07222016, 11:30 AM
Let me get this straight. You can insinuate that I am innocent of Bell's theorem, and yet when I insinuate that you are innocent of topology  I am being inappropriate "for a scientific discussion"?
Bell's theorem  for or against Hidden Variables?

07222016, 11:30 AM
Let me get this straight. You can insinuate that I am innocent of Bell's theorem, and yet when I insinuate that you are innocent of topology  I am being inappropriate "for a scientific discussion"?
07222016, 02:14 PM
If you think I have violated my own principles of reasonable behavior in a scientific discussion, please quote me.
If you think I don't know what a multiple connected space it, no problem. Quote the claim I make about a multiple connected space, and give a corrected version, with evidence that the corrected version is correct.
07222016, 03:30 PM
I started to list heinera's insulting remark that you let stand, your "recommendation" to read Bell's paper, your dismissal of the relevance of multiply connected spaces (and topology in general) ... your unilateral editing of claims about quantum Randi challenge that I can well support ...
Then I realized this site has nothing to offer in the way of progressive scientific discourse, so I doubt I will visit your sandbox again.
07222016, 06:09 PM
(07222016, 09:58 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: Sorry, but this has nothing to do with reality. If one assumes "locality" (means Einstein causality) one can derive the Bell inequalities, and they have been empirically falsified (modulo claims for loopholes in the particular experiments). But it is our contention that assuming Nature is local and realistic then the quantum experiments prove that Bell made a mistake in his derivation of the inequalities. IOW, they are not a true representation of what is local and realistic. So your "empirically falsified" is rejected. I am betting with Einstein on this.
07222016, 07:37 PM
Ok, it may be your contention.
You confuse here two things: A mistake in Bell's derivation. Given that Bell gives precise definitions, and the mathematics is fine, this is, to put it mildly, not very probable. A completely different thing would be if you, for whatever reasons, prefer some other definition of the words "local" and "realistic". This is completely reasonable in the case of "local" (where I support it  a theory with a maximal speed of information transfer of 10000 c is, in any reasonable meaning of the word "local", as local as one with maximal speed c). And to define "realistic" differently is fair game anyway. So, what is empirically rejected are only some particular, precise definitions of Einstein causality as well as realism. And, then, of course, you have rejected nothing yet.
07222016, 07:44 PM
(07222016, 03:30 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: I started to list heinera's insulting remark that you let stand, your "recommendation" to read Bell's paper, your dismissal of the relevance of multiply connected spaces (and topology in general) ... your unilateral editing of claims about quantum Randi challenge that I can well support ...If you think some remark was insulting, please quote. To read Bell's papers is something I can only recommend. If you think they are relevant, feel free to present arguments for this. In the last case of my editing, I have to admit that I have simply thrown away the remaining part. Feel free to reformulate your argument in an appropriate way. If you are not interested, good bye.
07222016, 08:21 PM
FreddiFizzx: it is our contention that assuming Nature is local and realistic then the quantum experiments prove that Bell made a mistake in his derivation of the inequalities.
I can agree with that. So there are four choices, 1. Nature not local (i.e., something happening faster than light) 2. Nature not realistic 3. Bell made a mistake 4. Some other loophole I choose #1, while keeping all the others in mind. #3 is the least likely, but I still go ahead and read (at least, look at) the papers you (and others) have cited. As I (and others) have said they all appear to be flawed. If we ignore Bell for a moment, consider the argument I gave a few weeks ago in http://iljaschmelzer.de/forum/showthrea...506#pid506. This is the essence of the thing, and it's very simple. Can you explain it without nonlocality? The problem with your viewpoint is the strong a priori rejection of nonlocality. The particular type of nonlocality that Bellrelated work appears to prove is very "weak". It can't be used to communicate information FTL, so it violates none of Einstein's principles (or any other accepted principles of physics). It can't be used to establish nonlocal simultaneity although at first glance it seems to. It doesn't violate intuition either. So can you please explain why you reject, a priori, this extremely limited version of nonlocality? re. Thomas Ray vs. Schmelzer, Thomas Ray (first): It's surprising that Schmeltzer does not know what a multiply connected space is ... Thomas Ray (later): ... your [Schmelzer's] dismissal of the relevance of multiply connected spaces ... I would like to suggest that TR's first post was an overstatement, what he meant was the second statement. That is, he's objecting to Schmelzer's dismissal of relevance of multiply connected spaces, but, as people do sometimes, overstated this as "doesn't know what they are". I've done the same thing more than once: said someone "didn't understand" some fact when actually they simply didn't agree with the conclusions I was drawing from that fact. Heinera did something like that to TR a while ago. Indeed, many great thinkers throughout the ages have incorrectly used this rhetorical device in the "heat of battle". One shouldn't do it, of course, but ...
It's interesting to note the parallel discussion going on at http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/07/resolv...term.html. LM invited a guest blog from George Musser (whom I don't know) addressing nonlocality. Although it's hard to tell without reading his book, I probably agree on the main issues with Musser. QM predicts certain correlations for spaceseparated measurements but doesn't explain how it happens. Evidently the answer is: some sort of nonlocal (but nonsignaling) influence. LM's answer: you're an idiot. That's it; there's absolutely no substance to his reply.
Anyway, I hope someone here can give a better answer to the question, "Why not nonlocality?" Merely pointing out that I'm an idiot  true though it may be  is not enough!
07222016, 11:55 PM
(07222016, 09:25 PM)secur Wrote: It's interesting to note the parallel discussion going on at http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/07/resolv...term.html. LM invited a guest blog from George Musser (whom I don't know) addressing nonlocality. Although it's hard to tell without reading his book, I probably agree on the main issues with Musser. QM predicts certain correlations for spaceseparated measurements but doesn't explain how it happens. Evidently the answer is: some sort of nonlocal (but nonsignaling) influence. LM's answer: you're an idiot. That's it; there's absolutely no substance to his reply. Motl is right even though he doesn't really explain it correctly. Bell's theory has nothing at all to do with quantum physics so Bell's comparison is ridiculous. "Why nonlocality?" NOT! It goes against everything we have learned about Nature.
07232016, 12:29 AM
Secur wrote: "I hope someone here can give a better answer to the question, 'Why not nonlocality?'"
That's a good question, Secur. Let's look at what transpired earlier: "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 !" The proposition is unconstructed. You ask "why not?" nonlocality, and the answer is deduced as notnotnonlocality. It doesn't go anywhere except in circles. Let A = nonlocality Let B = local realism The double negation proof fails to even acknowledge local realism, much less construct it. So how can Gill's claim, "In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's theorem" be true? What context? Local realism (Einstein causality) is constructed explicitly in the measure space of special relativity, and implicitly in general relativity, assuming spacetime is real. ("All physics is local".) If we were comparing apples to apples, context would be supplied by measure space. What is the measure space of BellAspect? Heads I win, tails you lose. While not a very good argument, it's an excellent con, so long as measure space is not defined. 
« Next Oldest  Next Newest »
