Hi Cristi
Glad you answered (but didn't answered my question ... chuiff).
When I commented on just one of your sentences, you should not think I didn't read all your post.
I appreciated it, and also the amount of time you have put on it.
The "or" phrase. That was the phrase that mostly "interested" me. Why? Exactly because the "or" part. The "or" is the part that shows that today' physicists think that Local Realism, was experimentally rejected. After all, that is what they have been told in school. So, if someone wants to research for an alternative to QM non-loca l+ non-realistic approach, the only hypotesis left are a non-local+realistic "or" non-realistc+local approach . And those are the "aceptable" alternatives.
You see why the "or" was so important?
As I see it, that is a big problem... if a student want's to research on a local realistic solution she (meaning he or she) can't find a supervisor for her PHD. Am I wrong?
"How about the Kochen-Specker theorem? This doesn't even need an experiment to test it."
It doesn't?? Math is Math, a cool science - the only exact science we have. But you do need experiments to test what makes sense in the real world. Physics is not an exact science, you always need to test your hypotesis with an experiment. Math is a tool. Math is not "the truth", and everything that math "says" doesn't necessarily have to be real.
[By the way, that is a major problem of QM. Because it is so counter-intuitive one have to rely of math to find the "truth". And it leads to completely exaggerated new hypothesis...]
Bell Test vs other things. Is there another test to disprove Local Realism? Teleportation and Quantum computer experimentalists: how they "know" that their particles are 'entangled'? They have to do something to test it - they do a Bell test.
Bell theorem, is ok. Every physicist (except Dr. J.Christian and al.) acceptes it. It is math. It uses inequalities to find the limits of Local Realism. Cool. The problem with the Bell tests is with the "transformed" Bell inequalities that have to be used to a particular experiment. That is the reason why I made you my important question. I really don't care about "loopholes" (but mainstream physicists do, and they teach the opposite).
"why wouldn't you find that new local realistic approach to QM which really is what you want?
True.
I want the world to have a local realist theory to explain quantum phenomena, that could make predictions in a broader scope than QM, for instance Gravity.
I want a theory that is consistent with all other sciences, from Chemistry (my area) to Cosmology.
I want a theory that can be used by engineers to develop new technologies, create value, and help the world to overcome this awful economic crisis.
I also want a theory that is as accurate as QM in its prediction .. but not a posteriori.
And also I want a theory whose formalist that doesn't need to be renormalized to give predictions.
Can I find it? Not alone, I can't.
But, what I believe, is that J.Especial found and put the finger where the problem of today's Physics is. And no one, or very few, are looking where the solution might be.
I want more. More physicists looking for that solution.
"I see that you consider that, because I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism."
(the publcized results of Bell tests, you mean ...)
I can't convince you .. can I ? hehe. No problem ... let's be friennemies!
I just want to change the way Physics is taught, and immensely improve the % of funding allocated for local realistic research. Easy.
For me, that is the necessary step to begin a scientific revolution.
One more time, thank you for your time, I do enjoy the time I spend 'talking' to you.
And ... if you have the time ... my question??
Best regards
Teresa
"I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism"