Esail wrote:I’ve posted an update of my preprint “On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem”
on ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28737.38242
In the preprint, a local model is presented, which precisely makes the quantum mechanical predictions for measurement results on entangled photons or spin 1/2 particles. In the previous version, some readers had difficulty understanding that the model presented is really local. These problems have been addressed in this version through clearer explanations of the individual assumptions and their consequences.
My interest in the discussion is in two things:
1. The assessment of contextuality based on the indistinguishability of the particles
2. The discussion of the consequences of a local hidden variable model for our understanding of the quantum world
gill1109 wrote:
I'm afraid this model is not "local". The description of what happens to the particles going to detector 2 just before equation (20) depends on delta = beta - alpha - pi.
Bell did not have a problem with contextuality. A local context (at each measurement station) is not an issue. His problem was the conjunction of locality and realism.
gill1109 wrote:I'm afraid this model is not "local". The description of what happens to the particles going to detector 2 just before equation (20) depends on delta = beta - alpha - pi.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:I'm afraid this model is not "local". The description of what happens to the particles going to detector 2 just before equation (20) depends on delta = beta - alpha - pi.
I have clearly and precisely described my assumptions and derivations in my manuscript. Only this can be the basis for a scientific discussion. There is no point in picking out a term and drawing further conclusions from it. You have to look at the whole derivation and apply your arguments to it. When developing a model, every single formulation counts.
gill1109 wrote:Your paper contradicts very well known and generally accepted mathematical theorems. You don’t explain what is wrong with the proofs of those theorems.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Your paper contradicts very well known and generally accepted mathematical theorems. You don’t explain what is wrong with the proofs of those theorems.
It is completely clear that the parameters alpha and beta must appear in a model, simply because these are freely selectable boundary conditions. One cannot conclude from this that the model is not local or wrong. In order to refute the model, one must deal with the course and the details of the derivation.
Bell's theorem is not a mathematical proof (his inequality is mathematically correct) but the claim that there can be no local model. He overlooked contextual models. This is also stated in the paper. This is not about mathematical questions, but about the physical question of what effects the indistinguishability of particles has.
Physical discussions can be decided without a computer program. Computer programs are not proof and only cover up the essence that matters.
gill1109 wrote:
I don't have to refute your model because I have mathematical proof that your model is not local, and I believe that my proof is correct. You don't believe or don't understand my proof. You do not point out where it is wrong, either.
Esail1 wrote:gill1109 wrote:
I don't have to refute your model because I have mathematical proof that your model is not local, and I believe that my proof is correct. You don't believe or don't understand my proof. You do not point out where it is wrong, either.
Why don't you show us your proof that my model is not local?
gill1109 wrote:My proof that your model is not local is Bell’s theorem.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:My proof that your model is not local is Bell’s theorem.
You say that a proof that Bell's theorem is wrong cannot be right because Bell's theorem is right. That's pretty absurd and illogical.
gill1109 wrote:If Bell’s theorem is right (because there is a correct proof of it) then there cannot be a correct proof that it is wrong. If someone alleges to have a disproof, their disproof is wrong.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:If Bell’s theorem is right (because there is a correct proof of it) then there cannot be a correct proof that it is wrong. If someone alleges to have a disproof, their disproof is wrong.
Bell stated this theorem in his 1964 paper: “In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.”
There is no correct proof that Bell's theorem is right. Presenting a contextual local model would refute his theorem. This was done with my paper without you having refuted it.
gill1109 wrote:I think there are correct proofs of Bell’s theorem.
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:I think there are correct proofs of Bell’s theorem.
Bell did not prove that his theorem was correct, only that a non-contextual model obeyed his (Bell's) inequality.
In a local contextual model, there are no definite properties of the particles because they are indistinguishable. Therefore, the measurement results depend on the selection of the particles by the measuring instrument (polarizer or Stern Gerlach apparatus). However, Bell did not consider these types of models.
This is why his claim that only non-local models can map the measurement results in the singlet state is simply wrong.
gill1109 wrote: His (Bell’s () formulation does allow contextuality. .
Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote: His (Bell’s () formulation does allow contextuality. .
This is not true. In a contextual model, measurement values do not exist unambiguously independent of the selected context. But in Bell's model from 1964 they do. Thus, his derivation in the 1964 paper cannot include contextual models. In Bell's response to the critic you mentioned, he did not dispel this objection either.
gill1109 wrote:Bell’s A(a, lambda) is an arbitrary function of the initial state of everything relevant in all of the physical systems involved - detectors, source, transmission lines - and of the setting “a”, which is later introduced into Alice’s detector, from outside. A dial on an apparatus is set to point at “a”. “lambda” is the context!
Do you claim your model can be programmed? Do you accept my rules - a proposed procedure to test that it correctly implements locality? Would it pass the tests which I’ve outlined?
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 87 guests