Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(08-24-2016, 07:56 AM)gill1109 Wrote:
(08-23-2016, 09:15 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote:
(08-23-2016, 05:13 PM)secur Wrote:
(08-23-2016, 01:25 AM)Thomas Ray Wrote: secur wrote, "Our only real disagreement concerns the results of the exploding ball experiment. With luck someone will perform it and put the issue to rest."

A non-arbitrary initial condition, without entanglement, will put the issue to rest.  That is the point.  Understand that, and everything else falls into place.

The correlation function should be classical, and not violate Bell or CHSH inequalities. Doesn't seem to matter how the initial conditions are designed. That's what Gill's CHSH proof shows. Of course the standard caveat applies: I may be missing something!

(08-23-2016, 08:25 AM)gill1109 Wrote: In his experiment, you observe N particle pairs, get N values of lambda, and then compute any script-E term for any (a, b) you like. For every (a, b): the same N particle pairs, the same N values of lambda.

Ok, now I get it - you're right.

The correlation function is classical.  Gill's correlation function is meaningless without a time parameter.  That's the whole point.
Not Gill's correlation function: Christian's correlation function.

Christian's correlation function has a large enough defined measure space to accommodate nonlinear time reversibility.  Gill's non-defined measure space of linear superposition is what Einstein called " ... an attempt to breathe in empty space", a meaningless game with numbers.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 08-24-2016, 01:40 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)