View Single Post
DrChinese
#114
Jan11-05, 04:46 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,299
Quote Quote by Caroline Thompson
But if you want to talk about what Aspect measured you cannot avoid the matter of accidentals! He measured one set of counts then subtracted a substantial count and then calculated his Bell test statistic.
It matters to you, but doesn't matter quite so much to the rest of us. Why?

Because as I and others said above, it is the totality of the evidence that matters and Aspect's results are just one part of it. It is in context of the totality where your arguments fall on their face. When the arguments for both sides are viewed in this context, LR fails.

More importantly: After Bell, I would not accept local realism even if an experiment were never performed! What else is Bell but this point? So after Bell sunk in, the debate about LR was over for most scientists anyway. That is why Aspect was the nail in the coffin. If you totally unwound Aspect, it still would not change most scientists minds in favor of LR. That is why your "loopholes" are off base.

You need an experiment in favor of a different value for the observed correlations to convince anyone at this point. There is obviously an observed pattern: predict it and measure it! That is what Aspect did.