What's wrong with this local realistic counter-example to Bell's theorem?

[DrChinese]

Gordon,

After doing some additional research on you, I plan to report your posts. You have already attempted to publish material at quantropy.org which substantially mimics the general arguments you are making here. Regardless of the fact that these are rubbish, you are substantially misleading other readers in your quest. You obviously want to debate your own paper, in effect. This is not the place for that - please do this elsewhere. Perhaps IR, but I seriously doubt that your paper fits the criteria now that I see what is going on. I could post a link but I don't want to direct anyone to it from here.

In addition, your relationship to JenniT is not clear. You are mentioned in her paper - or is it your paper in a different form? Something is fishy, and I personally feel the wool has been pulled over my eyes.

It is not my place to lock a thread, but if I could, I would lock this one. I do not see where this is going anywhere in accordance with PF guidelines and purposes.

-DrC

 

[Gordon Watson]

You keep teasing us with comments to the effect of "Local Realistic Models can simulate QM expectation values".

No teasing intended. Better, too, if you'd quote me directly.

And yet you have shown absolutely nothing so far that backs up this wild claim. So I ask you to refrain from hinting at such assertions BEFORE you can back them up.

Please refer PDF2. The title of this thread relates to PDF2.

Further, it is quite disappointing that you have yet to demonstrate any understanding whatsoever of the critical difficulties you are facing. I am not saying you don't understand them, but you certainly seem to brush them off without the slightest comment. So my guess is that you have no idea what you are up against.

Not true.

I would guess that there are perhaps hundreds of purported disproofs of Bell to date by some quite enthusiatic persons.

Yes, and most do not satisfy me.

None of these have yet to gain any traction because they cannot answer the simple question I ask: where is the LR dataset?

Can we start with the L*R data? Table 1, Table 2, PDF2?

That instantly separates all disproofs into one of several categories and shows everyone what is being asserted.

Such categories not clear to me.

So that is why I keep asking for some substance rather than sizzle. You are about to provide a proof which is a complete waste of time unless you realize the issues the scientific community is interested in.

L*R first, via this thread. It is quite substantial. Proof must go to IR, as I understand the rules. It will, if L*R stands up; as I expect.

A useful theory is good. QM is such. And while you and others are asserting local realism, experimentalists have repeatedly demonstrated - following QM - that reality is NOT local in hundreds of ways that you deny should be possible.

THIS is not my interpretation of any experiment known to me!

So it fairly silly to offer local realistic "proofs" which are violated every day in practice.

?

Hows about you explain why the future appears to affect the past, for example, and that particles that have never even existed in the same locality can violate Bell Inequalities.

Trying to get to the end of this thread, at the moment; learning much as it progresses.

QM can do this, LR - by definition - cannot.

Remind me sometime, please; in all seriousness: LR? Whose definition would that be? And it says?

 

[ZapperZ]

Closed, pending moderation.

Zz.