Recent content by jk22

I don't know which prediction for CHSH is made by QFT ? QM predicts ##2\sqrt2## and HV 2, whereas experimental values are inbetween, 2.67, 2.25, 2.47, 2.73, 2.07, 2.22 which is on average nearer to 2 than to QM ?

I would say that the usage of ##\lambda## is neither local nor temporal. I.e. all covariances in CHSH are simultaneously measured, I don't know if this is experimentally the case. It is also at all places simultaneously.

Thanks for all the explanations. Even if this mixing of math I have done seems local, there remain to calculate ##\max A(\lambda_1)B(\lambda_2)## which is non locsl, like if the computer or the consciousness would modify the wanted results.

I'm just considering that a particle s1 is going to A and another particle s2 to B measurement places. But I'm still mixing information (math) and the physics described by the symbols. This I call local in the sense that "every element of physical reality (particles 1 and 2, each flying in one...

That's ok if lambda is information, but let suppose it is a physical particle. In a spacetime diagram lambda is first at the source, then it goes with at most speed of light in both directions ? For then arriving in A and B ? This seems physically impossible, or that formula is a mixture of...

Coming back to Bell's CHSH inequality, I'm confused that the formula : $$\int A(\vec{a},\lambda)B(\vec{b},\lambda)\rho(\lambda)$$ is considered local. Like how can the "element" lambda be at the same time both in A and B ? It seems lambda is non local there, at the measurement time. Or am I...

What if in fact x and y would represent the position of relativistic particles with their own proper time ##x(\tau_1)y(\tau_2)##

In fact to have two path we would need ##\int x_1dy_1+\int y_2dx_2##. Classically What If we suppose the path were probabilists ? Then like in quantum mechanics, it could follow both path, or a superposition of them ? It gives back xy because of the sum of the weights.

What about if we say x depends on a parameter fw1 and y on fw2 where fwi represented free will of person i. Could freewill be linked to a single parameter time ?

I rather see as x and y are independent. It's clear that if one assumes a common cause parameter that determines the variables x and y it could change, (like in Bell's theorem)

Can we rename the variable and write : ##\int df=\int d(\underbrace{xy}_{u})=\int du=u+C=xy+C## ? Also I thought another way like computing to higher order with McLaurin : ##f(dx,dy)=f(0,0)+D_xf(0,0)dx+D_yf(0,0)dy+D_{xx}f(0,0)dx^2/2+D_{yy}f(0,0)dy^2/2+D_{xy}f(0,0)dxdy## ##\Rightarrow...

Let f be a 2 variables function. 1) ##f(x,y)=g(x)+h(y)\Rightarrow df=g'(x)dx+h'(y)dy\Rightarrow\int df=g(x)+k(y)+h(y)+l(x)=f(x,y),\textrm{ if } k=l=0## 2) ##f(x,y)=xy\Rightarrow df=ydx+xdy\Rightarrow\int df=2xy+k(y)+l(x)\neq f(x,y)## Why in the second case the function cannot be recovered ?

Yes that's exactly that, the angles ##\theta_n## are given by the whole social environnement, and in fact it is not a sum but an average of the A and B results over past choices while the angle is given by the whole population at each votation.

If different eyes appeared let say to less sun or an accidental mutation, has it become subject to selection of individuals like eugenism or due to modern gene technology nowadays ?

Right, the angle depends on n, so it should be made by a computer, storing the product of vote n in a table divinding theta.