I Iook forward to learning more from you here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451
Cheers; Gordon
FrediFizzx wrote:I'm still waiting to see some actual rigorous mathematical proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct. Bell's so-called "theorem" has been shattered to pieces so Gill's "theorem" has nothing to do with Bell at all.
.
so Alice’s measurement setting is communicated by a positron travelling backwards in time from Alice’s detector to the source, where it is communicated to an electron travelling forwards in time to Bob’s detector? And of course the same thing happens, exchanging Alice and Bob?
(Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???)
Bell’s *theorem* does apply. You do not violate locality or realism, but you use “conspiracy”. You use time travel to communicate the future at one place to the past at another.
Sure it can be made mathematically exact and I suggest mathematically isomorphic to the maths of QM, though I fear not in a way which treats Alice and Bob identically.
So you can say it is an “explanation” of the physical phenomenon we are talking about. I don’t think it is an explanation. It seems to me more like a cute (and very clever) math conjuring trick.
gill1109 wrote: Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???.
local wrote:gill1109 wrote: Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???.
That's a spurious request because QM also has a problem there. When the measurements are separated, the joint prediction cannot be used; rather, Luders' projection must be used. But now you have one side projecting the other, which is not symmetric, that is, Alice and Bob are not treated the same.
Gordon Watson wrote: By working with the joint prediction, I believe that my theorising treats Alice and Bob equally.
So I'd welcome your comments at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451; see post dated Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:03 am for Version 2 of my Draft entitled: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory.
local wrote:Gordon Watson wrote: By working with the joint prediction, I believe that my theorising treats Alice and Bob equally.
Well sure, but you cannot use the joint prediction because it requires that each side knows the other side's measurement setting, and it does not reflect the experimental arrangement (separated measurement).So I'd welcome your comments at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=451; see post dated Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:03 am for Version 2 of my Draft entitled: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory.
I'll have a look. Is that version the cleaned-up one without the spurious beta, etc?
Gordon Watson wrote: 2. And please let me know if this comment still holds in what I attempt: "Well sure, but you cannot use the joint prediction because it requires that each side knows the other side's measurement setting, and it does not reflect the experimental arrangement (separated measurement)."
3. Don't we need the joint prediction to derive the expectation? Without any reference to who knows what?
local wrote:gill1109 wrote: Can you do it in a way which treats Alice and Bob the same way???.
That's a spurious request because QM also has a problem there. When the measurements are separated, the joint prediction cannot be used; rather, Luders' projection must be used. But now you have one side projecting the other, which is not symmetric, that is, Alice and Bob are not treated the same.
local wrote:Gill wants to be the sole arbiter of 'the real explanation'. But his shameless espousal of quantum mysticism negates any such claim. Intelligent people laugh at 'quantum nonlocality'.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests