Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-25-2016, 05:19 PM)Heinera Wrote:
(07-25-2016, 04:27 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Heinera wrote:

"Let me just just chip in here, although I don't see how your question could be relevant to anything in this discussion:  How about trying every possible combination?  That should guarantee that you sooner or later open the safe, and would keep you blissfully occupied in the meantime."

Great!  That's just the answer I was hoping for, because it shows the fraud in "QRC".  

Do you know why?

No. Do you?

Why, yes, I do.  

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/offi...enge-80168 

"QRC" assumes that no data are hidden. So one should look for hidden data to prove the assumption.  Not finding any hidden data, one should conclude that no data are hidden.   If you know of a way to prove this negative proposition other than by double negation, I would like to hear it.
 
“QRC” assumes local information is unavailable; however, being hidden does not make it unavailable, because one is looking and not finding—so what does?  Nonlocality.  What does nonlocality mean?—not available locally.
 
So already we have two unconstructed assumptions—hidden data and nonlocality. 
 
Nothing is hidden in a field theory ("there is no space empty of field"), so data are always locally available.  Sending legions of computer users out to look for hidden variables in an assumed classical domain, is therefore a snipe hunt. 


Time would be better spent looking for a boundary between classical and quantum domains.  Because that search has a constructed framework of spacetime, it is -- unlike the QRC -- falsifiable.

(07-25-2016, 04:51 PM)gill1109 Wrote:
(07-25-2016, 02:40 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Deceptive in this conclusion is the assumption -- not of Alice's and Bob's free will choice -- the experimenter chooses for them.  The experimenter does not have the freedom to choose either a setting or the negation of that setting at the same time. The choices taken one at a time are not equally likely.
In rigorously performed Bell experiments (e.g. Delft, Vienna, NIST), the following is repeated many times according to a predetermined time schedule: a random choice is made between setting a and setting a', and a random choice is made between setting b and b'. Two measurements are made. Good care is taken that the outcome of each measurement is recorded definitively before any information could arrive as to the setting chosen in the other wing of the experiment.
A nice discussion of how to impose this principle is given by Stefano Pironio in http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00248, "Random 'choices' and the locality loophole".
Randomisation is a powerful tool in experimental sciences. In Bell experiments, it allows us to rule out memory or time-variation as possible explanations of violation of Bell inequalities. Of course if you don't believe in randomisation then you don't need to accept the experimental conclusions (which are statistical in nature).

And why should I accept the conclusions of an experiment which does not define its domain and co-domain?

That constitutes a measure space, without which "lambda can be anything."
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 07-25-2016, 08:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)