by gill1109 » Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:56 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:28 pm
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:49 pm
.
7. Since I am happy to address any and all
serious objections directly, and since I am happy to propose any Bellian as a nominated referee, am I missing something here?
Yes, you are missing something. There is no such word as "Bellian" in this context. The phrase is "Bell Fanatic". Which simply means an extreme fan of John Bell. Thanks.
Exactly.
The problem is that Gordon did not catch my irony.
The problem with his arguments is always that they are circular. He *assumes* a certain expression for P(A+|B+, a, b). He says it follows from heuristics and/or from a conditional probability calculation. He now derives the famous formula for the correlation in the EPR-B model. He now claims to have disproved Bell’s theorem. He has done no such thing. He has not exhibited functions A(a, lambda) etc etc etc. He has just gone round in a little circle. He assumes QM formulas for EPR-B and uses them to get other QM formulas for EPR-B using elementary probability theory.
I should not have said that the expression was *manifestly* non-local. It is non-local. I know that because of Bell’s theorem. Because of the CHSH inequality.
You could derive a similar formula showing that the probability of A+ given B+, a, and b, also depends non-trivially on b, for Bell’s famous example local model. Just looking at the formula does not tell you whether or not it can be derived some local realistic mechanism.
Knowing A+, B+, and a, gives you information about b. So give Alice some non-local information, and she gains non-local information about more stuff.
[quote=FrediFizzx post_id=204 time=1637206111 user_id=58]
[quote="Gordon Watson" post_id=203 time=1637203771 user_id=69]
.
7. Since I am happy to address any and all [u]serious objections[/u] directly, and since I am happy to propose any Bellian as a nominated referee, am I missing something here? [/quote]
Yes, you are missing something. There is no such word as "Bellian" in this context. The phrase is "Bell Fanatic". Which simply means an extreme fan of John Bell. Thanks.
[/quote]
Exactly.
The problem is that Gordon did not catch my irony.
The problem with his arguments is always that they are circular. He *assumes* a certain expression for P(A+|B+, a, b). He says it follows from heuristics and/or from a conditional probability calculation. He now derives the famous formula for the correlation in the EPR-B model. He now claims to have disproved Bell’s theorem. He has done no such thing. He has not exhibited functions A(a, lambda) etc etc etc. He has just gone round in a little circle. He assumes QM formulas for EPR-B and uses them to get other QM formulas for EPR-B using elementary probability theory.
I should not have said that the expression was *manifestly* non-local. It is non-local. I know that because of Bell’s theorem. Because of the CHSH inequality.
You could derive a similar formula showing that the probability of A+ given B+, a, and b, also depends non-trivially on b, for Bell’s famous example local model. Just looking at the formula does not tell you whether or not it can be derived some local realistic mechanism.
Knowing A+, B+, and a, gives you information about b. So give Alice some non-local information, and she gains non-local information about more stuff.