Sci.Physics.Foundations

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 3:20 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 2:43 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 11:35 pm That is not correct. In eq. (11) mu_1 and mu_2 are defined to be fixed for each run. They are defined in terms of the initial spin direction s^i at the source.
It is important to read what I have defined carefully.

OK, but in that case the notation and/or explanation needs some improvement. You are using s^1 twice in the same expression (once explicitly, once implicitly), and similar for s^2, but the two occurrences are not supposed to be the same.
You must also define the initial two spin directions.

Either you are getting too old for this stuff or your eyesight needs checking. Or maybe you just don't read stuff anymore. Please read my paper or my above comment again. What I have used to define mu_1 and mu_2 is the initial spin direction s^i, not s_1 or s_2. Here the superscript "i" refers to the initial spin direction at the source, and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the observation stations at the two ends of the experiment. This is not difficult to understand.

I have read carefully what you have written and I have discovered inconsistencies. I believe that what you write is impossible to understand. But this is already obvious: there is a known mathematical theorem whose proof is completely correct. You claim to have a counterexample. Hence your example must be wrong.

Notice that my presentation of Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem using Fourier analysis has now been published. It forms my response to a challenge made by you and Fred Diether. You are thanked in the acknowledgments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

Richard D. Gill wrote:
I have read carefully what you have written and I have discovered inconsistencies. I believe that what you write is impossible to understand.

You had over ten years of opportunities to understand my work but you have failed. What you have "discovered" are nothing but gaps in your education.

Richard D. Gill wrote:
But this is already obvious: there is a known mathematical theorem whose proof is completely correct.

There is no such theorem. In physics, there are no theorems. Theorems are for mathematicians. And to the extent that there is an argument by John S. Bell, I have extensively demonstrated what is wrong with it in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf (reading the abstract would be sufficient).

Richard D. Gill wrote:
You claim to have a counterexample. Hence your example must be wrong.

You claim to have a theorem. Hence your theorem must be wrong. More precisely, what you claim to be a "theorem" is not applicable to physics.

Richard D. Gill wrote:
Notice that my presentation of Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem using Fourier analysis has now been published. It forms my response to a challenge made by you and Fred Diether. You are thanked in the acknowledgments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

This paper of yours --- published in one of the MDPI journals whose reputation has been questioned in a paper published by Oxford Academics and of which you yourself are one of the editors --- is worthless gobbledygook. It is devoid of any physical content. As I said above, in physics there are no theorems.
.