On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 6:10:39 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:42 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>>> If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean non-locality is affirmed?* *>> No.* *> Clark is quite wrong about this. * *If you already knew the answer, or thought you did, then why did you ask the question? * *Because I wasn't absolutely certain. But although I agree with Bruce's words, that Bell experiments negate locality, I am now not certain of his meaning of non-locality. AG * *> Neither realism nor determinism have anything to do with Bell's theorem. The theorem is entirely and exclusively about locality. This is spelled out fairly clearly in the review paper by Brunner at al. (arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849>) * *I am quite sure that you haven't read that paper, if you had you would have noticed that it says "**Bell also used the term local causality instead of locality. Local hidden-variable or local realistic models are also frequently used"* *I haven't read it YET, but it's on my list, a long list BTW. I have a question for you; when will you cease being an a'hole? Did you notice? I showed on the long thread that simultaneity is NOT necessary to show the result of the car-garage problem. But you insisted otherwise! From the car frame, we can use the parameters of the problem along with the gamma factor, to show the car won't fit. Knowing the shorten length of the garage is SUFFICIENT to prove the car won't fit, from the car frame's pov for a large enough v. AG* *Before deriving his Inequality Bell assumed "local realism" and that means he assumed* *1) locality: M**easurements on one particle cannot instantaneously affect the state of a distant particle.* *2) Realism: A thing exists in one and only one definite state even if it has not been measured.* *If both those assumptions are true and if you exclude superdeterminism (which you should!) then it's logically impossible for Bell's Inequality to be violated. But experiments definitively show that it is violated, therefore one or both of the above assumptions must be invalid. * *> I see that Russell Standish has a recent post that also states that Bell's theorem depends on assumptions of Realism and Determinism. Russell is just as wrong about this as is John Clark. Bell's theorem depends only on the assumption of locality,* *I quote from Wikipedia: * *"Its [Bell's Inequality] derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties a0,a1,b0 and b1 exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"* * Bell's theorem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem>* *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 3e4 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a1056e3c-07f5-4416-808e-cec789afca9bn%40googlegroups.com.
