Ancestors

Written by Barry Schwartz 🫖 on 2025-02-01 at 14:49

Here is what I think about the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

First, it was really meant for John Stewart Bell, but he passed away long ago. However, what Bell was to be given it for brazenly botching Bayes' rule. In any other field he would have been laughed out of the room.

John Clauser won it instead. Clauser obfuscates the errors but also does the mathematics incorrectly. One clue is the banter about people playing games instead of straightforward description of the experiment.

[#]physics

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chemoelectric@masto.ai

Written by Barry Schwartz 🫖 on 2025-02-01 at 14:54

Then it was co-awarded to Alain Aspect. Aspect's famous paper is written carefully, for instance referring to light pulses instead of presuming a particular form for the light. However, there is a very, very serious difficulty.

In a well run experiment, it should be impossible to violate CHSH inequalities. This is true due to CHSH inequalities being erroneously derived. It has nothing to do with physics as such.

Yet Aspect achieves violations. Therefore his experimental technique was bad.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chemoelectric@masto.ai

Toot

Written by Barry Schwartz 🫖 on 2025-02-01 at 14:57

The same is true for all the confirming experiments since. The entire experimental field is achieving inequalities violations by ... experimenter bias!

As for the third winner, Zeilinger, his work depends on the veracity of the foregoing, and so is fallacious.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chemoelectric@masto.ai

Descendants