by gill1109 » Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:02 am
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Bell's theory: no local model can reproduce the predictions of QM. Done, shot down. Gill's theory: no local model can simulate the experiments event by event. Your problem is that QM can't predict what the experiments find event by event either. You are just in denial that Bell's theory is shot down already.
.
Bell’s theorem, as we understand it today: no local and realistic non-conspiratorial model can reproduce the predictions of QM. Still very much alive. ...
Well..., that is patently false. Joy has published papers that say it's false. Plus I even did a more simple model that says it is false. Not much you can do about it except to try to lie your way out of it as usual.
Your simple model, Fred, says nothing which we didn’t already know, and it beautifully illustrates Bell’s theorem. You yourself cited Bell's own statement of what his own theorem is. Remember it?
We add the hypothesis of locality, that the setting b of a particular instrument has no effect on what happens, A, in a remote region, and likewise that a has no effect on B: A(a, µ), B(b, µ). With these local forms, it is not possible to find functions A and B [taking values +/–1] and a probability distribution π which give the correlation [∫ A(a, µ) B(b, µ) π(d µ)] =–a.b. This is the theorem. The proof will not be repeated here.
Your own model, Fred, illustrates this theorem perfectly. You, as also does Joy Christian, know various ways of doing a computation which ends up with the desired answer -
a.
b. But *you* do not show that your computation, whether analytic or by simulation, is a computation of the expression ∫
A(
a, µ)
B(
b, µ) π(d µ), with functions
A and
B taking values +/–1, and a probability distribution π not depending on
a or
b.
Shouting personal abuse only weakens your case still further! Show us the maths, show us the physics. Or admit that you might be wrong. Is that so very difficult?
[quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="gill1109"][quote="FrediFizzx"]@gill1109 Bell's theory: no local model can reproduce the predictions of QM. Done, shot down. Gill's theory: no local model can simulate the experiments event by event. Your problem is that QM can't predict what the experiments find event by event either. You are just in denial that Bell's theory is shot down already.
.[/quote]
Bell’s theorem, as we understand it today: no local and realistic non-conspiratorial model can reproduce the predictions of QM. Still very much alive. ... [/quote]
Well..., that is patently false. Joy has published papers that say it's false. Plus I even did a more simple model that says it is false. Not much you can do about it except to try to lie your way out of it as usual.
[/quote]
Your simple model, Fred, says nothing which we didn’t already know, and it beautifully illustrates Bell’s theorem. You yourself cited Bell's own statement of what his own theorem is. Remember it?
[quote]We add the hypothesis of locality, that the setting [b]b[/b] of a particular instrument has no effect on what happens, [i]A[/i], in a remote region, and likewise that [b]a[/b] has no effect on [i]B[/i]: [i]A[/i]([b]a[/b], µ), [i]B[/i]([b]b[/b], µ). With these local forms, it is not possible to find functions [i]A[/i] and [i]B[/i] [taking values +/–1] and a probability distribution π which give the correlation [∫ [i]A[/i]([b]a[/b], µ) [i]B[/i]([b]b[/b], µ) π(d µ)] =–[b]a[/b].[b]b[/b]. This is the theorem. The proof will not be repeated here.[/quote]
Your own model, Fred, illustrates this theorem perfectly. You, as also does Joy Christian, know various ways of doing a computation which ends up with the desired answer -[b]a[/b].[b]b[/b]. But *you* do not show that your computation, whether analytic or by simulation, is a computation of the expression ∫ [i]A[/i]([b]a[/b], µ) [i]B[/i]([b]b[/b], µ) π(d µ), with functions [i]A[/i] and [i]B[/i] taking values +/–1, and a probability distribution π not depending on [b]a[/b] or [b]b[/b].
Shouting personal abuse only weakens your case still further! Show us the maths, show us the physics. Or admit that you might be wrong. Is that so very difficult?
