Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?
Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?
There is a Dutch saying “even a donkey doesn’t bump twice into the same stone”, the moral being that you’re stupid if you try something again and again and expect a different outcome. See also http://xkcd.com/242/
Then there is the famous quotation "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?
There is a Dutch saying “even a donkey doesn’t bump twice into the same stone”, the moral being that you’re stupid if you try something again and again and expect a different outcome. See also http://xkcd.com/242/
Then there is the famous quotation "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
On that count Bell and his followers are certainly insane. After all the experiments to date violating the Bell inequality without exception they haven't learned a thing.
gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately still no loophole-free experiment. Emilios Santos wrote a wonderful article 10 years ago "Bell's theorem and the experiments: Increasing empirical support to local realism"It is argued that local realism is a fundamental principle, which might be rejected only if experiments clearly show that it is untenable. A critical review is presented of the derivations of Bell's inequalities and the performed experiments, with the conclusion that no valid, loophole-free, test exists of local realism vs. quantum mechanics. It is pointed out that, without any essential modification, quantum mechanics might be compatible with local realism. This suggests that the principle may be respected by nature.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410193
In other words, to date, the experiments don't prove anything.
gill1109 wrote: [..]
Unfortunately still no loophole-free experiment. Emilios Santos wrote a wonderful article 10 years ago "Bell's theorem and the experiments: Increasing empirical support to local realism"It is argued that local realism is a fundamental principle, which might be rejected only if experiments clearly show that it is untenable. A critical review is presented of the derivations of Bell's inequalities and the performed experiments, with the conclusion that no valid, loophole-free, test exists of local realism vs. quantum mechanics. It is pointed out that, without any essential modification, quantum mechanics might be compatible with local realism. This suggests that the principle may be respected by nature.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410193
In other words, to date, the experiments don't prove anything. The experimenters do seem to be getting very close, however.
I named the position that QM could be true and QM itself could prevent (through intrinsic quantum uncertainty relations) the realization of a successful loophole-free experiment "[..].
harry wrote:Yes indeed - a kind of principle of relativity for QM... maybe one day called the Principle of Quantum uncertainty?
Thanks for the link, Santos' paper looks very interesting.
Joy Christian wrote:Therefore it is all the more important that my proposed experiment is realized as soon as possible, even if it turns out to prove me totally wrong. It is a wonderful opportunity---and I claim the only opportunity---where we can test the viability of local realism decisively. It is the only experiment that can actually refute local realism. It is the only experiment in which all of the actual and counterfactual outcomes would exist in a data set, for all eternity, without zero outcomes.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Equation (16) is E(a, b) = 1/N sum_{j = 1}^N {sign (λj · a)} {sign(−λj · b)}
So: are a, b and λj unit vectors in R^3 ?
Is "." the scalar dot product?
Is "sign" the usual sign function?
Is everything else ordinary arithmetic?Are a, b and λj unit vectors in R^3 ?
Yes.Is "." the scalar dot product?
Yes.Is "sign" the usual sign function?
Yes.Is everything else ordinary arithmetic?
Yes.
gill1109 wrote:No ambiguities.
Suppose the experiment has delivered us the data sets u_1, ... u_N and v_1, ..., v_N.
Define
A = A(j) = sign(a . u_j),
A' = A'(j) = sign(a' . u_j),
B = B(j) = sign(b . v_j),
B' = B'(j) = sign(b'. v_j)
For each j, A B + A B' + A'B - A'B' = +/- 2.
Therefore averaging over j = 1 ... N
E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b') lies between -2 and +2
gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately the experiment is certain to fail.
Joy Christian wrote:Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away
Joy Christian wrote:Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away
gill1109 wrote:No ambiguities.
Suppose the experiment has delivered us the data sets u_1, ... u_N and v_1, ..., v_N.
Define
A = A(j) = sign(a . u_j),
A' = A'(j) = sign(a' . u_j),
B = B(j) = sign(b . v_j),
B' = B'(j) = sign(b'. v_j)
For each j, A B + A B' + A'B - A'B' = +/- 2.
Therefore averaging over j = 1 ... N
E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b') lies between -2 and +2
Thus there is no way that three of the correlations will be within +/- 0.2 of 0.7071 and one within +/- 0.2 of - 0.7071.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away
I'm afraid that my evidence doesn't go away. But you can close your eyes to it forever, feel free ...
gill1109 wrote:Suppose the experiment has delivered us the data sets u_1, ... u_N and v_1, ..., v_N.
Define
A = A(j) = sign(a . u_j),
A' = A'(j) = sign(a' . u_j),
B = B(j) = sign(b . v_j),
B' = B'(j) = sign(b'. v_j)
For each j, A B + A B' + A'B - A'B' = +/- 2.
Therefore averaging over j = 1 ... N
E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b') lies between -2 and +2
Thus there is no way that three of the correlations will be within +/- 0.2 of 0.7071 and one within +/- 0.2 of - 0.7071.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:This is my evidence.
Keep it safe
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:This is my evidence.
Keep it safe
Joy Christian wrote:And let other people speak for themselves. You are not their mouthpiece.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 76 guests