Recent content by javisot

If this were correct then EPR is not a quantum experiment, but this is not the case.

The example you gave of translating English into French has no relation to what I wrote. What I have written exactly and you can read is that it seems that natural language and communication are not so special "that they cannot be automatically generated"

There are people, myself included, who think that this LLM revolution and AI simply demonstrate that natural language and human communication are not so special that they cannot be generated automatically, without the need for intelligence or consciousness. It's easy to conclude otherwise...

I understand that the technical reasons for not calling it entanglement are that, as shown in the paper, with indistinguishability we end up violating a certain inequality, but not the most restrictive inequality. Sabine seems to also contribute to the debate It would be a problem if...

I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish...

To say all this, PeroK, you've had to ignore the opinions of many experts who say the opposite. Throughout the entire thread you haven't shared any scientific references to support your point of view. You've simply given us your opinion on AI, and who deserves to be answered and who doesn't...

New paper by Zeilinger, "violation of Bell Inequality with unentangled photons" https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07756

I'd like to offer positive feedback, the idea seems good to me. In every physics forum I know, there are threads that comply with all forum rules, contain reasonable questions, and still get 0 replies. The number of valid threads without replies keeps growing, which seems unnecessary to me in...

Any reference that specifically supports this? If you can't share any references, you're breaking the rules. Note that I'm simply demonstrating that requests for references can be used negatively. Not every request for references is automatically correct and consistent. I've seen Peter make...

Explain what the nonsense is. I'm not saying you should repeat my words, I'm saying you should explain in detail why what I said is nonsense. And I also ask you some specific questions: Do you know what matching is in GR? Do you know what matching conditions are? And what about the relationship...

You haven't shared any references here; you simply stated that it can be interpreted based on a standard, but there's no reference to support it. So, knowing this, I can ask: Do you have any references to support this? You don't have any direct, explicit references to offer, so you're refusing...

I'm flattered that you and Peter think the matching process at GR is a personal theory of mine. In any case, it doesn't make the slightest sense to ask for references for a sentence that begins with "in informal terms...", by definition. Obviously this is an absurd request for references which...

You use the request for references as a weapon, no one on the entire forum does the same, Peter. We've been through this before. You're misinterpreting things that aren't written anywhere, using some kind of prejudice to tell me I'm hijacking the thread and should be banned. We can skip to the...

The curvature of spacetime, the energy conditions, and the Minkoswski solution are all part of general relativity. I don't know what you think of it as a personal theory.

Suppose you start with a flat spacetime (Minkoswki, for example) and add things to it—that is, we produce a certain curvature by adding some matter. Now suppose you want to remove the things you've added; you should recover Minkoswki. If that doesn't happen, that is, if some trace like the one...