Itoero

I see. I'm sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense.

So you give a in my eyes wrong interpretation of Bell's theorem, and if I ask you for a link that supports your interpretation, you cannot give one. I am also wondering what you mean with 'The local hidden variable theories'. Which ones? Can you name a few?

Those local hidden variable theories are not scientific theories.

Like you very well know, many physicists argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete. They argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics. Those descriptions of "elements of reality" are the hidden variable theories...Bells inequalities show that the hidden variable theories which are considered to be local don't work.

 

Those hidden variable theories are the best with what scientists could come up with and they obviously used their knowledge of physics to create them. This means that the hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics.

 

Einstein was correct when he said that God does not play dice.

 

God hates dices. (this is a joke)

Please give some more or less authoritative link for this. THX

The local hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics.

You do not understand how strong Bell's theorem is. It is valid for any particle that behaves according QM. If it is possible to create entangled pairs, you can create Bell like situations: local variables cannot explain the correlations between measurements. (Or QM is false...)

And you do not understand that the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics. When you shoot photons through a polarization filter or a double slit or in the bell test experiments, you measure the behavior of particles, you don't measure the cause for that behavior.

Hidden variable theories and Bell inequalities are products of our knowledge and understanding of physics and math...which is what our logic is built by. Why do you think we can make valid assumptions concerning a reality we have no knowledge from?

 

 

It doesn't matter if they would be made of smaller components. There is no presupposition about the precise buildup of the particles in Bell's inequalities. The only presupposition is that some attribute of the particle itself (e.g. one of its constituents, or of an attribute we not yet know of) determines what we will measure. As QM is not consistent with Bell's inequalities, we can conclude that there are no such local attributes.

No, we can only conclude we can't measure local attributes at the moment. There are in your opinion no local attributes...it seems logical to you.. But why do you think you can explain anything about those locals, using your logic?

It has finally arrived! The package was opened up.

If they checked the product and cleared it, does that mean it's real idebenone?

When they found it's not idebenone then they could not know what it really is in which case they would not clear it.

Does this makes sense?

Theistic religions slow science evolution, it inhibits scientific curiosity and can prevent people from doing science.

 

The story of Kurt Wise is a nice example.

 

As child, he was very interested in science, especially Geology.

Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two." Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism.

 

Something he wrote:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

 

Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1959) serves now as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise#Views_and_criticism

Measuring the properties doesn't say anything about the cause for those properties.

If you want to know the cause for the properties then you need to know what the particle is made of.

 

You can measure the properties of an atom, but if you want to know the cause for the properties, then you need to know what the atom is made of.

I think it is pretty clear what is meant with local variables. In the case of polarised photons the question would be: is there some physical attribute of the photon that determines for a certain angle of the measuring device what polarisation will be measured? It means that when a polarised photon pair is created, both photons already have this attribute. Bell's theorem proves that if this were the case, we cannot get the predictions that QM makes. In experiments where this can be tested it turns out that QM's predictions are correct. So it proves that in these situations there are no local variables that determine exactly what the measurement will be.

Yes but the reality of those physical attributes is not defined.

You can't understand the cause for the properties/behavior of fundamental particles without knowing what the fundamental particles are made of.

Very interesting, thanks Itoero.

I always assumed the ganglion cells that make the 'bend' in the optic nerve cup, and which get damaged by the excessive pressure of Glaucoma, to be different from regular nerve cells or axons.

Maybe there is hope.

I found a picture about the bend between the retina and optic nerve.

It shows that the bend is created by retinal ganglion axons, which is good news since axons regenerate a lot easier then cell bodies.

I have a neuromuscular disease with macular degeneration and damage on my optic nerve...the more I know about this, the better.

OK...

I need a robot to go in and rebuild the damaged optic nerve of my left eye where the cells make the bend from the retina to the optic nerve.

Stem cells injected directly into the area, to replace the dead cells damaged by PDS glaucoma should do it.

When can I book an appointment ?

( just kidding, but I am hoping...

then maybe, I can stop squinting so much )

You might find this to be interesting. They regenerate optic nerve axons with gene therapy.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160114162055.htm

Does it?

 

I forgave my mother for her indifference toward me; no sacrifice required, human or otherwise.

The story goes that God sacrificed Jesus for the sins of mankind.

You said forgiveness is something the bible teaches, yet the main story in the NT teaches you can't have forgiveness without a (human) sacrifice.

There's nothing special about the bibles, other than what they seek to teach.

If there are many other books that teach morals, then what's special about the teachings of the bible?

You said forgiveness is something the bible teaches, yet the main story in the NT teaches you can't have forgiveness without a (human) sacrifice.

But then this, How are the various bibles not real? But more importantly it proves my point, in that you dismiss any potential wisdom out of hand and insist we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't understand why an atheist gives the bible such an elevated position. There are countless other books with wisdom...so what's special about the bible?

no they show local hidden variables are NOT viable.

 

Here is a simplified article written by someone I consider incredibly knowledgable on the subject. I've had numerous conversations with him in the past.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

Swansont had a decent coverage on hidden variables previously I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

Found it thankfully QM forums isn't a busy one lol.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/

I should not have made the thread about 'my arguments against Bell's theorem.'. I agree with Bells theorem, it explains my idea.

The 'definition' the article gives:

"No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. "

=>The theorem shows that our local theories can't reproduce all prediction of QM, it does not debunk local hidden variables. Especially since it's not defined what a hidden variable can be.

Don't you agree with this?

 

"ASSUME that a photon has 3 simultaneously real Hidden Variables A, B and C at the angles 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees per the diagram above. These 3 Hidden Variables, if they exist, would correspond to simultaneous elements of reality associated with the photon's measurable polarization attributes at measurement settings A, B and C. "

=>That's why I call it a hidden reality. They are ascribing our ideas of reality to hidden variables.

Classical physics and quantum mechanics are if you will a different reality. You can't use your logic from classical physics to explain QM.

What evidence do we have to think we can apply our logic to the cause of quantum effects or the hidden variables?

 

This is a nice example of what happens when you have not enough knowledge/understanding about something and you apply logic:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99867-we-are-in-early-stage-of-big-bang-and-there-would-be-a-black-whole-in-center-of-universe/

Until you prove that Bell's inequality is wrong, your words are empty. Go ahead, and get your Nobel-price. Really, the inequality is not difficult to understand, so it must not be too difficult to disprove it, and show why thousands of physicists are deluded.

 

You argue from ill faith.

Why do you keep repeating that? Again, the inequalities show our local HV theories can't explain quantum effects. They don't show the absence of local hidden variables.

Atheists generally dismiss religion, Muslims generally are religious; what exactly is your point?

Atheists are (most of them) not religious, but they don't dismiss religion.

Most of us are very tolerant. In very secular countries in Europe, you see a lot of moslim immigrants.

Surgeons in Oxford have used a robot to operate inside the eye - in a world first. A team at Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital used the device, controlled via a joystick, to remove a membrane one hundredth of a millimetre thick. Patient Bill Beaver, 70, said it was "a fairytale". Surgeons hope the procedure will pave the way for more complex eye surgery than is currently possible with the human hand.

 

How does those well faring peaceful countries deal with fear?

 

 

No I don't, please show where I stipulate this?

If you assume that you need religion to deal with fear then you think you need religion to be 'at peace'.

 

Again, exactly; the absence of which is why we need religion.

No. A good education normally suffices.

Religion does not create ethical frameworks. It teaches ethics which have evolved through natural processes.

 

There seems little difference to a christian in an atheist village

Atheists are generally very tolerant towards religion...moslims not so much I think.

Look around you.

There is hardly any religion where I live. The fact that you see a decline of religion in well faring and peaceful countries while wars and famine cause a rise in religion, should give you an idea of what religion is really about.

 

When it's relevant to it's culture.

And what if you are a Christian in an islam-village?

Please explain how, I misunderstand, and how this answers my question?

You have this idea that you need religion to be completely moral or 'at peace'. Atheism is the lack of a believe in deities, it has nothing to do with being content or fearful.

when a religion is well understood, and the people are content, fear has no place and no one is afraid of the consequences, but when it isn't well understood and no-one is content fear is everywhere and no one is safe.

Can you give an example of this?

And when is a religion well understood?

How does atheism provide the former and avoid the latter?

You clearly misunderstand atheism.

Of course there is! We can measure when a photon arrives at a detector, we can measure the projection of its polarisation, but what we cannot do is measure its polarisation as it really was before measuring: simply because there is no local reality behind the scenes. Again, you do not understand QM enough, otherwise you would not say this. Again, only ill faith can explain you saying such things again and again.

So because we can measure a lot, we can measure everything?

I'm starting to understand why people believe in indeterminism.

The absence of evidence becomes evidence when it looks very fancy

Inserting indeterminism is like inserting intelligent design.

I think flies eat the dead skin, salt and oil.

So flies help to keep you clean

Typo?

No.

The NT seems more moral then the OT but there is a lot of paradoxes and immoral stuff, it's just less obvious then in the OT.

 

Like I've said before, religion slows down moral and science evolution.

A world without religion would be an upgrade compared to this one.

However good luck finding the hidden mechanism to predict superposition. The paper above does not predict the superposition state before examination. Invite me as a guest to your Nobel prize when you do lol.

I will:) The fact that I'm sure there are hidden variables doesn't mean I can find them. Our science s just not evolved enough to explain hidden variables.

 

Do you understand what is meant by determism within the system state ?.

 

Local vs global with regards to system states?

No & no