
#37
Jan1713, 02:25 AM

P: 3,178





#38
Jan1713, 04:12 AM

P: 684





#39
Jan1713, 04:52 AM

P: 79





#40
Jan1713, 06:23 AM

P: 684





#41
Jan1713, 08:44 AM

PF Gold
P: 670

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4119v1.pdf Perhaps, Maccone's definition of "realism" seems as one of the more clearer ones: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5214v1.pdf But I always have trouble understanding this. If something is not preexisting, would not the Wood and Spekkens argument above hold? 



#42
Jan1713, 09:03 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,147





#43
Jan1713, 11:17 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,147

However, I think it is clear that you value a specific view that is usually excluded by Bell+experiment. You are certainly not the only one. However, it is very difficult to discuss the subject meaningfully when you assume that which you seek to prove. Of course, for all I know you might say the same thing about my viewpoint. 



#44
Jan1713, 12:56 PM

P: 1





#45
Jan1713, 06:14 PM

P: 79

Here's another way to approach the OP question. What is it about a basic Bell lhv model that produces a linear correlation (which is incompatible with the nonlinear one produced by qm and experiment) between θ and rate of coincidental detection? 



#47
Jan1713, 09:49 PM

P: 79

"with the result of the Bell lhv program being against realism or 'antirealism' in that only nonrealistic models of quantum entanglement, such as in standard qm or MWI, are allowed (unless you assume ftl or instantaneous action at a distance, such as in dBB)" ... to ... "with the result of the Bell lhv program being against realism or 'antirealism' in that only models of quantum entanglement which don't employ hidden variables, such as in standard qm or MWI, are allowed (unless you assume ftl or instantaneous action at a distance, such as in dBB)". So my answer to your question ... "Just to be clear, when you are using the term "antirealism", do you mean: no preexisting properties ... ?" ... would be that when I'm using the term "antirealism", I mean no hidden variables. 



#48
Jan1813, 02:53 AM

P: 3,178





#49
Jan1813, 09:08 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,147





#50
Jan1813, 10:18 AM

P: 3,178





#51
Jan1813, 10:34 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,147





#52
Jan1813, 10:38 AM

PF Gold
P: 670

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.2536v1.pdf 



#53
Jan1813, 02:14 PM

P: 3,178

Their clarification ("assign a property to a system (e.g. the position of an electron)") plus your explanation allows me to make sense of Neumaier's claim (which he did not prove and with which you probably disagree). He holds that: "all proofs of Bell type results [..] become invalid when particles have a temporal and spatial extension, with an internal structure that is modified when interacting in a beam splitter."  http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/lightslides.pdf So, he suggests that that is why Bell's inequalities are violated. 



#54
Jan1813, 02:49 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,147




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
What does this example say about the applicability of Bell's inequalities?  Quantum Physics  38  
Bell's Inequalities and Double Dependencies on Hidden Variables  Quantum Physics  8  
What chronology of Bell inequalities testing ?  Quantum Physics  1  
About violation of Bell's inequalities  Quantum Physics  58  
Explaining EPR after Bell's inequalities  Quantum Physics  8 