Posts: 101
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
(07032016, 10:47 PM)secur Wrote: Einstein has been dead for 61 years, and it's been 81 years since he published his last significant paper (EPR). Don't you think it's time to see what modern physics is doing? Quoting Einstein re. physics is like quoting Orville Wright as an authority on space flight.
Apparently, you have never heard of LIGO.
Posts: 165
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Reputation:
0
Einstein's equations are still relevant, same as Maxwell, Lagrange, Dirac and many others. Orville Wright's 3axis airplane control system is still used on jet fighters today. Just the same these people are ancient history and science has progressed far beyond their times. Today all physics is not local, as shown by Belltype experiments.
Posts: 85
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
07042016, 04:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 07042016, 06:40 PM by Schmelzer.)
(07042016, 04:02 PM)Don Wrote: (07042016, 03:30 PM)secur Wrote: Today all physics is not local, as shown by Belltype experiments.
That is not yet established, otherwise we would have had a Nobel prize awarded. In fact, when the EPRB experiments are properly analyzed and interpreted, they support locality (e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5158). In any case if I have to choose between your opinion and Einstein's, I opt for the latter.
Mr. Graft would have us believe that the quantum mechanics prediction for EPRBohm is wrong. It is [...] Anyways, you guys are drifting offtopic. I suppose we ought to start a new thread about Graft's paper and "put it through the ringer" since he brought it up.
Posts: 85
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
(07042016, 05:07 PM)Don Wrote: (07042016, 04:50 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Mr. Graft would have us believe that the quantum mechanics prediction for EPRBohm is wrong. It is junk physics just like Bell's theory. Anyways, you guys are drifting offtopic. I suppose we ought to start a new thread about Graft's paper and "put it through the ringer" since he brought it up.
There is not one unique prediction of QM for EPR. There are several depending on which form of the projection postulate is applicable to the physics of the experiment. I'm just finishing up a paper on this that I hope to upload to arXiv today or tomorrow.
There are already threads on my papers at PubPeer. I suppose you don't like to use them because your insults are not tolerated there.
You started it. Everybody was being nice to you then you just flew off the handle at Ben for no reason.
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/v...t=20#p5950
You can dish it out but can't take it. Anyways, I was talking about any predictions of QM for EPR. Your papers are wrong. The experiments validate the predictions of QM. And that is all they do. Since Bell's theory is wrong, there are no loopholes in the first place and the predictions of QM are correct.
Posts: 85
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
07052016, 07:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 07052016, 07:18 AM by FrediFizzx.)
Now to get this thread back on topic...
Folks, Joy Christian's model is officially published here,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021
arXiv version of the published paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355
There are no errors in the paper. You guys need to face that fact now. If you want to reject the postulates then that is fine we can debate that. It is time to get some honesty here. "You should be ashamed".
Posts: 215
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation:
0
(07052016, 07:18 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Folks, Joy Christian's model is officially published here,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021
arXiv version of the published paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355
There are no errors in the paper. You guys need to face that fact now. If you want to reject the postulates then that is fine we can debate that. It is time to get some honesty here. "You should be ashamed".
LOL. Thanks for the link. Gill, are you interested in publishing the refutation in Annals of Physics? If not I will do it.
Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
07052016, 08:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 07052016, 10:58 AM by gill1109.)
(07052016, 07:18 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Now to get this thread back on topic...
Folks, Joy Christian's model is officially published here,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021
arXiv version of the published paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355
There are no errors in the paper. You guys need to face that fact now. If you want to reject the postulates then that is fine we can debate that. It is time to get some honesty here. "You should be ashamed". I suppose that the published version corresponds to the recent update of the arXiv original: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v4.pdf
The passage in the paper where the trick with the product of two limits is done is now hidden a bit more skilfully. Notice formula (58) where s_1 and s_2 are argued to be equal, leading in (59) to L(s_1, lambda)L(s_2, lambda) = 1. This result is then substituted inside a double limit as s_1 converges to a and s_2 converges to b in the transition from equation (62) to (63).
It's good to see that the author has learnt from the criticism which we gave him on this forum.
Ilja: I am not so interested in publishing a refutation. I hope somebody else will do it, this time.
I started a new PubPeer thread corresponding to the published paper: https://pubpeer.com/publications/AEF49D3...BA21F824B4
Posts: 101
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
Richard, if it not obvious to you by now that the measure space, defined as the space of complete functions in S^3, plays a role in the result, it probably never will be.
Define the measure space of BellAspect, and you get Schmelzer's "derivation of an inequality", an admission that Bell's theorem does no more prove its own assumptions.
Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
(07052016, 01:51 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Richard, if it not obvious to you by now that the measure space, defined as the space of complete functions in S^3, plays a role in the result, it probably never will be.
Define the measure space of BellAspect, and you get Schmelzer's "derivation of an inequality", an admission that Bell's theorem does no more prove its own assumptions.
So Christian's computation of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) in (55) and (56) is wrong?
Unfortunately, these two equations give immediately E(a, b) = 1. So the computation (60)(68) leading to the "result" is wrong.
It's not difficult to find out where it goes wrong. The only role played by S^3 in Christian's analysis is obfuscation.
Posts: 101
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
You've forgotten a point at infinity.
