On 4/5/2022 4:02 PM, smitra wrote:
On 06-04-2022 00:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:13 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 05-04-2022 05:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What do you make of this? Others have referred me to the Rubin
paper.
I have looked at it, and remain unimpressed. He claims that
"Bell's
theorem is avoided because the counterfactual reasoning that leads
to
it is not required and cannot be justified." This is nonsense.
Bell's
theorem does not require counterfactual reasoning, and the
experiments
by Aspect and others only record the results of measurements that
were
actually made-- there is no reference to measurements that were
not
performed at other angles. Measurements that are not performed
have no
results.
The conclusion that local hidden variables are rules out does depend
on
an argument about what would have happened had different polarizer
setting been used than the ones that were actually used.
That is false. Where in the Aspect experiments is reference made to
non-performed measurements?
It's in the argument that local hidden variable theories must satisfy
Bell's inequalities.
I don't see any use of counterfactual definiteness in that argument?
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0bb6759c-7e6f-1005-5398-a14d306787f4%40gmail.com.
