# 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

news:232fd8a1-9991-4c58-b20e-9047df88ae2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/quantum_crackpot_randi_challenge_help_perimeter_physicist_joy_christian_collect>

_nobel_prize-79614

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

prize.

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,

is

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.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/introduction/intro/intro.html

Best,

Fred Diether

.

**References**:**Re: Bell's inequality***From:*Joy Christian

**Re: Bell's inequality***From:*a student

- 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** - Index(es):