|Dec24-12, 07:04 PM||#52|
Entanglement and Bell's theorem. Is the non-locality real?
As you are not following forum guidelines regarding the posting of personal theories, I have reported you to staff. I might have thought that a new member might tread a bit more softly in this moderated forum. For each person who posts there are at least 10 reading. Many of those will not be aware that your ideas ignore Bell. Since I follow both Zeilinger and Mermin closely and reference both often, I can tell you that your quotes are gross mischaracterization of their viewpoints.
See the link on my tag line if you would to learn more about Bell.
|Dec24-12, 07:33 PM||#53|
A realistic system is not defined as one that is "observer independent". Rather, it is one that exists and has definiteness whether or not it is observed. The meanings are quite different.
And, I see an aweful lot of links to your personal website in this forum, MrChinese. That's against the rules.
In any case, it was inappropriate to report me for responding to quesitons you asked. It seems, though, you reported me because I disagreed with your nonconsensus definition of realistic?
|Similar Threads for: Entanglement and Bell's theorem. Is the non-locality real?|
|Bell's Theorem, non-locality||Quantum Physics||16|
|A Bell Theorem with no locality assumption?||Quantum Physics||79|
|Bell's Inequality: Must we ditch locality, realism... or something else?||Quantum Physics||49|
|What is "passive locality"? Bell's Theorem.||Quantum Physics||0|
|Paper on Bell Locality||Quantum Physics||102|