Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell
#1
Now that we have shown that Bell was wrong over in this thread,

http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/showthrea...418#pid418

we can move on to a local hidden variable (LHV) model that produces the predictions of QM.  On the other thread no LHV model was required to show that Bell made a mistake.  What this means is that since he was wrong, then it is possible that a LHV model can reproduce the predictions of QM.  We will now introduce Joy Christian's classical local-realistic model.

The main postulate of Joy's model is very simple and very logically consistent physically.  When particle pairs are created from a singlet state, those pairs as a system will have a left or right handed orientation.  Makes perfect physical sense.  The other postulate is that those pairs as a system behave via parallelized 3-sphere topology.  That postulate also makes physical sense however it probably means that space has unique spinor properties.  Now Joy's model was numerically validated using the computer program GAViewer as Joy had employed geometric algebra to more easily describe it.  That can be found here,

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/2015...f-joy.html

And it is easy to see that the model is pretty simple.  If anyone requires further explanation, feel free to ask.  So this is further evidence that Bell was wrong since there does exist a LHV model that does produce the predictions of QM.
Reply
#2
Sorry, but the idea that you have shown that Bell was wrong is wishful thinking, nothing more. Here I have seen that Gill has made some reasonable comments, I have not found yet any necessity to add something to these comments.
Reply
#3
(06-07-2016, 05:06 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: Sorry, but the idea that you have shown that Bell was wrong is wishful thinking, nothing more.  Here I have seen that Gill has made some reasonable comments, I have not found yet any necessity to add something to these comments.
Well, I can say that the idea that you think Bell is right is severely misguided.  But most likely not all your fault as there is quite an attempt at keeping QM as mysterious as possible for some unknown reason.  The bottom line is that it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate the Bell inequalities thus Bell's conclusions were wrong.  I am sure if you asked a smart high school student that he would agree and see through the mathematical trickery that has been going on to justify that something can violate them.

Let it be known to readers of this forum that all of Gill's criticisms at the link I posted above have been thoroughly refuted.  If anyone needs further clarification, please ask.
Reply
#4
Bell's theorem is a theorem, and a quite simple one. Moreover, it is published and often cited.

To accuse a proponent of hidden variable theories, which take away a lot of the mystery from quantum mechanics by giving a realistic and causal picture, that they attempt to keep QM mysterious is a cheap and quite obviously wrong accusation.

And let's note that you have written some answers. If these answers are really refutations or not you would better leave others to decide for themselves.
Reply
#5
Bell's theorem is not even a true mathematical theorem. It is just a word statement based on a faulty interpretation of the inequalities that he tried to base on EPR-Bohm thus it is really just a theory that has been already thoroughly disproven in several different ways. I suggest that you really think hard about this as it would actually help your ether theory to dispense with Bell's nonsense. It is not too late to put a new twist on what you have been doing. Take a break; think about it more.
Reply
#6
You think that name-calling against theorems will help you?

A proof is a proof. Live with it. Or publish a refutation.

For ether theories with a preferred frame Bell's theorem is an ideal support. Those who reject a preferred frame are now in a situation where they have to reject realism and causality (Reichenbach's common cause principle). This destroys the base of the scientific method itself. If there is no reality, what do scientists study? Fantasies? The Big Mystery? If correlations do no longer require causal explanations, what is the difference to astrology? The opponents of a preferred frame disqualify themselves in the long run.
Reply
#7
(06-07-2016, 11:59 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: A proof is a proof.  Live with it.  Or publish a refutation.  

The proof is obviously flawed as our demonstrations have shown.  There is already quite a few refutations published so no need for me to do one; here is another one,

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00824124
"The irrelevance of Bell inequalities in Physics : Comments on the DRHM paper"

It is only a matter of time before Bell's argument is no longer mainstream.  Save yourself while there is still time. :-)
Reply
#8
Big words like "obviously flawed" show nothing.  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ is not a peer-reviewed journal but an open archive. And, of course, it has no chance for publication.

Quote:It was shown in [7] by Boole that in every experiment in which one collects a data set of triples [ ] and then associates with them the data sets of pairs [ ] the following inequalities will hold ...
In this regard, it is one of the major merits of DRHM to have pointed out clearly and repeatedly, even if in terms less hard than above, the essential and so far hardly known fact that the EBBI inequalities such as (17) simply cannot be violated either by classical, or by quantum physics. And they cannot be violated, precisely due to the fact that they only depend on mathematics, and of course, logic.

The problem is that the data in quantum theory are not collected by taking pairs out of a set of triples. We can only measure two things in every experiment. And no pure logic and mathematics alone allows me to derive that there are more.

One needs a physically non-trivial argument to derive that the values in the other, actually unmeasured directions have to have predefined values. Which is the first, EPR-based, part of the argument. The second part is trivial math. But for the first part we need the EPR criterion of reality, or some replacement like Reichenbach's principle of common cause, together with Einstein causality in a strong form, which forbids even hidden, unobservable faster than light causal influences.
Reply
#9
(06-08-2016, 06:32 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: Big words like "obviously flawed" show nothing.  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ is not a peer-reviewed journal but an open archive.  And, of course, it has no chance for publication.  

Well, I did give 3 different demonstrations between this thread and the other one so "obviously flawed" is quite appropriate.  The paper linked above is published enough; people can read it and decide for themselves.  Here are a couple more that are published.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...010-9461-z
"Is the Contextuality Loophole Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities?"
Yes it is.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...1/1/012021
"EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality"

Bell's theory is false.  No doubt about it.  Save yourself while there is still time.
Reply
#10
(06-08-2016, 06:34 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: The paper linked above is published enough; people can read it and decide for themselves.
Yes, and given that you have not even questioned the counterargument I have given above, this is quite simple.

(06-08-2016, 06:34 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...010-9461-z
"Is the Contextuality Loophole Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities?"
Thanks. A clearly wrong paper in Foundations of Physics. A good enough journal to think about writing a short rejection. A typical example where it has not been understood that the "assumption" about the hidden variables is derived from the EPR argument, and that quantum theory (in particular, quantum measurement theory) is not relevant at all for the derivation, which assumes Einstein-causal realism and not quantum theory.
(06-08-2016, 06:34 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...1/1/012021
"EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality"
Conference proceedings .... Nothing I would spend my time writing a rejection. But it is simple to find an error:
Quote: The proofs of various Bell type inequalities are based on CFD or on the assumption that the experimental outcomes are produced in irreducibly random way. If these assumptions are not valid Bell-type inequalities cannot be simply proven.
False. Bell's theorem is not based on CFD, but derives CFD from the EPR criterion of reality and the 100% correlations.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)