Gordon Watson wrote:Mikko wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:1. I had hoped we might return to the place where you recognised: "You [GW] do prove that there is an error."
You had "hoped"? You "might"? You can return there whenever you want and press the "quote" button and respond differently from the first time. Or even the same way if you expect to get a different result next time.
3. Bell does discuss Aspect! And CHSH. You need to read his (2004).
Your false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. In that article he does not discuss the Aspect experiment. What he later said elsewhere is irrelevant.
My apologies! Since I address and correct most of Bell's unrealistic EPR-style theorising, going beyond his (1964), I misunderstood your focus on Bell (1964).
Apology accepted. However, I might be less merciful next time.
So here's a composite of your statements that I now trust is your claim:
Mikko wrote:Your [GW's] false claim was about Bell's 1964 article. It [Bell 1964] is a sound derivation that proves that Einstein's assumptions (as Bell interpreted them) imply a result that is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Consequently, an experiment could refute either Einsten's assumptions or quantum mechanics.
Looks good. Your response below is compatible with that. In particular, your false claim menioned above is not repeated.
HERE'S MY RESPONSE:
The experiment that Bell (1964) favoured is given at his Reference #6.
I take Aspect's (2004) experiment to be such an experiment: it agrees with QM and with me.
Therefore Bell's assumptions (whatever their source), are unrealistic/unphysical. QED!
In case you missed it, here's what's in my draft (from my point of view) re Bell (1964) specifically:
1. Bell's key unrealistic assumption (whatever its source) is identified.
Do you mean an assumption that Bell made or an assumption made be someone else that Bell discussess and perhaps attempts to confirm or refute?
Where exactly is that assumption identified?
2. The true local realistic assumption is given.
3. The correct, QM-compatible, results are then derived.
It is not really a derivation if it essentially depends on a theory that is neither presented nor identified.
4. Aspect's (2004) experiment is then conclusive: it agrees with QM and with me.
5. Hence my rejection of Bell's (1964) conclusion; a conclusion that affects his later work.
6. Note that I do not repeat the EPR error; I identify and correct it.
6a. And Bell did what? [See #9 below.]
Perhaps your presentation were clearer if you moved 1. to a later place, somewhere after 4. It is easier to compare your work to Bell's after you have presented your work and results. As your main disagreement is with Bell's conclusion, it might be clearest to start with that and follow his reasoning backwards until you find an invalid inference or assumption.
Add to these:
7. Your apparent agreement that an error is correctly identified.
I didn't say so. I said that you didn't identify it corretly.
8. Your apparent inability to understand that it is Bell's error (from his unrealistic assumption; whether it comes from EPR, Einstein, ++) that is identified: see #1-3.
I understand very well that you have tried and failed to identify an error in Bell's work.
9. If Bell favours nonlocality, as you suggest: then he's sticking with the false assumption (whatever its source) and making it his own!
It is well known that a non-local hidden variable theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics. Do you have any evidence that Bell favored something else?
10. Your (still, to this day) apparent inability to decide which -- if any -- of two competing assumptions is more probable.
Neither of them seems to offer anything important over plain quantum mechanics. The main open problem is quantum gravity, and neither seems to offer anything to that. Anyway, quantum gravity is far outside of your scope.