observer wrote:I read about this somewhere else https://pubpeer.com/publications/B08756 ... 1C#fb22567
Joy Christian wrote:The central question is: Whether the world is governed by fundamentally probabilistic laws or deterministic laws? In other words, the question is: Whether or not the quantum mechanical randomness is reducible to ordinary classical randomness (as in coin tossing, gambling, weather, or currency fluctuations).
Joy Christian wrote:What is more, now I have even managed to get an important paper published in a highly respected physics journal --- a journal in which Feynman published his pioneering paper on quantum computers, for example. This is what has made people like Gill go ballistic.
Schmelzer wrote:Gill was faster publishing a refutation.
Yablon wrote:First, extraordinary care must be taken to get one's own house in order before even thinking about crying foul. The worst thing to have happen, is for someone to complain that they are being "censored," and then to have someone else easily prove that the allegedly censored theory is objectively flawed. While I have certainly felt the strong headwinds for many years, it is very important to tend to "one's own house" and make certain that the work proposed is on solid ground before taking on the fight. It is only after the proponent feels highly secure about his or her ability to objectively defend his or her work that it is advisable to start the full court press against the "establishment" and its censors and gatekeepers and power and money centers.
Joy Christian wrote:According to an online book review by Richard Gill, Karl Hess actually makes a much more serious charge in his book against Larsson and Gill. Karl Hess points out that Larsson and Gill [Europhys. Lett. 67 707 (2004)] actually stole the ideas discussed in their paper from Hess and Philipp. Now that charge is much more serious than the petty harassments and other intimidation tactics by the Bell mafia I was referring to earlier: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.
Gill wrote:The rough sinusoidal shape of the error curves is because the *same* sample of 10^6 hidden variables is being used for all possible measurement angles. That saves a heap of time, but creates correlation. Which wouldn't be there, of course, if we used a new sample to calculate each separate point on the curve.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests