Sci.Physics.Foundations

.
Elsewhere, Gill claims that there are "many, many proofs" of Bell's theorem. What a funny theorem! Needs so "many, many proofs." One would suffice if it is indeed a "theorem." I have never heard of a "theorem" that has so many, many loopholes (mathematicians call them "gaps"). I have also never heard of a "theorem" that needs so many, many expensive experiments to verify it. But all the experiments do is find new loopholes. It is the most hilarious "theorem" I have ever heard of.
.

Of course, the "theorem" does not need many proofs. One simple proof is quite enough. Calling the result a "theorem" is a bit of a joke. Feynman thought that all proofs are superfluous since "we" (people who study quantum mechanics) already knew that it must be true. "We" already know that local realism is wrong. We don't need a formal mathematical theorem to convince us of this.

But as Feynman also said, each different proof supplies a different, neat little example, and each different example corresponds to a different experiment which you could try to do. The experiments have all been done and they all confirm QM and contradict LR.

Some past experiments had loopholes, ie, allowed for alternative, if physically unappealing, explanations within local realism. Fortunately, since 2015 we have loophole-free experiments. No new *experimental* loopholes have been identified. Experimental loopholes means: loopholes which could in principle have been avoided with better detectors, better spatial-temporal parameters, etc etc. There only remain metaphysical loopholes such as superdeterminism and retrocausality. Such explanations are always possible. If the history of the universe unrolls according to deterministic laws, the experimenter's choices were already pre-determined in the deep past, the detectors can therefore already both "know" what is coming their way and what the setting will be on the other side of the experiment. Hence any correlations whatever are possible. Nature, for some reason which is perhaps hard to understand, forces the experimenter to see what quantum mechanics predicts.

If you find that an attractive explanation then go ahead, try to sell it to your fellow physicists. Some famous people seem to have staked their reputations on that way forward. They are not gaining much traction. What's the point? We have QM anyway, and we know how to use it.

Of course, there will always be obstinate people who misunderstand Bell's arguments and cling to local realism. One of the last such people is Marian Kupcsynski, who is giving a talk in Jarek Duda's Zoom seminar from Krakow next Thursday at 5 pm Warsaw time, https://researchseminars.org/seminar/QMFNoT. Marian, who is a guy, do not be misled by his first name, has many publications on his ideas, the latest is https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/9/1104 in a special issue of Entropy.

.
Bell's theorem is a bad joke, and that is all there is to it. Feynman made fun of it. And rightly so.

Feynman never mentioned "local realism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTbtXgqYMo&t=1500s.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:59 am Bell's theorem is a bad joke, and that is all there is to it. Feynman made fun of it. And rightly so.
Feynman never mentioned "local realism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTbtXgqYMo&t=1500s.

Feynman did not mention "local realism", in the sense that he did not use those exact words, but he certainly talked about it! About things having definite properties at all times even if those properties are not observed.

He thought Bell's theorem was a bit of a joke because for him, local realism was already dead and buried. One learnt that from quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is confirmed by every experiment you ever throw at it.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:23 pm ... One learnt that from quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is confirmed by every experiment you ever throw at it.

Idiots learnt that from quantum mechanics. Certainly Einstein and other didn't. And..., that is all the experiments do is validate QM. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Bell inequalities.
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:23 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:59 am Bell's theorem is a bad joke, and that is all there is to it. Feynman made fun of it. And rightly so.
Feynman never mentioned "local realism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTbtXgqYMo&t=1500s.

Feynman did not mention "local realism", in the sense that he did not use those exact words, but he certainly talked about it! About things having definite properties at all times even if those properties are not observed.

He thought Bell's theorem was a bit of a joke because for him, local realism was already dead and buried. One learnt that from quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is confirmed by every experiment you ever throw at it.

You have a nasty habit of putting words in other people's mouths. Feynman did not mention local realism. Feynman did not mention nonlocality. He did not mention that Bell's theorem necessitates that we must accept radical nonlocality, as Bell and most of his followers claim we must accept.

On the contrary, Feynman made fun of Bell's theorem, and rightly so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTbtXgqYMo&t=1500s.
.

Yes, Feynman made fun of Bell's theorem, and yes, he did not mention nonlocality. Yes, he did not use the phrase "local realism".

He said that the theorem was true and that he and others already knew it. He said it was a bit of a joke to call it a theorem since it is so simple and so obvious. It doesn't change what people do when they use quantum mechanics. It doesn't help them to do physics, better. They do have to accept what QM is telling them. Local realism is a non-starter.

He did not say that Bell's theorem necessitates that we must accept radical nonlocality. I don't say that either. Bell doesn't say that either. You, Joy Christian, are the one who is putting words into other people's mouths. You have not listened carefully to what Feyman actually did say.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:24 am Yes, Feynman made fun of Bell's theorem, and yes, he did not mention nonlocality. Yes, he did not use the phrase "local realism".

He said that the theorem was true and that he and others already knew it. He said it was a bit of a joke to call it a theorem since it is so simple and so obvious. It doesn't change what people do when they use quantum mechanics. It doesn't help them to do physics, better. They do have to accept what QM is telling them. Local realism is a non-starter.

He did not say that Bell's theorem necessitates that we must accept radical nonlocality. I don't say that either. Bell doesn't say that either. You, Joy Christian, are the one who is putting words into other people's mouths. You have not listened carefully to what Feyman actually did say.

Would you stop putting your words in Feynman's mouth? Feynman DID NOT SAY: "Local realism is a non-starter."

Don't you accuse me of what you are guilty of. Bell said zillions of times in his papers and in interviews that his "theorem" implied radical nonlocality and he is very disturbed by that. Read Bell's papers and his interviews and you will find zillions of claims about radical nonlocality (because he accepted realism).

In any case, whatever you say and whatever you do, you --- along with all other Bell fanatics --- are going down in history as a sore loser.
.

Feynman said Bell’s theorem was utterly uninteresting because everyone who accepted and understood quantum mechanics already knew it. It was trivial (easy to prove, in multiple different ways). It didn’t contribute anything useful for them.

Of course, most of the different ways to prove it consist of a theoretical analysis of a suitable theoretical example. And each theoretical example inspires an experiment which you could try to do. Forty years after Feynman spoke those words there has been intensive progress in converting those thought experiments into real experiments. Nowadays we can see the dawn of new technology: quantum computers, quantum internet. Maybe it is a false dawn? I don’t know. We live in interesting times. And Bell’s theorem is right now the cornerstone of many scientists’ dreams.

.
Feynman made fun of Bell's theorem because it is an idiotic theorem. Only cranks, morons, and statisticians believe in it. Feynman had no time for it.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:52 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:42 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:22 am Ok, guys, let us get back to the topic of this thread about the bait-and-switch fraud committed by all Bell-believers, for unscientific reasons.

It does not exist. There is no fraud. The folk who think Bell was right and repeat or even improve Bell’s arguments, genuinely believe he was right. Other people believe Bell was wrong. Other people (maybe the majority) are sheeple: they just repeat what other people say. I’m not aware of any deception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3HmZMOIEkc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O9FFrLpinQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla
I think there is a lot of ignorance. And the worst kind is ignorance of ignorance, both on one's own side and on other people's side.
See what Socrates said about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_th ... ow_nothing

Bell's junk physics theory will go down in history as one of the biggest hoaxes in physics history.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:53 pm Bell's junk physics theory will go down in history as one of the biggest hoaxes in physics history.

Sure. Like the round earth theory.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:53 pm Bell's junk physics theory will go down in history as one of the biggest hoaxes in physics history.

Sure. Like the round earth theory.

Strange statement from a "flatlander" like you.
.