Justo wrote:Hi everyone.
This is the first topic I initiate in this forum. Similar issues were already discussed in other threads, however, it is sufficiently interesting and I believe that it deserves a separate thread of its own.
In 2001 Guillaume Adenier published a refutation of Bell's theorem that is extremely interesting and in my opinion relevant to the field https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812810809_0002
Adenier's paper was largely ignored by the physical community as it usually happens with papers rejecting the Bell theorem. The reason I believe Adenier's paper is relevant is that it is based on a widespread mistake that many "Bell-believers" think is correct.
Ironically the people noticing it is a mistake assume that it is the only way of interpreting Bell's derivation and conclude that the Bell inequality is immense nonsense.
I explain how the Bell inequality can and should be interpreted, in Adenier's parlance, as a weakly objective result. The explanation can be found in section 4 of my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.10238v5
I already discussed in this forum the arguments upholding the strong objective interpretation, however, I am open to here where my weakly objective interpretation fails.
Justo wrote:@Fredizzx the correctness of your computational model belongs to a different discussion and, of course, if you think it is unquestionably correct, nothing else matters.
local wrote:Justo, you are dancing on the head of a pin.
Justo wrote:local wrote:Justo, you are dancing on the head of a pin.
Hi, local each one of those who deny Bell's theorem has his own reasons, FrediFizzx has a computational model, Gordon has his own mathematical proof, Joy now holds that Bell committed the same mistake he criticized in von Neumann proof, Essail has a counterexample, and so on. I do not know your arguments against Bell but the thing is that the reasons that motivate one person are different from what motivate others and is natural that each one is willing to discuss only his own reasons.
I brought up the case of Adenier because it is a widespread claim.
Justo wrote:Hi everyone.
This is the first topic I initiate in this forum. Similar issues were already discussed in other threads, however, it is sufficiently interesting and I believe that it deserves a separate thread of its own.
In 2001 Guillaume Adenier published a refutation of Bell's theorem that is extremely interesting and in my opinion relevant to the field https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812810809_0002
Adenier's paper was largely ignored by the physical community as it usually happens with papers rejecting the Bell theorem. The reason I believe Adenier's paper is relevant is that it is based on a widespread mistake that many "Bell-believers" think is correct.
Ironically the people noticing it is a mistake assume that it is the only way of interpreting Bell's derivation and conclude that the Bell inequality is immense nonsense.
I explain how the Bell inequality can and should be interpreted, in Adenier's parlance, as a weakly objective result. The explanation can be found in section 4 of my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.10238v5
I already discussed in this forum the arguments upholding the strong objective interpretation, however, I am open to here where my weakly objective interpretation fails.
Justo wrote:The freedom of the experimenters to choose their settings is a fundamental hypothesis for obtaining the Bell inequality
Justo wrote: I do not know your arguments against Bell...
local wrote:Justo wrote: I do not know your arguments against Bell...
I don't argue against Bell. I believe that QM does not in fact predict -a.b for EPRB, and that the experiments do not in fact show -a.b. That puts me in a very small club. I suppose you could say I agree with Fred that nothing can violate the CH inequality (absent information transfer between the sides), but for different reasons than Fred. All roads lead to Rome.
Sorry about the pinhead comment. It sounded clever at the time.
local wrote:There is no Gill theory.
FrediFizzx wrote:local wrote:There is no Gill theory.
Unfortunately there is or this would have been all over in 2007.
local wrote:What theory? C'mon man. It's all derivative nitpicking, pretending. Don't dignify it. We have dragons to slay.
local wrote: ... We have dragons to slay.
FrediFizzx wrote:local wrote:There is no Gill theory.
Unfortunately there is or this would have been all over in 2007.
gill1109 wrote:
The question is how: how can you explain the findings of state-of-the-art experiments?
gill1109 wrote: "local", indeed you are a special case. You think that conventional QM predictions are wrong because entanglement does not continue to exist at large distances.
Quite a few people used to think the same, and Donald Graft is a recent author who indeed recently argues that this is the case.
But I am not interested in QM predictions.
The question is now: how can you explain the findings of state-of-the-art experiments? You can of course point out the imperfections of the 2015 experiments. You can stick by your belief that those imperfections can never be removed.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests