Sci.Physics.Foundations

You need to back up claims like that with at least a couple of references. Here you have https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9104-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9508-1 What a bunch of nonsense!!!!!!!! I think we need to start writing comment papers to expose this nonsense. . You're right. You...

You need to back up claims like that with at least a couple of references. Here you have https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9104-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9508-1 What a bunch of nonsense!!!!!!!! I think we need to start writing comment papers to expose this nonsense. . You're right. You...

For physics, the definition of realism is very clear. If you know the initial variable values for a system, you can predict with certainty the outcomes or results. The reason you think it is obscure and others might think that, is you believe in Bell's junk physics theory. That pretty much started ...

There is nothing obscure about realism as it is used in physics. See my example above! Not sure why you think it is obscure. In part you are right. The problem is that everyone has his own definition of realism and some of them are obscure metaphysical ideas. Besides, I don't recall Bell messing wi...

1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell. I do not know about Einstein, but I doubt Bell ever mentioned such an obscure concept as "realism". Bell was a very clear thinker and I don't recall reading "reali...

Well, if you are right, you will have no difficulty at all in getting someone to program your model on a simulated computer network, and then you will be in line for a big prize from me, and indeed for worldwide recognition and a Nobel prize. I am sorry but I disagree. Nobody will ever bother to pr...

As already written in the paper and in the previous paper as well: If Alice selects a photon1 with 0° polarization the peer photon2 at Bob's with polarization 90°, detectable by "time slot", is selected as well. If this photon2 hits Bob's polarizer a match (A=1,B=1) is detected. I agree, ...

Dear Gordon, I beg your pardon. I went over your paper and checked that for me it is unintelligible. So I can't have an opinion of it. Send it somewhere and let's see what the reviewers say. If it is well written and proves that Bell was wrong, start by sending it to Nature. Recently Eugene Muchows...

Dear Gordon, I beg your pardon. I went over your paper and checked that for me it is unintelligible. So I can't have an opinion of it. Send it somewhere and let's see what the reviewers say. If it is well written and proves that Bell was wrong, start by sending it to Nature. Recently Eugene Muchowsk...

I don't know if it will help but I have the impression that the problem is somehow semantics. The Bell theorem has hypotheses. I believe that Joy does claim the theorem is false because he says that given the hypothesis the result does not follow or that it has no physical meaning. I don't understan...

Who cares what Bell's definitions are? Here is what I say in Footnote 7 of my paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.180526. The possible space-like separated events being averaged in (4.8) cannot possibly occur in any possible world, classical or quantum. To appreciate this ele...

Feynman in 1983 talking about the Bell theorem said: "...It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance. We who use quantum mechanics have been using it all the time. It is not an important theorem. It is simply a statement of something we know is true—a mathematical pr...

My "Comment" https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169 on Joy's RSOS paper has also been accepted. No doubt, Joy will yet again be invited to write a "Reply". I hope he will do so, if only for sociological reasons. My IEEE accepted Comment https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225 on Joy's IEEE A...

This unpublished preprint by Gill is a prime example of how the blatant fraud is perpetuated by all Bell-believers for self-glorification. Note the "theorem" based on the inequality stolen by Bell from George Boole he reproduces in the preprint. He then claims that that mathematical inequ...

My comment on the first of Joy’s two IEEE Access papers is now also accepted! RSOS should follow soon. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225 LOL! You can't even do an abstract without lying. What a piece of trash your paper is! This unpublished preprint by Gill is a prime example of how the blatant frau...

I do not understand this. "<f>=<g>, then f=g" is obviously false in general. Of course, it does not mean that it could happen f=g in a particular case. Why we should have f(x)=g(x) for this particular case? Fred is considering the case when X1 … Xn are a random sample from a uniform distr...

New forum, but the same old spewing of nonsense. For heaven's sake, my two-page paper is about "Bell's local model" from his 1964 paper. I am not concerned about any other model in my paper. Do correct me if anyone else has worked out the probabilities P(++), etc., for Bell's local model ...

I suppose that equation (1) is not "Bell's model" in general. Is one possible "local realistic" model. Right? No. Eq. (1) is Bell's local model. See Section 3 of his 1964 paper. . I do not agree. See the title, it is only an illustration, an example of a local realistic model wi...

I suppose that equation (1) is not "Bell's model" in general. Is one possible "local realistic" model. Right?

Great that this new forum is up and running! Fred, in the original formula https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/download/outcome-pairs2.png the probabilities are understood as conditional probabilities, or probabilities given a fixed experimental condition; i.e. P(++) is shorthand for P(++ | a,b), and...