Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?

[Thomas Ray]

You're talking in circles, Richard. The purpose of EPR is to show quantum mechanics incomplete. Now you're saying that the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (in a loophole-free experiment that has not been shown to exist) validates it.

Are you ready to admit that Bell-Aspect proves only what it assumes a priori?

(edit) If that seems terse, let me put it another way: the limit as h-bar -> 0, is a statistical limit based on the highest probable trajectory of a particle. Because the theory discards the time parameter, measurement of particle position at a later time is predicted to differ within a limit of uncertainty. What is the maximum bound of uncertainty for the microscale? What is the maximum bound of uncertainty for the cosmic scale?

How can a complete theory assume both that h-bar approaches zero without reaching it, and h-bar approaches infinity at the same time? Try to answer without ad hoc assumptions. Can h-bar be degenerate in a consistent quantum theory?

[secur]

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.

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! 

[Thomas Ray]

Congratulations, Secur. You just proved that not not A = A

[Heinera]

Congratulations, Secur.  You just proved that not not A = A

Huh?  I can recommend some textbooks on logic, if you want.  My favorite is Suppes.

[Thomas Ray]

Uh, logic is not science.

[Heinera]

Uh, logic is not science.

By using pure logic only,  Bell's theorem says that a certain class of mathematical models can not reproduce the results that quantum mechanics predicts, and that we see in experiments.  You are of course free to disagree whether this should be called science or not.

If you think you have a counterexample to Bell's theorem, there is something called the Quantum Randi Challenge.  While giving an exact operational definition of what the physics community means by the phrase "hidden local variable theory", the challenge also has the monetary lure of surely securing the winner a Nobel prize.

[Thomas Ray]

Lovely.  Quantum Randi Challenge (which I don't think has anything to do with Amazing Randi; he should sue) is the biggest [...] piece of science ever suggested by anyone who goes by the name 'scientist'.

Who cares about a consensus meaning?  That's for dictionaries.

[FrediFizzx]

Lovely.  Quantum Randi Challenge (which I don't think has anything to do with Amazing Randi; he should sue) is the biggest [...] piece of science ever suggested by anyone who goes by the name 'scientist'.

Who cares about a consensus meaning?  That's for dictionaries.

LOL!  The QRC is "rigged" by the same thing we were discussing here.  That it is impossible for a quantum experiment to test the quadruple in Bell-CHSH.  Only a fool would try to play the QRC game.

[Heinera]

Lovely.  Quantum Randi Challenge (which I don't think has anything to do with Amazing Randi; he should sue) is the biggest [...] piece of science ever suggested by anyone who goes by the name 'scientist'.

Who cares about a consensus meaning?  That's for dictionaries.

How could the QRC be a fraud and a hoax since entrance is free, and will forever be so?

And about consensus of scientific terms and its importance...well, would you rather like to be in a Tower of Babel?

(PS: After reading through your earlier posts here and elsewhere I realize you would. In fact you are.)

[Thomas Ray]

Lovely.  Quantum Randi Challenge (which I don't think has anything to do with Amazing Randi; he should sue) is the biggest fraud, hoax, junk piece of science ever suggested by anyone who goes by the name 'scientist'.

Who cares about a consensus meaning?  That's for dictionaries.

LOL!  The QRC is "rigged" by the same thing we were discussing here.  That it is impossible for a quantum experiment to test the quadruple in Bell-CHSH.  Only a fool would try to play the QRC game.

Only a con man would design it.  Heads I win, tails you lose.  Ready for the toss?

---

Lovely.  Quantum Randi Challenge (which I don't think has anything to do with Amazing Randi; he should sue) is the biggest fraud, hoax, junk piece of science ever suggested by anyone who goes by the name 'scientist'.

Who cares about a consensus meaning?  That's for dictionaries.

How could the QRC be a fraud and a hoax since entrance is free, and will forever be so?

And about consensus of scientific terms and its importance...well, would you rather like to be in a Tower of Babel?

(PS: After reading through your earlier posts here and elsewhere I realize you would. In fact you are.)

Better read that logic book that you hold so dear.

Two fallacies, and a gratuitous insult.  Anyway, you made my point -- thanks.