The Dalliance of Quantum Theory with the Defiance of Bell's Inequality

[@mahasamatman12]

Lol, "the photon has a small mass"... This tells you anything you need to know about this crackpot 😂

[@davidwatsonpodcast]

I'm sure you could contact him and do a debate and educate him, maybe put the details to your work and books in the comments.

[@mahasamatman12]

@@davidwatsonpodcast "Studied in detail by a minimum of five thousand professional physicists over the course of more than thirty years, it is surprising that this error of simple logic has not been identified before..." . Doesn't this immortal line raise some suspicion about the level of self-awareness - even for someone like you who obviously had never heard before of Bell's inequalities? Doesn't it reveal the mindset of a conspiracy theorist who thinks he knows better than 5000 professional physicists ?

[@davidwatsonpodcast]

@@mahasamatman12 I made it clear at the beginning, my knowledge of maths, is the ability to spell the word. And, no it doesn't raise my awareness as Frank says himself the physicists don't agree with him and he points out from his point of view where he believes the flaw in the thinking is. As I suggested, contact him and debate with him. You're clearly in a much better place to do this than I am.

[@mahasamatman12]

@@davidwatsonpodcast He couldn't even understand the question you asked him about the famous double slit experiment, instead rambling aimlessly about photon polarization!

[@davidwatsonpodcast]

@@mahasamatman12 And I couldn't remember what its was called either. My memory recalled a video I saw and I didn't even know if I was talking about the right thing. Just like I didn't know I he was talking about photo polarization. What exactly did he say that was wrong? And I mean this sincerely because I don't know!

[@OneLine122]

He simply does not understand the question the Bell inequality is trying to solve. Nor does he understand the concept of entanglement, which is why he comes to the conclusion it's simple randomness. In his paper, he dismisses the hidden variable which of course is crucial, it's literally what people want to know. So he ignores the question and then says it is within parameters of simple randomness, which nobody denies. It's the defined randomness that puzzles people and some people like Einstein wanted the equations to include a hidden variable so things are linear and "real" while others didn't. So Frank Lad got that backward and he basically proves the opposite he thinks he is proving, but just by assuming he is right, not based on any experience, mental or real. But really he is not even engaging the discussion.