Listen now (79 mins) | IN THIS EPISODE: OpenPhil CEO Alexander Berger interviews economist Matt Clancy and Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison to talk about whether science itself is slowing down, one of the key motivating concerns in metascience.
Peer review is broken. Nobelprize Physics 2022 is given to pseudoscience.
In order to obtain potential Einstein locality data, Aspect requires
1. cos(x)= P(x,=) - P(x,≠)
with,
1a. P(x,=)=N(x,=)/N
1b. P(x,≠)=N(x,≠)/N
1c. N(x,=)=N(x,+,+)+N(x,-,-)
1d. N(x,≠)=N(x,+,-)+N(x,-,+)
1e. N=N(x,=)+N(x,≠)
Together with
2. cos(x)=1-2sin²(x/2), x in [0,2π)
3. P(x,=)+P(x,≠)=1
we arrive at;
4. P(x,≠)=sin²(x/2), x in [0,2π)
The x is angle(a,b) in [0,2π).
The, a, is Alice's instrument parameter vector. The, b, is Bob's instrument parameter vector.
The angle is measured in the plane orthogonal to the A-S-B axis. This “orthogonal to the A-S-B in the plane variation of x" is sufficient variation for understanding the statistics of the experiment. It is also physically valid.
Note furthermore that the experiment is embedded in classical probability theory. E.g. the law of large numbers to estimate the probability space behind the Bell correlation formula.
5. For x in [0,2π), the alleged associated probability density is f(x)=(1/2)sin(x).
5a. This alleged probability density is derived from 4. via f(x)=dF(x)/dx.
But observe,
f(x)=(1/2)sin(x), x in [0,2π),
isn't a probability density. It isn't positive definite for x in [0,2π).
5b. This f(x) results in negative probabilities and other violations of Kolmogorov axioms.
No insight is gained from an experimentthat is flawed statistically.
For 2.5 years I try to get my paper reviewed at journals in portfolio of Elsevier, SpringerNature, IOP, PNAS, AAS, APS, Taylor and Francis. No review. Just editors telling fairytales.
Peer review is broken. Nobelprize Physics 2022 is given to pseudoscience.
In order to obtain potential Einstein locality data, Aspect requires
1. cos(x)= P(x,=) - P(x,≠)
with,
1a. P(x,=)=N(x,=)/N
1b. P(x,≠)=N(x,≠)/N
1c. N(x,=)=N(x,+,+)+N(x,-,-)
1d. N(x,≠)=N(x,+,-)+N(x,-,+)
1e. N=N(x,=)+N(x,≠)
Together with
2. cos(x)=1-2sin²(x/2), x in [0,2π)
3. P(x,=)+P(x,≠)=1
we arrive at;
4. P(x,≠)=sin²(x/2), x in [0,2π)
The x is angle(a,b) in [0,2π).
The, a, is Alice's instrument parameter vector. The, b, is Bob's instrument parameter vector.
The angle is measured in the plane orthogonal to the A-S-B axis. This “orthogonal to the A-S-B in the plane variation of x" is sufficient variation for understanding the statistics of the experiment. It is also physically valid.
Note furthermore that the experiment is embedded in classical probability theory. E.g. the law of large numbers to estimate the probability space behind the Bell correlation formula.
5. For x in [0,2π), the alleged associated probability density is f(x)=(1/2)sin(x).
5a. This alleged probability density is derived from 4. via f(x)=dF(x)/dx.
But observe,
f(x)=(1/2)sin(x), x in [0,2π),
isn't a probability density. It isn't positive definite for x in [0,2π).
5b. This f(x) results in negative probabilities and other violations of Kolmogorov axioms.
No insight is gained from an experimentthat is flawed statistically.
For 2.5 years I try to get my paper reviewed at journals in portfolio of Elsevier, SpringerNature, IOP, PNAS, AAS, APS, Taylor and Francis. No review. Just editors telling fairytales.
It's like a maffiose omerta.
Thank you.