Joy Christian wrote:***
Thanks, Tom.
Aaronson also blocked many of my rebuttals from his sordid blog because they would have been too uncomfortable for him. They would have exposed his dogmatism, ignorance, and hypocrisy. Instead of honestly engaging with my rebuttals openly, he systematically blocked them and resorted to hiding behind insults and treachery.
Anyone who still believes in Bell's "theorem" has to prove it first, to prove that they are engaged in science. Here is their chance: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6681.
***
Richard Gill wrote: You did not respond to my point that there is a simple direct proof that Christian’s assumptions imply that E(a, b) = -1 for all a and b: namely via the equalities A(a, lambda) = – B(b, lambda) = lambda = +/-1 for all a and b, see definitions (54) and (55). No amount of nifty (but correct) mathematical tricks can ever get a different result.
FrediFizzx wrote:Just posted this reply on Retraction Watch and is waiting moderation.Richard Gill wrote: You did not respond to my point that there is a simple direct proof that Christian’s assumptions imply that E(a, b) = -1 for all a and b: namely via the equalities A(a, lambda) = – B(b, lambda) = lambda = +/-1 for all a and b, see definitions (54) and (55). No amount of nifty (but correct) mathematical tricks can ever get a different result.
FrediFizzx wrote:That is all good but approaching it from a different direction shows Gill is completely wrong also. A and B functions that give +/- 1 outcomes are not possible for QM and still have the -a.b prediction. It can only be done using hidden variables. QM does not use A*B for its correlation prediction so it is absurd to think that a LHV model should have to also.
Joy Christian wrote:Bell's point was that no LHV producing A, B = +/-1 can also produce E(a, b) = -a.b. QM is not required to produce +/-1 using A and B because it is not a LHV theory.
Heinera wrote:Re the above, here is a question for Fred: What do you think is the definition of a "local realistic" theory? Local should be obvious, so what it your take on "realistic"?
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:Re the above, here is a question for Fred: What do you think is the definition of a "local realistic" theory? Local should be obvious, so what it your take on "realistic"?
In the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario, the results of theory are predictable without using probability.
FrediFizzx wrote:But I know what you are thinking. If you know lambda, you can predict the individual outcomes at A and B. That is a Bell BS trap.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:Re the above, here is a question for Fred: What do you think is the definition of a "local realistic" theory? Local should be obvious, so what it your take on "realistic"?
In the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario, the results of theory are predictable without using probability.
Ok, but:FrediFizzx wrote:But I know what you are thinking. If you know lambda, you can predict the individual outcomes at A and B. That is a Bell BS trap.
So, that you can predict the individual outcomes at A and B without using probability is just BS? So "realism" is just BS?
Heinera wrote:Well, if you cannot "predict individual outcomes", but can only "predict the final result of many trials", that is the very definition of probabilistic reasoning.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 14 guests