Bell's theorem and Harrison's (2006) inequality

[wm]

Would a meeting of local realists fill a phone booth?

** I am a local realist and I could really offer you good reasons why a non local world view is nonsensical (actually it is pretty easy to give a crazy local (in the strict sense!) theory behind the Von Neumann measurement postulate if you are creative enough) but I prefer to keep an open mind. As far as I am aware, it is possible to give a local theory of EPR with a local measurement dynamics (and without denying reality) - see my allusion to negative probabilities (you might be interested to read about this). However, on the other side, it is still possible to claim that a ``less quantal'' point of view is possible, see SED or better Barut self field. So, one would better do the experiment with neutral Kaons, or do experiments in which local realist predictions (deviating from the QM ones) can be checked. This would settle the matter more easily. But in ANY case (there is in the worst case a lack of creativity), there is no obvious problem with local realism as far as I am concerned, only some types of ``naive'' local hidden variable theories (the ones assuming screening off *and* dichotomic outcomes) could be killed off, but where remains the conclusive series of experiments ?

Careful

I am a local realist too. However I see no need for a sound local realistic theory to predict results "deviating from QM ones". (Thus you may take it that I seek no loop-holes in QM experimental outcomes. QM is a great theory.) Rather, it is my view that QM is an abstract local realistic theory. That is, it's my view that QM is one level of abstraction removed from a wholly concrete local realistic theory.

Now the start of this thread related to Harrison's inequality. So, in support of my view, a draft rebuttal of Harrison's inequality may be found at [link deleted]. It is a draft only in the sense that I'd like David Harrison or BoTemp to check that it accurately presents their case.

wm

 

[ZapperZ]

Dear David, a rebuttal of your ''negative probability case" (from your website) may be found at [link deleted]

I would welcome any comments, especially any which make your case clearer to the general reader. Of course, if I've mispresented it, please let me know that too.

wm

Y'know, for some odd reason, my repeated warning for your personal work to be done in the IR forum seems to have fallen onto deaf ears. Obviously, you appear to think that this is a joke.

Thus, you leave me no choice with your continuing transgression of our guidelines. This thread is done.

Zz.