Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-27-2016, 11:19 AM)jrdixon Wrote: Speaking of redefining "local realism". I show that local realism, with the added assumption that nature has a limited ability to forecast future physical interactions, can explain the violation of a Bell inequality here:
vixra.org/abs/1103.0089        
And also can explain a puzzling "no signaling" violation found in a recent "loophole free" Bell test experiment here:
vixra.org/abs/1606.0097

This can be called a "prediction loophole". It's not surprising that QM results could be obtained this way. It could also violate no-signaling, but it seems to me that the same prediction algorithm couldn't do both? That is, if it mimics QM results exactly, by imperfect predicting, that same prediction algorithm couldn't also produce a no-signaling violation? That's why you had to modify it in your second paper. Anyway, I think the Quantum Randy Challenge (QRC) is a good filter for this type of loophole. You couldn't use this idea to beat the QRC. That puts it in an "exotic" class of loophole, what I might call a "Nature conspiracy" loophole, which is beyond the main theme of the discussion here.

One thing I like about your paper is that you propose possible experiments to determine if your idea is actually implemented in Nature. Very few proposals do that.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 07-27-2016, 01:18 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)