gill1109 wrote:...my paper *has* been read by a lot of smart people...
This idea, called locality or, more precisely, relativistic local causality, is just one of the three principles. Its formulation refers to outcomes of measurements which are not actually performed, so we have to assume their existence, alongside of the outcomes of those actually performed: the principle of realism, or more precisely, counterfactual denfiniteness.
"By existence of the outcomes of not actually performed experiments, we only mean their mathematical existence within some mathematical-physical theory of the phenomenon in question"
AB + AB' + A'B - A'B' = A(B+B') + A'(B-B')
jdfriedgen wrote:It seems to me that followings are ultimately won by political means, often and unfortunately regardless of the merit of the work. But I'm still curious as to Richard Gill's response to Joy Christian's:
"I DID NOT compute a different correlation to the usual one. I derived correlation E(a, b) = -a.b between measurement results A(a, L) = +1 or -1 and B(b, L) = +1 or -1, in a completely standard manner."
jdfriedgen wrote:It seems to me that followings are ultimately won by political means, often and unfortunately regardless of the merit of the work. But I'm still curious as to Richard Gill's response to Joy Christian's:
"I DID NOT compute a different correlation to the usual one. I derived correlation E(a, b) = -a.b between measurement results A(a, L) = +1 or -1 and B(b, L) = +1 or -1, in a completely standard manner."
gill1109 wrote:To sum up:
Christian seems to me now to be propagating a different model (two page summary, A) from his earlier one (one page paper, C). I think of them as Christian 1.0 and Christian 2.0.
There are some mathematical obscurities in his two page summary which need to be cleared up.
There appears to be a serious mismatch between Christian's two page summary and Fodje's simulation.
gill1109 wrote:If he wants to use a "rigorous" (loophole free) inequality, he should consider using the Clauser/Horne (Eberhard) inequality. It corresponds simply to merging the outcomes 0 and -1 so that we have a proper experiment with binary outcomes and no missing particles.
gill1109 wrote:No need to get into a philosophical muddle discussing what realism should or should not mean.
gill1109 wrote:I do not make any extraordinary claim. The claim I make was made by Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Bohr long before Bell's work: namely that quantum mechanics brings intrinsic (irreducible) randomness into physics. The claim is accepted by many, many notable physicists today (Gisin, Zeilinger, Werner, Weihs, ...). John Bell himself agreed that quantum mechanics violated either locality, or realism, or no-conspiracy. His personal inclination was to reject locality, but he accepted that either of the other two alternatives were logical possibilities.
gill1109 wrote:Christian keeps repeating "there are no zero outcomes" but a glance at the output from minkwe's model shows there are lots. A glance at minkwe's description of his simulation affirms their presence.
Joy Christian wrote:There are no "zero outcomes" (whatever you mean by "zero outcomes") either in my model or in Michel's simulation. The initial state is (e, t). It is not just e.
-1 0 1
-1 5 20 169
0 26 24 24
1 148 11 6
-1 0 1
-1 46 36 103
0 36 0 35
1 106 41 42
-1 0 1
-1 4 20 173
0 24 24 27
1 167 15 8
-1 0 1
-1 5 19 137
0 15 52 25
1 137 22 5
gill1109 wrote:Yes the initial state is (e, t) in both your model and in Michel's simulation.
gill1109 wrote:I suggest to Minkwe that he carefully reads sections 2 and 9 of my paper. They are about event-based simulations of rigorous Bell-CHSH type experiments. No need to get into a philosophical muddle discussing what realism should or should not mean.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests