FrediFizzx wrote:Let's suppose for a minute that it is possible for quantum mechanics to predict the individual event by event outcomes for A and B. How might one go about doing that? Well, we would have to construct measurement functions for A and B,
Well, we know from Bell those functions give the straight line triangle correlation. But that would be the QM prediction for an event by event simulation of an EPR scenario which of course matches other local theory predictions. Of course, the experiments say that it is probably wrong.
gill1109 wrote:Please explain what you mean by your limit notation. How can s converge to a limit which depends on s?
FrediFizzx wrote:It is quite amazing that a mathematician doesn't understand how a limit substitution process works! Ah, but 'tis a typical Gill distraction from the main result that QM might predict the straight line triangle correlation for event by event outcomes.
Dear Fred, you were clearly never trained in the epsilon-delta definitions of basic concepts in calculus.
Never mind. You do say some interesting things. There are indeed QM models which predict the triangle wave rather than the negative cosine. They do allow the modelling of event-by-event outcomes, without conspiracy or post-selection, because they are QM models which satisfy the properties collected under the notion of "local realism". I can give you one, if you like. We could publish it together. It is interesting that you now are promoting such models. Does this mean that you will rewrite your programs for Joy Christian so that they produce the triangle wave instead of the negative cosine? They could then be run on separated computers. They would be eligible for my challenge (could be used to honestly simulate a loophole-free experiment) but would not win it (they wouldn't violate any Bell inequalities).