Posts: 215
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation:
0
(06262016, 01:58 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: I went back over my previous comments to see if I had misspoken, and led you to believe I said 'the result of a measurement is a direction.' I could find no such statement. I seem to have misinterpreted your "When taking a physical measurement, ... one unavoidably records the result in a direction". Take into account that I'm not a native English speaker. I have, moreover, a lot of problems to make sense of what you write.
(06262016, 01:58 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Which tells me that you have not gone beyond the coin toss, balls in an urn, dicethrowing formulation of quantum theory. I think it is not a good style to speculate about what other people have done. Then, I don't even know any "coin toss, balls in an urn, dicethrowing formulation of quantum theory", the standard text books (like Landau Lifschitz, Dirac, Feynman) do not contain anything related with this.
(06262016, 01:58 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Don't let Richard Gill persuade you that the time parameter (more technically, the 'timelike correlated parameters' of HessPhilipp) plays no role; he's a statistician committed to quantum discontinuity. As evidence of this, ask him to define a measure space  he won't, and for a very simple reason: if space is eliminated as a parameter, spacetime goes with it, which leaves only 'an attempt to breathe in empty space' as Einstein put it, a probabilistic vacuum where things just happen. I'm unable to comment this because it does not make sense to me at all. Similar for the rest of the post. Sorry.
Posts: 85
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
Posts: 215
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation:
0
Thanks for posting the reference for this interesting article.
The only problem: It has nothing to do with what you are saying, and Bell does not even have a theory  he has proven a famous theorem.
Posts: 101
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
(07022016, 07:41 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: Thanks for posting the reference for this interesting article.
The only problem: It has nothing to do with what you are saying, and Bell does not even have a theory  he has proven a famous theorem.
A theorem that only proves what it assumed in the first place. It may be famous, but it isn't important to physics.
Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
07022016, 04:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 07022016, 04:49 PM by gill1109.)
(07012016, 05:25 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: http://phys.org/news/201607quantumbounds.html
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10....116.250404
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08144
"Classical Physics and the Bounds of Quantum Correlations"
Nice paper, thanks!
Indeed, nothing to do with Bell, but still good fun. By the way, not only nonlocal but also nonquantal (no binary outcomes...)
In the meantime, Joy Christian has revised his paper "Local Causality in a FriedmannRobertsonWalker Spacetime", present version is http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v4.pdf
He says on Fred's forum that it is moreover accepted by a journal.
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.
Posts: 85
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
0
From the paper, "However, Bellinequality experiments can be
formally mapped into experiments involving sequential
measurements by replacing spacelike separation with
compatibility. In this way, any Bellinequality experiment
[see Fig. 1(a)] is just a sequential contextuality
experiment [see Fig. 1(b)] in a certain reference frame."
Posts: 101
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
(07022016, 07:23 PM)Don Wrote: (07022016, 06:00 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: From the paper, "However, Bellinequality experiments can be
formally mapped into experiments involving sequential
measurements by replacing spacelike separation with
compatibility. In this way, any Bellinequality experiment
[see Fig. 1(a)] is just a sequential contextuality
experiment [see Fig. 1(b)] in a certain reference frame."
We've all read the paper, Fred. What is your point? Did you notice that the outcomes are passed to the subsequent measurements, making the models nonlocal?
Meanwhile, over at your forum, insults, ad hominems, bullying, and condescension substitute for rational discourse. You should be ashamed.
We're not stupid, Don.
We know the nonlocality claims that are made for Joy (and for Bohm, etc.). We also know that Bell's theorem cannot survive as the basis for a physical theory without *assuming * nonlocality.
As I said (I am not alone; Karl Hess has also said it, and I am confident others have said it as well) the theorem proves no more than its own assumptions.
I find that the keys to Joy's framework are initial condition, continuity of function, topological orientation and nonlinearity. These conditions being met, "... outcomes ... passed to the subsequent measurements ..." has no meaning. I invite you to try and convince me otherwise..
Posts: 215
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation:
0
(07022016, 09:30 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: We know the nonlocality claims that are made for Joy (and for Bohm, etc.). We also know that Bell's theorem cannot survive as the basis for a physical theory without *assuming * nonlocality. Bell's theorem assumes Einstein causality, which is (misleadingly) called locality. And not nonlocality.
(07022016, 09:30 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: As I said (I am not alone; Karl Hess has also said it, and I am confident others have said it as well) the theorem proves no more than its own assumptions. Wrong. The assumptions are Einstein causality, together with an extremely elementary assumption about reality (EPR criterion of reality) or, in a variant, causality (Reichenbach's common cause principle). What is derived is an inequality which is violated by experiments.
Posts: 101
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
I'll look forward to your paper explaining how linear measurements transfer information to nonlinear phenomena. In the meantime, contemplate the meaning of Einstein's statement: "All physics is local."
Posts: 165
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Reputation:
0
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.
