Mikko wrote:OOPS, seems I misunderstood "each measurement". Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.
And how many such measurements from the same pair of particles is done in EPRB experiments?
Mikko wrote:OOPS, seems I misunderstood "each measurement". Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.
Mikko wrote:Ben6993 wrote:my view is that the electron is only in spacetime at the two interactions (creation of the pair and measurement)
Note however that the presence of the electron at the measurement (as well as its absence at other measurements) does depend on the matter content of other spacetime events.
minkwe wrote:Mikko wrote:Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.
And how many such measurements from the same pair of particles is done in EPRB experiments?
Xray wrote:minkwe wrote:Mikko wrote:Of course all measurements of the same pair of particles have the same value of λ.
And how many such measurements from the same pair of particles is done in EPRB experiments?
Nobel Award on its way to minkwe for the best one-sentence demolition of an established theory in the history of science
News just to hand
"I'd say that it would deliver the Bell inequalities."Xray wrote:
gill1109 thank you
now you and I and everyone can set an example like this to make a lot more progress
Reference Watson's equation (12) - To ALL - specially laureate minkwe, Gordon Watson, gill1109
Equation (12) has a question mark in it but what if we did the LHS of (12) as a thought experiment - what would you say about (12) then ?
Who knows what excuses they'll invent for Bell's error? In my confident opinion: "No! It is based on sloppy maths!"Xray wrote:
and because LHS of Equation (12) is all over the place in text-books and papers - so is Bell 1964 based on LHS of (12) as a thought experiment?
I answered No - so not applicable to me.Xray wrote:
If the answer is yes - why would they do that ?
Correct! So, in that you do not expect any sensible physicist to test a physically unrealistic thought-experiment in any way (it's unphysical, remember): then they must have thought the maths was correct; independent of ANY thought or critical analysis -- but (no doubt) influenced by their training in quantum mysteries.Xray wrote:
because no actually real experiment could check it could they ?
gill1109 wrote:It is only Gordon Watson and possibly one or two others who think that deriving the CHSH inequality comes down to testing a single pristine particle pair four times. I would say that Watson's critique of Bell is a "straw-man attack". Invent some travesty of Bell's reasoning and show that it's silly.
Well it's not so difficult to do that. Bell is subtle. And one needs to have some understanding of probability and statistics, and the difference between theory and experiment, and the difference between mathematical models and reality. However some people think that raising this kind of subtleties is just creating as smoke-screen of words to hide a nasty smell. OK. Discussion closed. No communication is possible.
Xray wrote:gill1109 wrote:It is only Gordon Watson and possibly one or two others who think that deriving the CHSH inequality comes down to testing a single pristine particle pair four times. I would say that Watson's critique of Bell is a "straw-man attack". Invent some travesty of Bell's reasoning and show that it's silly.
Well it's not so difficult to do that. Bell is subtle. And one needs to have some understanding of probability and statistics, and the difference between theory and experiment, and the difference between mathematical models and reality. However some people think that raising this kind of subtleties is just creating as smoke-screen of words to hide a nasty smell. OK. Discussion closed. No communication is possible.
gill1109
I had hoped that your GOOD FAITH commitment would hold for more than one day or so.
Is Gordon Watson's equation (12) too much for you to refute and thus educate us all here and now?
That would be your case on LHS of Watson's (12)? Is that correct?
With Watson, minkwe, "reputable experimenters" (plus who else?) on the RHS of Watson's equation (12).
And while I am on the subject before you close all discussion here please point to any other specific Paragraphs and Equations from Watson's essay that you have demolished
One-liner clinchers like minkwe's award winning entry would be nice
Xray
gill1109 wrote:There is nothing to refute in Watson's equation (12). He states two arithmetic trivialities. What is there to be refuted?
Gordon Watson wrote:"And gill1109, to arrive at his erroneous bounds of ±2, requires each EPRB-based particle-pair to be PHYSICALLY tested 4 (FOUR) times, correct?" Well, in the interests of good-faith, let's leave gill1109 to answer that question about PHYSICAL EPRB-based tests! [Are you there gill1109?]
gill1109 wrote:...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014...
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014...
Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014...
Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.
We are all quantum c****pot, in one very meaningful sense, and one should wear that appelation as a badge of honour.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 said "...the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014 ..."
Good to know that you now refer to yourself as a "quantum c****pot." I am glad that you finally realized what you truly are.
We are all quantum c****pot, in one very meaningful sense, and one should wear that appelation as a badge of honour.
We are all individuals.
gill1109 wrote:He just gave a talk at the Växjö conference, the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014. The 10th slide is about Gordon Watson but he kept it anonymous.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:He just gave a talk at the Växjö conference, the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014. The 10th slide is about Gordon Watson but he kept it anonymous.
Slide #20 is also funny, as it shows the lack of understanding that a cosine curve which plots the DIFFERENCE between Alice and Bob's angles vs the correlation, means in fact that Alice and Bob's angles have been varied, otherwise you would get a single point.
Slide #5 is my favorite. The whole thing looks to me like a classified ad, so you could easily ask what he is selling. Who knows, hopefully it was more interesting than is apparent from the slides alone.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests