by gill1109 » Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:15 pm
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:11 pm
gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:18 am
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 2:29 am
No, that is incorrect.
a and b in the above refutation are experimental settings, such as angles specifying the orientations of the analyzers.
.
Alice and Bob choose their settings: “a” and “b” respectively. In an ideal EPR-B experiment, a particle always arrives at both Alice and Bob’s measurement devices. There are always detection events on both sides of the experiment. So I don’t understand your (2), (3) and (4). I don’t understand what are p_1(a, lambda), p_2(b, lambda), p_12(a, b, lambda).
They are defined in Section II, equations (1) and (2) of Clauser and Horne:
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.10.526. As a self-proclaimed "expert", you should not have had any difficulty understanding the equations of Clauser and Horne, published in their famous paper of 1974. You are a fake "expert."
Note also that my refutation of "superdeterminism" is in response to Michel's claim that he is only assuming p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) [my eq. (1) above] without committing to its usual interpretation of superdeterminism. What I have shown is that Michel's claim is wrong. The assumption p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) is not required for reproducing quantum mechanical probabilities, unless one is explicitly committed to either superdeterminism or retrocausality, or both.
The Clauser-Horne paper is about the detection loophole, and about early experiments in which the outcomes were not “plus”, “minus”, or “no detection”, but only “plus” or “no detection”.
The Clauser-Horne paper is indeed easy to understand. Read it again, take note of Figure 1.
Your claim “The assumption p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) is not required for reproducing quantum mechanical probabilities, unless one is explicitly committed to either superdeterminism or retrocausality, or both” contradicts mathematical formulations of Bell’s theorem. Palmer, Hossenfelder et al accept the usual mathematics. You don’t.
It’s trivial that:
IF
Bell’s theorem is false, THEN the assumption p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) is not required for reproducing quantum mechanical probabilities, unless one is explicitly committed to either superdeterminism or retrocausality, or both.
Here, “Bell’s theorem” is the mathematical theorem distilled from Bell’s physics papers, as written out in recent publications by Hossenfelder, Palmer, yours truly, and others.
[quote="Joy Christian" post_id=566 time=1641071474 user_id=63]
[quote=gill1109 post_id=565 time=1641064710 user_id=60]
[quote="Joy Christian" post_id=563 time=1641032974 user_id=63]
No, that is incorrect.
a and b in the above refutation are experimental settings, such as angles specifying the orientations of the analyzers.
.
[/quote]
Alice and Bob choose their settings: “a” and “b” respectively. In an ideal EPR-B experiment, a particle always arrives at both Alice and Bob’s measurement devices. There are always detection events on both sides of the experiment. So I don’t understand your (2), (3) and (4). I don’t understand what are p_1(a, lambda), p_2(b, lambda), p_12(a, b, lambda).
[/quote]
They are defined in Section II, equations (1) and (2) of Clauser and Horne: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.10.526. As a self-proclaimed "expert", you should not have had any difficulty understanding the equations of Clauser and Horne, published in their famous paper of 1974. You are a fake "expert."
Note also that my refutation of "superdeterminism" is in response to Michel's claim that he is only assuming p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) [my eq. (1) above] without committing to its usual interpretation of superdeterminism. What I have shown is that Michel's claim is wrong. The assumption p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) is not required for reproducing quantum mechanical probabilities, unless one is explicitly committed to either superdeterminism or retrocausality, or both.
[/quote]
The Clauser-Horne paper is about the detection loophole, and about early experiments in which the outcomes were not “plus”, “minus”, or “no detection”, but only “plus” or “no detection”.
The Clauser-Horne paper is indeed easy to understand. Read it again, take note of Figure 1.
Your claim “The assumption p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) is not required for reproducing quantum mechanical probabilities, unless one is explicitly committed to either superdeterminism or retrocausality, or both” contradicts mathematical formulations of Bell’s theorem. Palmer, Hossenfelder et al accept the usual mathematics. You don’t.
It’s trivial that:
IF [i]Bell’s theorem[/i] is false, THEN the assumption p(h | a, b) =/= p(h) is not required for reproducing quantum mechanical probabilities, unless one is explicitly committed to either superdeterminism or retrocausality, or both.
Here, “Bell’s theorem” is the mathematical theorem distilled from Bell’s physics papers, as written out in recent publications by Hossenfelder, Palmer, yours truly, and others.
