Recent content by kobak

I'm sorry that I'm again not continuing our main discussion (I've been rather busy during these days), but instead answering just this minor point. I would appreciate if we could use the standard terminology, otherwise it's hard to understand each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when...

Hi mn4j, I'm going to reply you later (there are actually several things I'd like to think about before I answer), but there's a technical moment that I'd like to clarify right away. I don't need to wait until I come to the lab tomorrow and can use Matlab to see that what you are saying is...

I will answer a bit later, but a quick question right away: are you going to answer my considerations about double-slit? Sorry for bothering if you were going to anyway. It's just that I don't want this topic to get lost. And then from the technical side, there's also this \lambda issue.

That's easy: let's just say, that by classical physics in this case I mean all physics known before 1920. To make this comment self-contained, I repeat my claim: in classical physics Bell's technical assumption (that you and Jaynes and de Raedt keep saying is unjustified) is always true. You...

Well, I fear that I don't see how this discussion can lead to anything more. From what you've just said, I'm now sure that you don't understand what a coincidence time loophole is. This is crucial, so there's unfortunately no point in this discussion anymore. I will briefly react to some...

Hello again, mn4j, I suggest that if we continue this discussion at all, let's try to concentrate on the most important points only and also try avoid nitpicking each other (like what "scientific consensus" really means etc.). I'm quite sure that we won't reach an agreement, but we can at least...

DrChinese, yes, I think that our position regarding the main points here is the same. And I must say that I myself have also wondered many times about what "would Einstein have thought about Bell or Aspect"...

Thanks for replying. In the beginning I started answering and addressing all the points where we disagree, but this is getting too huge and difficult to handle (so I'll concentrate on the main issue). But let me first say one thing. I'm not a "hostile audience", because I sincerely try to...

Three points. First. I'm not an expert in Bell tests and loopholes issue, so can't really comment on that on the detailed level. I know that there's for example "time-coincidence" loophole (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312035), which is apparently exactly the loophole de Raedt is exploiting...

Sorry, DrChinese, are you saying that some of these experiments were loophole-free? As far as I know, this has so far never been achieved. If it is true, then exactly how many standard deviations is observed -- doesn't really matter. A strict believer in local realism still can say: there are...

Dear mn4j, we are already going in circles. I will try to summarize my points as clear as possible and I would like to ask you to comment on each of them, whether you agree or not. If you still don't listen to what I'm saying, then it's better to stop this discussion. 1. All the experiments...

Well, I'm glad that we agree on something. However, your question doesn't relate to my statement that you quote. Let me try to clarify things a bit. There are two things: Bell's theorem as an abstract theorem, and its experimental tests. Bell's theorem states that local realist theories can't...

I spent some time reading de Raedt's articles and talking with him about them. Let me answer some of the mn4j's questions in the last postings ("the only two important questions", as you write). 1. Yes, they did present event-by-event simulations of the certain experiments (like Aspect's and...