07-17-2016, 12:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2016, 12:34 PM by Thomas Ray.

*Edit Reason: typo*)(07-17-2016, 09:43 AM)gill1109 Wrote:(07-15-2016, 05:42 PM)secur Wrote: gill1109: In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's inequality. Therefore, if in this context we observe that Bell's inequality is violated, we may deduce that local realism is not true.You're absolutely right, Secur.

I agree.

If A then B.

But, not B.

Therefore, not A !

I'm not quite sure who's more illogical here. It's illogical to deny proof by contradiction - a fundamental tenet of scientific reasoning -, as FreddiFizzx and others are doing. But it might be even more illogical to waste your time arguing about it!

As I said, there's no interest in opening the safe. It's "illogical." However, logic is only as good as its premises.

There are two questions I have put to you, Richard, that you have declined to answer:

1. What is your measure space?

2. Can Planck's constant go to zero?

Quantitative answers to these questions change the premises, and the logic of Bell's theorem falls apart. Fundamental physics needs a good safecracker, like Feynman.