Recent content by mbd

There is nothing circular about the EPR argument. It is a standard proof by contradiction. The assumption is that special relativity applies to all physical phenomena. With this assumption, measuring the first cannot change the second. QM, though, predicts a change to the second. So, either...

DrChinese, I am very sorry for having gone out of my way to create an extremely simple, no math necessary, self-evident, example of a system that can violate Bell's Inequality. My intent: to advance understanding of Bell's Theorem, CHSH experiments, and their assumptions. I also provided...

Malus' Law only requires "randomness" if you assume the completeness, or correctness, of quantum mechanics. In the absolute mechanism I described, of course Malus' Law is not honored. In order for Malus' Law to be honored, the rate of emission and/or the velocity of the hypothetical "photon...

Here's a simple hypothetical counter-example to the conclusion that local realism is all but ruled out. I am not suggesting this to be physically plausible, nor am I proposing a theory. It is only an illuminating counter-example. It exploits two, if not more, known loopholes, that have not been...

Both papers to which I provided links define terms consistently with Bell. Antonio Di Lorenzo's paper (peer reviewed and recently published in Physical Review A) clearly defines the assumptions of Bell. These are "measurement independence", "outcome independence", and "setting independence"...

Here are some good sources for definitions relevant to EPR and Bell: Antonio Di Lorenzo defines clearly the assumptions of Bell's Theorem. http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1286 Andrei Khrennikov defines realism, locality, and other relevant terms such as value definiteness, contextuality, etc...

I think there's a "your mama" joke involving a non-local pair of pants ...

Well, if there is "spooky action at a distance", then I suppose it's plausible that you could have the results of the loophole-free experiment before it's been performed. Heck, maybe there are aliens who, though light years away, are a couple years ahead of us in physics, they just performed...

Exactly! And what about that instant of transition when a person is neither standing nor has a lap? The threshold event, that is? What if the directionality of that transition is what makes the detector click? In any case, there are three classes of physicists: local realists, non-localists...

Einstein qualifies his criterion (note, it is not a definition) by saying "Regarded not as a necessary, but merely as a sufficient, condition of reality, this criterion is in agreement with classical as well as quantum-mechanical ideas of reality." The distinction is essential, not semantic...

DrChinese, Einstein correctly describes his condition as "sufficient, but not necessary", and you seem to have missed that point and are using it to mean "necessary and sufficient". These subtleties go to the heart of the issue and why this is an open question in physics. Further, please...

DrChinese, here is a paper to which I was directed by a member of the editorial board of a major physics journal because it is an example of how "non-locality" is far from being a prevailing viewpoint. And, it defines realism as I do (on page 3). http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0001

Actually, DrChinese, the papers you mention very much confirm my viewpoint. Firstly, both, at the outset, confirm that a loophole-free test has not been performed. Second, the Sciarrino paper aims to address the issue of determining whether coincident detections really are associated with...

The conceptual and practical challenges in defining "realistic" are a consequence of the fact that we're trying to talk about the system and the interfaces to that system as if these are separate things. By separating the system in this way, we see experiments to be the act of making inputs to...

For the sake of getting past semantics, then, by realism I mean "scientific realism" per the article I linked to above (here too) which illuminates the distinction. http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3827 It must be noted, though, that the definition of "reality" in EPR (1935) is not in fact a...