Do nonlocal entities fulfill assumptions of Bell theorem?

[Schmelzer]

BS disposed

It's what you pointedly never addressed earlier - my pointing out the necessary characteristics of any 'signalling' that could possibly work.

"Signalling" works obviously for $\le c$. Why it could not even possibly work for $\le 10^{10} c$ or so is your secret.

 

[Q-reeus]

BS disposed

What 'BS disposed'? Referring to "...Yet the conundrum is easy enough to show..."? Want to make a US$10,000 personal wager? Take it up and I will offer clear proof of a paradox within classical EM.

"Signalling" works obviously for $\le c$. Why it could not even possibly work for $\le 10^{10} c$ or so is your secret.

It can't work on any sensible basis for any signalling speed. You keep ignoring the basic characteristics required of any 'signalling'. To be admissible it must not diminish in strength with distance. Hence some kind of 1D transmission channel has to be established. All without an energy-momentum penalty. And with no back reaction on interacting particles. I don't think such bizarre features are at all reasonable. Recent tests additionally require signalling speeds many orders of magnitude in excess of c, but that's just icing on the cake.

 

[Schmelzer]

What 'BS disposed'? Referring to "...Yet the conundrum is easy enough to show..."? Want to make a US$10,000 personal wager? Take it up and I will offer clear proof of a paradox within classical EM.

You would not pay them anyway. But loudly claim that I lost and I would have to pay you. Predictable outcome. And additionally 10 crackpot points on
The Crackpot Index:

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

It can't work on any sensible basis for any signalling speed. You keep ignoring the basic characteristics required of any 'signalling'. To be admissible it must not diminish in strength with distance.

Why? All one needs is that the information arrives. If the strength diminishes with distance, one will be unable to observe BI violations beyond a critical large enough distance. As I have said, up to now I have not seen yet evidence for BI violations beyond 1 AU. Same for your "energy-momentum penalty". Even if there is some energy-momentum conservation and action equals reaction symmetry in the unknown subquantum theory (again, on which base?), it may be small small, so that this is simply unobservable. Or becomes observable only in far future.

So, all the "mysticism" you have identified here are not more than other, more extreme parameters for effects we have in everyday life too.

 

[Q-reeus]

You would not pay them anyway.

Accusing me of reneging ahead of time. Bad form.

But loudly claim that I lost and I would have to pay you.Predictable outcome.

No. You would lose and have to pay, but if required that admission would come after unanimous judgements from a given choice of recognized authorities in EM. I doubt it would need go even that far, so clear is the proof.

And additionally 10 crackpot points on The Crackpot Index:

As if your 'additional crackpot points' means anything objective.

Why? All one needs is that the information arrives. If the strength diminishes with distance, one will be unable to observe BI violations beyond a critical large enough distance. As I have said, up to now I have not seen yet evidence for BI violations beyond 1 AU. Same for your "energy-momentum penalty". Even if there is some energy-momentum conservation and action equals reaction symmetry in the unknown subquantum theory (again, on which base?), it may be small small, so that this is simply unobservable. Or becomes observable only in far future.

So, all the "mysticism" you have identified here are not more than other, more extreme parameters for effects we have in everyday life too.

How ironic. Elsewhere, you accuse one or two others of hand-waving avoidance of hard scientific facts, yet here dismiss obvious failings in 'signalling' issue in just that manner. If the implied mystical magic that cares nothing about energy-momentum penalties, and works despite arbitrarily feeble signal strengths and so on comforts you, well go right on believing such. Not for me.

 

[Schmelzer]

Accusing me of reneging ahead of time. Bad form.

Live with this. We had enough conversation in the past, so I have some base for expectations about your behavior. A readiness to acknowledge own errors, which would be a prerequisite to start such a game, is not among the things I have observed.

How ironic. Elsewhere, you accuse one or two others of hand-waving avoidance of hard scientific facts, yet here dismiss obvious failings in 'signalling' issue in just that manner. If the implied mystical magic that cares nothing about energy-momentum penalties, and works despite arbitrarily feeble signal strengths and so on comforts you, well go right on believing such. Not for me.

We are here in a domain of pure speculation. The only hard science facts are those of the equations of quantum theory, which should appear as some limit of the otherwise completely unknown subquantum theory.

But, ok, let's be more specific. What are the facts which the violation of BI gives us?

1.) If we assume realism or causality, the only possible explanation is an information transfer which happens faster than light.
2.) The maximal speed of this information transfer, as well as the maximal range of it, is unknown.

So, some information transfer with some very large but fixed speed, and some unknown maximal range could be a realistic causal explanation. Other realistic causal explanations are not possible, not even imaginable. So, by rejecting an explanation based on some information transfer with finite speed and range, for unknown reasons except some feeling that the speed or the range are somehow too large or so, you essentially propose to reject realism as well as causality, and support, in a quite obvious way, mysticism.

 

[Q-reeus]

Live with this. We had enough conversation in the past, so I have some base for expectations about your behavior. A readiness to acknowledge own errors, which would be a prerequisite to start such a game, is not among the things I have observed.

Is that so. Then cite an example - link to one. Otherwise retract the accusation.

...So, by rejecting an explanation based on some information transfer with finite speed and range, for unknown reasons except some feeling that the speed or the range are somehow too large or so, you essentially propose to reject realism as well as causality, and support, in a quite obvious way, mysticism.

Wrong. Rejecting your variant of mysticism does not mean having to embrace another. For now, best imo to remain agnostic and hope something truly sensible comes along.

 

[Schmelzer]

Is that so. Then cite an example - link to one. Otherwise retract the accusation.

What example? I have not any readiness to acknowledge own errors. How I can present examples of what I have not seen? Moreover, there is no accusation, simply an explanation why I will not accept proposals for such bets from you. Live with this.

Rejecting your variant of mysticism does not mean having to embrace another. For now, best imo to remain agnostic and hope something truly sensible comes along.

Slightly different. Look at the logic:

If you do not accept realism as well as causality, you embrace mysticism. Not?

So you accept realism and causality. So, if you additionally accept also Einstein causality, that means, that there can be no causal influences faster than light, then you can prove the BI and have a conflict with observations of BI violations. This is, of course, a possibility. Do you use it? Whatever, I would doubt that it is the best.

If not, then you have to accept the existence of causal influences faster than light.

Of course, there also remains the possibility to be agnostic of everything, simply by ignorance. One can be, say, agnostic about the question if 2+2 = 4 or 5. Here I would also doubt it is a good choice.