 Quote by DrChinese
It's your model, and I supplied the answers to your questions. Bell applies, and the resulting prediction is within the local realistic boundary as we would expect. Is your question how did I arrive at .375?
|
..
DrC, with respect: I have little idea what you are referring to! So, seeking to understand, I write in the spirit of trying to be helpful! I therefore proceed on the basis that you are sincere and not trying to muddy the waters unnecessarily.
(Please also note a very off-putting habit of yours: You continue to confuse A and B with
a and
b. These repeated errors are akin to your old one of identifying the
particles as Alice and Bob -- which is no problem if we know what your up to: but can be quite confusing when commonly accepted conventions are abused without explanation.)
Now:
1. What is
my model? Do you mean the
experiment identified in the OP? I take the view that Bell tried to "model" local realism (see below).
2. To be clear about one of my questions: Can you show me, please, the A and B functions that you used in your derivation? [EDIT: DrC, Response here not necessary if the answer to the next question is No!]
3. My next question is: Do they comply with Bell's (1964), A and B = ±1?
4. If not, why not? And so what do you mean by your "Bell applies"? For, further, you could then
not have used Bell's integral for E(AB)?
5. One of my questions related to the maximum value of the
traditional (your term) CHSHI that you derived from the experiment in the OP. What number did you get?
6. Surely it was not 0.375?
7. I know that (in reference to your analysis) you referred to text-books having all the relevant answers in them. [EDIT: I take it that such answers are
relevant to the OP?] I do not know of any such; so, alas, I must always work from first-principles. So, can you list a few such books for me, please?
8. You also mentioned (re#6 above): "The Bell lower limit is .333." What is this, please? And how derived? Is it relevant to any issue here?
9. In the interests of seeking to be very clear and precise, one aspect of this thread, in case you missed it, was addressed to you as follows:
Quote by Gordon Watson
[To DrC, responding to a very confusing post by him.]
???
Bell's (1964) analytical (and presumed local-realistic) protocol has (equivalently):
A(a, x) = ±1;
B(b, x) = ±1;
E(AB) = ∫AB ρ(x) dx.
I don't see you using any of this anywhere in your analysis of this (clearly) local-realistic experiment?
Why?
In effect: Is there some reason to follow Bell only when it suits you?
|
..
To rephrase my serious interest:
1: Could you explain why (in your view) Bell's protocol is not relevant to what is clearly a local-realistic experiment?
2: Would such a view indicate that Bell may not be as relevant for local-realism as you commonly suppose?
With thanks, as always, this time in anticipation,
Gordon
..