Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(10-02-2016, 02:59 PM)secur Wrote: That sounds like a trick question! I'd say the less stupid one looks the better. Note, I've got plenty of experience in this area, so my opinion carries some weight. But if Annals of Physics or anyone thinks otherwise they're welcome to look as stupid as they wish.

BTW I still don't think that "exploding ball" paper is all that bad. Although Gill1109 (born November 9th?) says there are lots of errors, I never looked into them and didn't notice any myself - except that the conclusion is wrong AFAIK.

September 11, actually.

Here's an example from the Annals of Physics paper. I think this is obvious, but it seems others don't notice it.

I refer to https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v4.pdf

According to (55), A(a, lambda) = +1 if lambda = +1, A(a, lambda) = -1 if lambda = -1
According to (56), B(b, lambda) = -1 if lambda = +1, B(b, lambda) = +1 if lambda = -1
We know that lambda = +/- 1

I would say that this makes A(a, lambda)B(b, lambda) = -1, always.

Hence the correlation computed in (60) - (68) must equal -1.

(You can go on to search for a mistake in (60) to (68); that's not so difficult. There are two, actually).

We already discussed this on another thread...

I think Annals of Physics chose the reason for retraction which will most easily convince most physicists, and will also most easily convince lawyers. Hence the logic of their argument is not very important.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by gill1109 - 10-02-2016, 03:22 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)