Re: Bell's inequality
- From: "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:30:52 EDT
"a student" <of_1001_nights@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Egads!! When I posted the links to Christian's papers, I was hoping for
some kind of civil discussion of the issues, not a name calling-fest. A bit
bizarre as it is usually the crackpots that are doing the name calling so
there doesn't seem to be any reason to glean any new insight from that blog
discussion. And after reading most of it, I found none.
(see also links therein), where you are unable to
come up with the goods and win your Nobel
Let's focus on your 1-page eprint at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 . You have a
hidden variable lambda=+/1. The result of
Alices measurement in direction a is given in
your eq 1 as
A(a,lambda) = lambda.
The result of Bob's measurement in direction
b is given in your eq 2 as
B(b,,lambda) = - lambda.
It follows directly from the above that the
product of the measurement results, for
any lambda and any measurement directions,
A(a,lambda) B(b,lambda) = -1.
Unfortunately, of course, this is not
what is predicted for the singlet state
(except in the special case a=b). Hence
your model by the time one has got to
eq 2, fails. No need to even read the rest (where
one can find various howlers, but why bother?).
As Christian has already pointed out, you don't seem to understand what he
is presenting in his papers. Perhaps this will help.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bell's inequality
- Next by Date: Re: Non-standard analysis and QFT
- Previous by thread: Re: Bell's inequality
- Next by thread: Re: Bell's inequality