Joy Christian wrote:You understandably do not want to get involved in the correctness of the usual interpretation of the Aspect-type experiments, but I cannot let your comment go without a response: I have systematically reproduced
all statistical results of Aspect-type experiments purely local-realistically in
this paper (which is published as chapter 8 in
the second edition of my book). Further details about my interpretation of such experiments can be found here:
http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.
Just knew I should have been more careful to add an 'in' prefix to 'correctness', or added a following '(or incorrectness)' - but too late, I have paid the price!
Joy, i remain a fence-sitter and it largely has to do with your claim that some form of torsion is intimately involved. Just cannot imagine how. As I wrote in another thread, torsion in the space-time sense of the word is traditionally associated with gravitation. Always afaik in such cases there is inhomogeneity involved - finite torsion is equivalent to finite spacetime curvature which in GR is owing to some appreciable non-uniform SET (stress-energy-momentum) distribution. Yet we all know Bell-type Alice-Bob experiments are rightly assumed to hold in arbitrarily flat spacetimes - notionally completely devoid of appreciable SET. Whence the torsion then?
Rightly or wrongly, and I believe the essence of the criticisms of Richard Gill and Florin Moldoveanu are such, you have been accused of having (inadvertently) constructed in essence a very sophisticated version of the old 'think of a number' trick:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Mathemagic/Now noting you claim that quantum reality obeys both locality and determinism, seems to me that you would suddenly win over legions of former sceptics and fence-sitters if you could furnish an all-points-along-the-way visual animation of a Bell-type Alice/Bob experiment. Showing just precisely how torsion enters the picture so as to give the famous sinusoidally modulated correlations of standard QM, and not the linear one normally assumed to be the limit of any realistic and local hidden variables theory.
As a sociological aside I should add that instead of appreciating my results some in the Bell community have systematically and relentlessly mistreated me since 2007.
My own efforts to challenge mainstream physics are via much simpler arguments but nonetheless imho involve sound insights. Here's one example of atavistic bastardry experienced:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=498821My claim was meant to be evocative and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but never got far enough for even that to come out. (I later much refined the scenario, but nevertheless met with even worse, savage responses elsewhere)
That same thread-locker zealot for orthodoxy later enthusiastically participated in a thread specifically claiming 'perpetual motion' - and wasn't happy to then have his hypocrisy pointed out. And numerous other examples involving other topics presented could be furnished. So you are not alone in feeling victimized.