Sci.Physics.Foundations

Keep going Fred, pretty soon you'll get back to my original code without those pesky quaternions that don't add anything. Maybe you can even get rid of those dual detectors. Fred is too obstinate to just compute the negative cosine, though that is what he is actually doing. He just has to do it in ...

Causation from the future is pure nonsense. Post-selection can change correlations. It can change zero correlation to non zero correlation. That's what I was saying about the four different explanations of a correlation between X and Y: X causes Y; Y causes X; some Z causes X and Y; post-selection ...

Causation from the future is pure nonsense. Post-selection can change correlations. It can change zero correlation to non zero correlation. That's what I was saying about the four different explanations of a correlation between X and Y: X causes Y; Y causes X; some Z causes X and Y; post-selection ...

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

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 the US during the academic year 1987-1988). Dirac, of course, is universally admired for his enormous contributions to physics. But instead of Copernicus, I ad...

It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picke...

It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picke...

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 ...

If this is the claim of "superdeterminism", then it is completely false. There is never any selection of a subset of p(h) when experiments are done with a fixed set (a, b) of settings. ALL of the hidden variables h in H play role in the experiment, without exception. The assumption p(h|a,...

Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem": https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238. As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I hav...

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...

No it is NOT! It is equal to zero and they don't get zero in the experiments. Use a better equation or stop talking about it. Then I don't know what you are talking about. I don't see how you get zero. Even if you reduce it to E(c, d) = \int_H (\pm 1) \; p(h)\; dh it is not necessarily zero. You on...

Bell's eq. (4) makes perfect mathematical and physical sense. The sign function simply picks out a normalized component of the spin vector, his lambda in eq. (4), about the detector vector a , representing a scalar point +/-1 on a unit 2-sphere. That is analogous to what happens in a Stern–Gerlach ...

I don't think you guys are understanding me. I suspect that Richard understands but as usual he wants to play games because I've explained this to him before and he started scrambling to find a disingenuous way ou t. Michel, whenever I say something which you don't want to believe, you start saying...

What is claimed is simply that the domain of the function A(a,h) depends on both "a" and "h", and the domain of the product A(a, h)*B(b, h) depends on ("a", "b", and "h"). That would be true only if the functional arguments for the settings "a&...

The only thing that is demanded of any local hidden variable theory is that all effects travel at the speed light at most. There is nothing that requires the functions A(a, h) and B(b, h) to have a domain that is identical to the source distribution. Sorry Michel, but yes there is something, and it...

A bunch of hogwash nonsense. All physical action in Nature is always local. Easy to prove. OK, so prove it and publish your proof, and tell Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Palmer, and Jonte Hance, that their work is superfluous. Sabine and her co-authors are also arguing that it's local, but they need an ...

Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem": https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238. As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I hav...

Dear friends Has anyone seen Sabine Hossenfelders’ latest YouTube production, https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI ? “Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?” A glance at her Google Scholar page will show that she has a recent huge production of papers on...

... It's brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics. :D :lol: And..., how the heck would you know anything about physics? Good question. One answer would be: by 25 years of working with physicists. I've published more papers in physics journals than you have, dear boy. Some of them have been ...