Sci.Physics.Foundations

A number of authors have long been arguing that non-locality is an artefact of contextuality. I mention the names Nieuwenhuizen, Khrennikov, de Raedt, Hess, Kupczinski. Here is a new PubPeer discussion on one of Kupczynski's recent works.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/8D4135 ... DAA711238A

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:58 pm A number of authors have long been arguing that non-locality is an artefact of contextuality. I mention the names Nieuwenhuizen, Khrennikov, de Raedt, Hess, Kupczinski. Here is a new PubPeer discussion on one of Kupczynski's recent works.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/8D4135 ... DAA711238A

Quantum "non-locality" for EPR-Bohm is pure nonsense. Here is the proof.

viewtopic.php?p=886#p886
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:27 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:58 pm A number of authors have long been arguing that non-locality is an artefact of contextuality. I mention the names Nieuwenhuizen, Khrennikov, de Raedt, Hess, Kupczinski. Here is a new PubPeer discussion on one of Kupczynski's recent works.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/8D4135 ... DAA711238A

Quantum "non-locality" for EPR-Bohm is pure nonsense. Here is the proof.
viewtopic.php?p=886#p886

Kupczynski (and the other guys I mentioned) also say quantum "non-locality" for EPR-Bohm is pure nonsense and also claim to have the proof. It's sad that you all believe Bell is wrong and all think that you have the proof, but none of you agrees with the others' explanations.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:48 am
It's sad that you all believe Bell is wrong and all think that you have the proof, but none of you agrees with the others' explanations.

It is better than you guys who worship a dead individual whose non-theorem has been repeatedly proven to be uttter nonsense. Talk about sad!
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:48 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:27 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:58 pm A number of authors have long been arguing that non-locality is an artefact of contextuality. I mention the names Nieuwenhuizen, Khrennikov, de Raedt, Hess, Kupczinski. Here is a new PubPeer discussion on one of Kupczynski's recent works.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/8D4135 ... DAA711238A

Quantum "non-locality" for EPR-Bohm is pure nonsense. Here is the proof.
viewtopic.php?p=886#p886

Kupczynski (and the other guys I mentioned) also say quantum "non-locality" for EPR-Bohm is pure nonsense and also claim to have the proof. It's sad that you all believe Bell is wrong and all think that you have the proof, but none of you agrees with the others' explanations.

There is a lot of different ways of shooting down Bell's junk physics theory. One would think you might have figured that out by now. NOT! LOL!
.

Here's my try at shooting down Kupczynski's theory (joint work with Justo Pastor Lambare from Paraguay). https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09930

We submitted the paper to Frontiers in Physics. So far three positive referee reports, and a call from the editor to submit a revision.

Also, new statistical analyses of the "loophole free" Bell experiments of 2015 and 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00702

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:40 am Here's my try at shooting down Kupczynski's theory (joint work with Justo Pastor Lambare from Paraguay). https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09930

We submitted the paper to Frontiers in Physics. So far three positive referee reports, and a call from the editor to submit a revision.

Also, new statistical analyses of the "loophole free" Bell experiments of 2015 and 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00702

Nothing you can say or do can bring back the dead horse. You are just wasting your life until you yourself wither away inconsequentially into oblivion.
.

Do not forget the paper
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /134/10004

It clearly states there is no spooky action at a distance needed to explain the EPR correlations

Esail wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:01 am Do not forget the paper
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /134/10004

It clearly states there is no spooky action at a distance needed to explain the EPR correlations

Unfortunately what it clearly states is clearly wrong.

Esail wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:01 am Do not forget the paper
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /134/10004

It clearly states there is no spooky action at a distance needed to explain the EPR correlations

Do not forget the paper by Dean Mamas and my refutation thereof, https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01068

Comment on: Bell tests explained by classical optics without quantum entanglement
Richard D. Gill
In a paper published in the journal Physics Essays in 2021, the author D.L. Mamas writes "A polarized photon interacts with a polarizer through the component of the photon's electric field which is aligned with the polarizer. This component varies as the cosine of the angle through which the polarizer is rotated, explaining the cosine observed in Bell test data. Quantum mechanics is unnecessary and plays no role". Mamas is right that according to this physical model, one will observe a negative cosine. However, the amplitude of the cosine curve is 50%, not 100%, and it consequently does not violate any Bell-CHSH inequality. Mamas' physical model is a classic local hidden variables model. The result is illustrated with a Monte Carlo simulation.

There is a discussion of Mamas' paper on PubPeer.

@Esail, I suggest you also publish a computer simulation version of your model. This can greatly help to clarify your ideas. It also enables you to prove that your theoretical calculations are correct, provided your computer programming is transparent enough. There is nothing wrong with computing an integral numerically through Monte Carlo (up to any required degree of accuracy).

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:54 am
There is a discussion of Mamas' paper on PubPeer.

Yes, there is. One can find that discussion here: https://pubpeer.com/publications/FFFF0C ... E0E64A0#14.
.

Congratulations, Joy! https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.220147