Sci.Physics.Foundations

Structure of QM from geometry of space: https://sciencex.com/news/2022-01-quantum-theorists-mechanics.html What a worthless waffle! Why do you post such junk in this forum? The correct geometrical origins of quantum mechanics are rooted in the Euclidean Primitives, as I demonstrated over three year...

Here's what I got out of Lasenby's presentation: Straightforward geometric algebra, right hand frame vectors: e1, e2, e3, pseudoscaler I = e1 e2 e3 bivectors: B1 = I e1, B2 = I e2, B3 = I e3 For a left hand frame, reverse signs of e1, e2, e3: e1' =-e1, e2' = -e2, e3' = -e3, for the pseudoscaler we ...

Here's what I got out of Lasenby's presentation: Straightforward geometric algebra, right hand frame vectors: e1, e2, e3, pseudoscaler I = e1 e2 e3 bivectors: B1 = I e1, B2 = I e2, B3 = I e3 For a left hand frame, reverse signs of e1, e2, e3: e1' =-e1, e2' = -e2, e3' = -e3, for the pseudoscaler we ...

Also in the dustbin is Gill's claim about your A and B functions always giving -1 for AB. With the full detector polarization, the A and B functions give +/-1 for AB. So, that is why the Bell fanatics haven't said anything other than nonsense about the updated model. It is because they can't! :D 't...

... It is also worth noting that in the updated version of this thread the orientation lambda plays no role so Lasenby's entire argument goes to the dustbin. Also in the dustbin is Gill's claim about your A and B functions always giving -1 for AB. With the full detector polarization, the A and B fu...

What? Did you expect something other than nonsense from a Bell fanatic? :D Your updated argument is even better but they have absolutely nothing to say about it so far. Do you have a link to Lasenby's paper? I don't think I ever saw it. Here is the link to Lasenby's AACA paper: https://link.springe...

Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye! Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021 https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI Here’s Lasenby’s talk https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI If you carefully listen to and understand the first part of Lasenby's presentation you will understand what is wrong with Joy's arguments about...

.
Complete hogwash. You always have stupid things to waffle about everything. I am not going to worry about what you delude yourself with.
.

Joy: you write about a, b and lambda and it seems you think of a and b as being outcomes, not inputs. 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” res...

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:08 pm
Joy: you write about a, b and lambda and it seems you think of a and b as being outcomes, not inputs.

No, that is incorrect.

a and b in the above refutation are experimental settings, such as angles specifying the orientations of the analyzers.
.

.
I am reproducing my refutation of superdeterminism from this thread because it seems to be getting lost in that thread in some tangential noise:



Happy New Year!
.

Unfortunately behind a paywall https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5089751 Kepler and the origins of the theory of gravity American Journal of Physics 87, 176 (2019) Eugene Hecht Thanks for this reference. I was not aware of it. I have downloaded the paper. Here is the abstract: The concept of...

After all, everyone knows I'm just a third-rate statistician. Whereas you are a great scientist, of the stature of your heroes Copernicus, Dirac and 't Hooft. Copernicus and 't Hooft are not my heroes (although, I did take a course on quantum field theory taught by 't Hooft at Boston University in ...

After all, everyone knows I'm just a third-rate statistician. Whereas you are a great scientist, of the stature of your heroes Copernicus, Dirac and 't Hooft. Copernicus and 't Hooft are not my heroes (although, I did take a course on quantum field theory taught by 't Hooft at Boston University in ...

.

.

Michel wants to deny any metaphysical assumption behind the claim p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). I can't really engage with a misrepresentation of my position which I've explained multiple times. p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) has absolutely no metaphysical "assumption" behind it. It's simply a statement that t...

.
A lovely photo of Bell's theorem:


.

In a typical EPRB experiment, you have a distribution produced by a source, and from that, you select a subset that produced the outcomes you observed when the settings were (a,b). p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) (also known as "superdeterminism") simply means that this subset is not the same as the s...

In a typical EPRB experiment, you have a distribution produced by a source, and from that, you select a subset that produced the outcomes you observed when the settings were (a,b). p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) (also known as "superdeterminism") simply means that this subset is not the same as the s...

You are making the assumption that the probability distribution p(h) depends on the settings a and b. You have to justify that assumption. Superdeterminism means \rho(\lambda) \neq \rho(\lambda|ab) This absolutely does not mean \rho(\lambda) depends on the settings (a, b). It simply means the distr...