by Austin Fearnley » Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:00 am
Hi Richard
A few points.
1. IMO Alice and Bob are treated symmetrically in my model. I cannot understand how you would think they could be being treated differently. You may be intending to reply on this but if not could you add something about why you think there is asymmetry, as at the moment there is only your bald aspersion which I do not understand?
2. In the theme of bald aspersions... You categorise my model as falling into the conspiracy loophole. In the wiki page being built, could there be scope for more neutral or softening of terminology about loopholes. IMO nature is using what you call a conspiracy loophole. If I am correct the wiki page could in retrospect look very anti towards the correct resolution of the Bell paradox.
Further, I sense that you think all loopholes are associated with evil, underhand, conjuring tricks, fudging etc etc? But that view means that you are forcing nature to be spooky (that is, break Bell's Inequalities). Since I know that my model is right ;) that forces the Bell Paradox to be around forever unresolved. Well, except that the failure to progress in quantum computing might cause some long-term doubts.
As I previously said, Bell's Theorem is IMO correct and is useful to find out why physics is wrongly understood. The resolution of the paradox is not necessarily going to be that the inequalities are broken so why not use less pejorative terms ... just in case you are wrong.
{c.f. Yesterday the UK Law Society complained about the Home Office using the biased term ""activist lawyers"!}
3. Something new in my model which might interest you. The detection loophole might seem possibly to be in the category "evil, underhand, conjuring tricks, fudging etc". Certainly you ought to count the pairs out and count them all back in again. You have programmed an interesting formula based originally on Pearle using trimmed data to get the Bell correlation.
I am not sure I often see the term 'unpolarised' used to describe the beams measured by Alice and Bob. It is of course what is assumed to occur. Chantal's 'random-on-a-sphere' method of generating pairs simulates unpolarised beams. My backwards-in-time-positrons model shows that Alice and Bob are measuring polarised beams. Data trimming is necessary to convert simulated unpolarised beams into simulated polarised beams. It is too complex a formula for me to unrave but I expect that is what the Pearle-based formula is doing. In my model I use an alternative formula to generate a polarised beam. (It is all in my vixra paper including VB computer program coding.) IMO the spin vectors in a polarised beam occupy a concavo-convex distribution. In an electron beam polarised to point at the north pole, zero vectors point at the equator. This rises to a thickness of 0.5 pointing exactly at the pole. At 45 degrees latitude the thickness of the distribution is 0.354. The exact 2D curve is given by 0.5 * sin θ where
θ = 0 and 180 degrees at the equator and θ=90 at the pole. My computer program outputs results conforming to Malus's Law. And I reckon Malus's Law is dual to the Bell correlation.
If you demand unpolarised beams then I have used data trimming in addition to conspiracy. But IMO the actual physics involves polarised beams and communication in the present.
Hi Richard
A few points.
1. IMO Alice and Bob are treated symmetrically in my model. I cannot understand how you would think they could be being treated differently. You may be intending to reply on this but if not could you add something about why you think there is asymmetry, as at the moment there is only your bald aspersion which I do not understand?
2. In the theme of bald aspersions... You categorise my model as falling into the conspiracy loophole. In the wiki page being built, could there be scope for more neutral or softening of terminology about loopholes. IMO nature is using what you call a conspiracy loophole. If I am correct the wiki page could in retrospect look very anti towards the correct resolution of the Bell paradox.
Further, I sense that you think all loopholes are associated with evil, underhand, conjuring tricks, fudging etc etc? But that view means that you are forcing nature to be spooky (that is, break Bell's Inequalities). Since I know that my model is right ;) that forces the Bell Paradox to be around forever unresolved. Well, except that the failure to progress in quantum computing might cause some long-term doubts.
As I previously said, Bell's Theorem is IMO correct and is useful to find out why physics is wrongly understood. The resolution of the paradox is not necessarily going to be that the inequalities are broken so why not use less pejorative terms ... just in case you are wrong.
{c.f. Yesterday the UK Law Society complained about the Home Office using the biased term ""activist lawyers"!}
3. Something new in my model which might interest you. The detection loophole might seem possibly to be in the category "evil, underhand, conjuring tricks, fudging etc". Certainly you ought to count the pairs out and count them all back in again. You have programmed an interesting formula based originally on Pearle using trimmed data to get the Bell correlation.
I am not sure I often see the term 'unpolarised' used to describe the beams measured by Alice and Bob. It is of course what is assumed to occur. Chantal's 'random-on-a-sphere' method of generating pairs simulates unpolarised beams. My backwards-in-time-positrons model shows that Alice and Bob are measuring polarised beams. Data trimming is necessary to convert simulated unpolarised beams into simulated polarised beams. It is too complex a formula for me to unrave but I expect that is what the Pearle-based formula is doing. In my model I use an alternative formula to generate a polarised beam. (It is all in my vixra paper including VB computer program coding.) IMO the spin vectors in a polarised beam occupy a concavo-convex distribution. In an electron beam polarised to point at the north pole, zero vectors point at the equator. This rises to a thickness of 0.5 pointing exactly at the pole. At 45 degrees latitude the thickness of the distribution is 0.354. The exact 2D curve is given by 0.5 * sin θ where
θ = 0 and 180 degrees at the equator and θ=90 at the pole. My computer program outputs results conforming to Malus's Law. And I reckon Malus's Law is dual to the Bell correlation.
If you demand unpolarised beams then I have used data trimming in addition to conspiracy. But IMO the actual physics involves polarised beams and communication in the present.
