FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, and with the advent of these two recent classical experiments that show strong correlations, it shouldn't be long now hopefully that Bell's theorem is relegated to the dustbin of other failed no-go theorems.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3338
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6239
As I have said many times, experimenters are very clever and it shouldn't be long before a Weihs, et al, type experiment is checked in the classical domain. Of course that would be a stepping stone to the ultimate test with a mechanical experiment.
gill1109 wrote:The Weihs et al experiment suffers severely from the well-known loopholes, in particular, the detection loophole.
After 50 years of trying hard, the experimentalists still haven't succeeded in doing the good experiment in the quantum domain. No-one has been trying to do this experiment in the classical domain, except for the army of believers in local hidden variables models who have tried to implement their models in computer simulations. So far they were only succesful by exploiting the known loopholes, ie by performing the wrong experiment.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:The Weihs et al experiment suffers severely from the well-known loopholes, in particular, the detection loophole.
After 50 years of trying hard, the experimentalists still haven't succeeded in doing the good experiment in the quantum domain. No-one has been trying to do this experiment in the classical domain, except for the army of believers in local hidden variables models who have tried to implement their models in computer simulations. So far they were only successful by exploiting the known loopholes, ie by performing the wrong experiment.
And once again... Gill is on the total wrong track.
Joy Christian wrote:Off topic. Stay out of phoney and macho rhetoric and stay on the topic of this thread: Absolute versus Relative Angles in the Bell-CHSH Scandal.
Experimenters are very clever and it shouldn't be long before a Weihs, et al, type experiment is checked in the classical domain
gill1109 wrote:Back on topic: if you are only interested in relative angles you might as well keep Alice's angle fixed and only vary Bob's. This means that Alice's angle can be taken as known, only Bob's varies, and on Bob's side of the experiment, both angles are known. Not difficult to create "quantum correlations" by classical means.
Remember EPR? In each wing of the experiment, there are two different measurements which can be made. Position or momentum. No EPR paradox when the way one of the particles is measured, is fixed. Seems we have to blame Einstein for this obsession of the Bell mafia with absolute angles, varying in both wings of the experiment.
Joy Christian wrote:It is worth adding here that even the demand of a control over the absolute values of angles have been met in this simulation, despite the fact that such a demand cannot be justified on the quantum mechanical grounds.
Thus, even the pseudo-demands of the Bell mafia have been successfully met by the correlation surface generated in the simulation:
Ben6993 wrote:You have replied to a post by Richard Gill who says that he has since been barred from this site. I am mentioning this for anyone who might expect a reply to you from Richard. He cannot reply here.
Jonathan Dickau wrote:
Well said Tom,
Your post ... sums up the salient features of Joy Christian's model nicely. I think that the existence of an extra-dimensional framework is essential to understanding the quantum correlations problem, and that Joy goes to the core of the issue. Peter's approach seems mainly to deal with the phenomenology, which may be more like the conventional approach to Physics in some ways, but JC points out that the assumption of an underlying reality with a topological twist provides an elegant answer why some of those intriguing phenomena occur in the first place.
The thing is; Joy is simply citing facts of geometry and topology that are indisputable realities, and asserting that they explain the Physics we observe. However; showing that the rudiments of geometry dictate the properties of space is difficult, in a world where the majority of physicists feel that the Physics is determining the properties of space, rather than the other way around.
Regards,
Jonathan
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests