Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Gill wrote: "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."

And that's just the size of it, isn't it?

For everyone who isn't concerned about the future of science.

Without rehashing arguments and counterarguments, Gill is ignoring the result on parallelized S^3.  Arguing for a probabilistic result in R^3.  Complete straw man.

(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.

Well, what do you find wrong with the conclusion (I assume you mean the paper that Gill most recently linked), specifically?

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 10-02-2016, 04:01 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)