FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a simple analytical computation of Joy's model using quaternions in Mathematica.
...
There should be no further debate about this. Bell's theory is kaput. Here is the Mathematica file for those that might be interested.
EPRsims/quat_analytical.nb
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a simple analytical computation of Joy's model using quaternions in Mathematica.
There should be no further debate about this. Bell's theory is kaput. Here is the Mathematica file for those that might be interested.
EPRsims/quat_analytical.nb
.
Heinera wrote:There will be no further debate, because this is just stupid.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Ah but of course, some lamo wants to further debate it so he can spew more nonsense about it.
Can one find some functions (2) and some probability distribution π(µ) which reproduces the correlation (1)? Yes, many, but now we add the hypothesis of locality, that the setting b of a particular instrument has no effect on what happens, A, in a remote region, and likewise that a has no effect on B:
A(a, µ), B(b, µ). (3)
With these local forms, it is not possible to find functions A and B and a probability distribution π which give the correlation (1). This is the theorem. The proof will not be repeated here.
gill1109 wrote:Excellent, Fred! This is Joy’s model in a nutshell, as I see it too.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Excellent, Fred! This is Joy’s model in a nutshell, as I see it too.
Ah good, so you finally agree that Bell's theory is shot down! Thanks.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 You admitted that Joy's local model predicts -a.b via a product calculation just like QM predicts it via a production calculation. So, you are back to talking complete nonsense again just like your comment paper.
gill1109 wrote:
Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".
Where does Bell say in his writings that his so-called "theorem" is a theorem in computer technology?
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".
Where does Bell say in his writings that his so-called "theorem" is a theorem in computer technology?
Of course Bell never said that. Gill made it up into Gill's theory and is still struggling with Gull's proof. It is pretty much a waste of time to further debate the fact that Bell's theory is shot down along with all the so-called Bell proofs. So, what do the Bell fans do when his theory is shot down? They move the goalpost to a local theory has to simulate an EPR experiment. It is pure freakin' nonsense since QM can't simulate an experiment either.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests