Recent content by universecode

I will be working on more precise explanations, of course, that will take years. Meanwhile, this statement: IMHO is THE problem with experiments such as ones testing Bell inequalities. I do not believe in the existence of what we call "classical physics" - the world is quantum at its core, so...

I have looked at Weihs et al 1998 - again this experiment confirms what we already know about hidden variables. If local hidden variables are given to a particle at the "classical source" and stay with it unchanged this cannot explain what we observe, how many times do we need to test it...

Thanks, yes, outcome determined at the source, but I have to be clear about what I mean by the "source". Any interaction (with any particle) creates new source at every such interaction, hence all the experiments I've seen so far are not refuting my idea. Would you be able to direct me to an...

Thanks, well, if what you are saying is correct i.e., all known theories predict P2 this is an example of where my theory predicts different result that it would be P1 without contradicting anything already shown to be correct, as far as I know thus far.

Apologies for delay, I am back to this again. What I meant here is that the form of PDF of arrivals at each detector can be any and depends on the properties of the source and its PDF of emissions but the expected value of the PDF of arrivals at each detector will not change as long as...

I though about this and so far I am failing to see how the probability distribution of photon emissions would make a difference on the expected probability of photon detections at the detectors if nothing changed with regards to the source/detectors locations or anything around them. Of course...

Thanks, I need to think about what you said... I think this is fine by me - the objective is to test a unified behavior of both quantum and classical theories. Hence we must be observing quantum effects on classical time and distance scales.

I guess I need to make another small correction: It should be: "... the source is predictable in a sense that on average it does emit one photon within 10 minute interval past every two hours?"

Thanks, I actually made a small correction after that post to make sure it reads better and you should understand it now as a source that is switched on right on the hour every two hours and left to run for 10 minutes with 1 photon expectation emitted within this 10 minute interval. Presumably a...

Not in theoretical sciences! There are theorems that take dozens if not hundreds of pages to prove and every line is a key line. Rushing the argument is not a virtue here. Let's ponder a bit about recent statements and I would like to hear views of others before moving on...

Patience is a virtue - I am sure you know that :) Let me also make a small correction. Previously I said: "... we have been observing a photon registered by one of the detectors consistently every 2 hours plus-minus 10 minutes..." I am correcting that to the following: "... we have been...

Yes Thank you, excellent explanation with right assumptions. Now, may I confirm something that I think will be very useful for anyone who might decide to read this so they can clearly understand what's going here. The fact of switching the source on/off is completely independent from...

Thanks, suppose all our detectors are around 1 light-hour away from the source and in both cases we have been observing a photon registered by one of the detectors consistently every 2 hours plus-minus 10 minutes. Would such observation contradict anything?

Good, now if we return all detectors to where they were originally, will they again start observing photons each with the same probability they respectively had originally?

Thanks. Nugatory, would you confirm this answer? You seem to be quite good at elaborating your arguments, so I just want to seal this answer before proceeding further.