Recent content by miosim

Aha... I am getting closer in understanding your response while trying to mimic the correlation predicted by QM cos (a-b), as suggested by Nugatory. I am looking for the equivalent formula in which A and B are separated (meaning that particles A and B know orientation of the correspondent...

I guess I need to try this, but it would take time for me to do this. Meanwhile, I have a question. If the main goal of the Bell theorem is to prove non-locality of QM why does this prove relies on rejecting of local HV theory? The non-locality is a well known feature of QM. So if QM predicts...

Actually this language isn't compatible with description of QM system and should be reserved only for classical theories or to local HV theories. In this case, per classical description, the predicted by QM correlation may be explained in terms of photon polarization sufficiently rotated by...

Another word the photon pair after exiting corresponding polarizer lost symmetrical polarization. It is like polarizers align photons, after they lost entanglement, to follow polarizer's orientation. It seams the "ability" of photons to follow orientation of polarizers contributes into...

I understang what are you saying and will try to use the language compatible with interpretation. After entangled photon pass their corresponding detector/polarizers what their mutual polarization are? Do they still have polarization differences ±π/2 as entangled pair or this symmetry is...

I understand these examples. I just need a better understanding of physical side of the story.

Understand.I have a question: When photon pass the detector, is the polarization of photon that passed detector and orientation of detectors matches? If they match, does the wave function collapse first produces a photon with some polarization, and then this original polarization is rotated by...

It is also my understanding. I have no problem with this concept Another word the correlation predicted by QM is higher that any local HV theory can offer. Is it correct?

Bell's experiment is about CORRELATION between A and B. But what about measurements at one detector only. Does it depend on the position for other detector? Would the actual number of detections at detector A is changing from max to zero while we rotate detector B?

Indeed the probability distribution of measurement results at detector A should not depend on the settings of detector B, and vice versa. Therefore if we rotate the first detector the probability distribution at second detectors shouldn't change. Does it contradict with the QM prediction? Does...

PeterDonis Let me think about your response.

Is it web application? I didn't find it.

So what are these key properties of HV theories? As I understand, they are just a fact that values of spin, polarization, etc., are predetermined prior interacting with detector. As I understand, the final value of spin, polarization, etc. are affected by a position of detector but we don't know...

I am still troubled with how Bell theorems treats the Local Hidden Variable (LHV) theories by reducing them to classical objects, like magnets, socks, boxes, etc. J. S. Bell, “Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality” 1981 “.. We formulated these considerations first for pairs of socks...

I actually don't concern much about "space-like separation" question and is satisfied with your answer and the fact that "QM makes no further statement about it at all" I am glad to see the light in the end of a tunnel called Bell's theorem. I will have few more questions but first I need to do...