Classical Bell Test | Hans de Vries | Physics-Quest.org

In summary, the conversation discussed a classical Bell test by Hans de Vries, which was presented on the Physics Quest website. The paper was well-written and presented, but it may not meet forum requirements. The main issue raised was that the paper may not accurately represent the terms in Bell's inequalities as probabilities or expectation values.
  • #1
cosmik debris
734
171
Hi All, I'd be interested in your thought on this classical Bell test by Hans de Vries.

http://www.physics-quest.org/Bell_inequality.pdf" [Broken]

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
cosmik debris said:
Hi All, I'd be interested in your thought on this classical Bell test by Hans de Vries.

http://www.physics-quest.org/Bell_inequality.pdf" [Broken]

Cheers

Interesting paper, but it may not meet forum requirements. To my eyes, nicely written and presented but may belong in Independent Research (which is moderated). I want to read it more closely though, maybe I'm wrong.

-DrC

P.S. I like the Physics Quest web page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Problem with this paper is that they seem to be treating notations like B(b,λ) as individual results which are influenced by random factors, whereas in any inequality where Bell allows for the possibility of randomness (i.e. the outcome is not totally determined by the detector setting b and the hidden variables λ), the terms in his inequalities are always supposed to represent probabilities or expectation values. Though it might be true on an individual pair of trials that B(ab,λ) (i.e. the result at detector B when this detector uses setting b, and detector A uses setting a, and hidden variables take some specific value λ) is different from B(a'b,λ) (where the only difference is that detector A uses setting a'), the expectation values over a large number of trials should not be any different, assuming the choice of detector setting at A cannot have any causal influence on the results at B, and assuming the choice of settings for detector A is random rather than being causally influenced by some other factor c that can also causally influence the result at B.
 
Last edited:

What is the Classical Bell Test?

The Classical Bell Test, also known as the Bell's Inequality Test, is a thought experiment proposed by physicist John Bell in 1964. It aims to test the validity of classical physics versus quantum mechanics by measuring the correlations between entangled particles.

How does the Classical Bell Test work?

The Classical Bell Test involves creating pairs of entangled particles and measuring their properties, such as spin or polarization, in different directions. By comparing the results of these measurements, the Bell test can determine whether the particles are following classical or quantum laws.

Why is the Classical Bell Test important?

The Classical Bell Test is important because it provides a way to experimentally test the validity of quantum mechanics. If the results of the test violate Bell's inequality, it suggests that quantum mechanics is a more accurate description of the universe than classical physics.

What are the implications of the Classical Bell Test?

If the Classical Bell Test results support quantum mechanics, it would suggest that the universe is inherently probabilistic and that there are properties of particles that cannot be explained by classical physics. This could have significant implications for our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

How is the Classical Bell Test performed in practical experiments?

In practical experiments, the Classical Bell Test is performed by using entangled particles, such as photons or electrons, generated by quantum sources. These particles are then measured using detectors that can measure their properties in different directions. The results of these measurements are then compared, and if they violate Bell's inequality, it supports the validity of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
689
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
608
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
66
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Back
Top