# About violation of Bell's inequalities

ueit said:
If I understand correctly, your position is that we should accept a fallacious argument as sound because we don't have a better one. Needless to say, I disagree. If we cannot distinguish between determinism and non-determinism then that's it.
It is sad to see great physicists claiming that it is foolish to investigate LHV theories because they have been proven wrong by Bell and see all kinds of SF-like ideas proposed as serious explanations.
And MWI is said to be both local and deterministic although I disagree.
Being a local realist myself, I would encourage you to answer some questions and/or come up with a real detailed analysis. Expressing your disbelief without going into discussion is as silly as others expressing their nonlocal religion'' or whatever.

Careful said:
Being a local realist myself, I would encourage you to answer some questions and/or come up with a real detailed analysis. Expressing your disbelief without going into discussion is as silly as others expressing their nonlocal religion'' or whatever.
I apologize for delaying my response to you, I still need some time to understand the code better. However, my point is justified on logical grounds regardless of the validity of CA alternative so it has nothing to do with "religion". For example, I can use QM’s equations on a computer to produce the correlations. The computer is deterministic and “local”, so my point is proven. This example is extremely unparsimonious but it works for sure.

I've checked the source only against non-locality. As far as I can tell it is local (only adjacent cells influence each other).
It is true that there are single hits and this is a serious objection. I didn’t managed to understand if they are necessary for obtaining the correlations (that’s why I delayed my answer). I’ll send an e-mail to the author to ask him about this.
In the simulation I’ve never noticed different results for the same detector orientation so it seems to work.
I don’t see a problem with the other objections, the model is not intended to be a realistic one.

ueit said:
I apologize for delaying my response to you, I still need some time to understand the code better. However, my point is justified on logical grounds regardless of the validity of CA alternative so it has nothing to do with "religion". For example, I can use QM’s equations on a computer to produce the correlations. The computer is deterministic and “local”, so my point is proven. This example is extremely unparsimonious but it works for sure.
Sure your point is valid but a *natural* predeterministic explanation of EPR correlations is very hard to get. Simulating QM on a classical computer with a local program works for sure if you know how to implement negative probabilities, so no harm done there. But it is *not* enough to program the Schrodinger equation or something alike (which is what Toffoli and his former PhD students did), you need to get to a single event interpretation. Doing so will involve *different* predictions than the standard ones such as single clicks on the left/right hand side leading to substractions of data (which is also what happens in practice). It is here that you need to get out the correct numbers (and 50 percent seemed too much to me). This is what needs to be written down in detail since it leads to new experimental tests.

ueit said:
I've checked the source only against non-locality. As far as I can tell it is local (only adjacent cells influence each other).
It is kind of obvious that the whole thing is local (there is only nearest neighbor interaction).

ueit said:
It is true that there are single hits and this is a serious objection. I didn’t managed to understand if they are necessary for obtaining the correlations (that’s why I delayed my answer). I’ll send an e-mail to the author to ask him about this.
I guess they are necessary (actually read some papers about substraction of data and how this *increases* the correlations, Caroline Thompson did an excellent job in *that* respect). The author simply speaks about pseudorandom blablabla but I don't buy it.

ueit said:
In the simulation I’ve never noticed different results for the same detector orientation so it seems to work.
Right, but he might prove it.

ueit said:
I don’t see a problem with the other objections, the model is not intended to be a realistic one.
I disagree, only (c) is not important, albeit highly unnatural.

Careful

Last edited:
ueit said:
If I understand correctly, your position is that we should accept a fallacious argument as sound because we don't have a better one. .......
It is sad to see great physicists claiming that it is foolish to investigate LHV theories because they have been proven wrong by Bell and see all kinds of SF-like ideas proposed as serious explanations.
And MWI is said to be both local and deterministic although I disagree.
No you do not understand my position at all.
It is the fallacious argument of CA and other ideas that claim that “Bell's theorem is irrelevant” I find completely unacceptable.

If a theory cannot answer the challenge of the Bell test, then it is simply not an answer (at least not a local answer) as simple as that.
What I find sad is seeing supporters of LHV trying to gain credibility by rejecting Bell, when it is Bell that will give credibility to a LHV, but only a correct one the meets and passes its challenge.

RandallB said:
No you do not understand my position at all.
Sorry then.

It is the fallacious argument of CA and other ideas that claim that “Bell's theorem is irrelevant” I find completely unacceptable.

If a theory cannot answer the challenge of the Bell test, then it is simply not an answer (at least not a local answer) as simple as that.
CA's argument is not fallacious. Bell's theory does not apply to perfectly deterministic systems. As I said before, this is not even a matter of controversy, Bell himself admitted that. In other words, you cannot reject apriori a LHV theory because of Bell's theorem, that's all I'm saying. You cannot apply the theorem to CA because one of its requirements (statistical independence of the detectors and source) is not fulfilled in this case.
As Careful pointed out, there are flaws in the Petrov's CA model, but this is not because Bell's theorem forbids its existence.
What I find sad is seeing supporters of LHV trying to gain credibility by rejecting Bell, when it is Bell that will give credibility to a LHV, but only a correct one the meets and passes its challenge.
I agree that some deterministic LHV were rejected by Bell's theorem but they were already flawed (they assumed both strict determinism AND statistical independence).
Anyway, I didn't attack Bell (who was the first to point out the limitations of his theorem) but the idea that no LHV theory is possible.

DrChinese said:
First: I don't see where determinism - or indeterminism - is a function of Bell's Theorem. Perhaps you can point that particular piece out to us specifically (as in a reference).
Local determinism, sorry. Bohm's theory is deterministic but non-local and it has no problem explaining the EPR correlations.

Second: you will not find it so easy to develop a local realistic theory - even one which is deterministic in the manner you have cited - which can reproduce the predictions of QM. Anything less than a full example will satisfy only those who don't know any better. The requirements are many.
Sure, but those requirements have to be satisfied by any theory, not only LHV ones. The known interpretations of QM are useless as they require unfalsifiable assumptions and cannot make any new predictions, even in principle (at least I didn't see anything convincing by now).

Third: The premise you are starting from makes little sense: you will have to completely tear down the Uncertainty Principle to achieve your goals (since it is the source of the EPR Paradox).
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) does not apply to the past (I can measure with unlimited precision both the momentum and position of a particle by simply detecting it at a large distance from the source). It denies perfect predictability, not determinism.

And then we would be left wondering why the Uncertainty Principle even appears to exist! Ah, determinism! What an answer! As said previously, this explains absolutely nothing.
HUP is a direct consequence of the measurement process (you cannot get information about an object without doing something to it). It is expected to appear in a deterministic world as well.

I'll stick with Bell's Theorem at this time.
Sure, only keep in mind its domain of applicability.

RandallB said:
No you do not understand my position at all.
It is the fallacious argument of CA and other ideas that claim that “Bell's theorem is irrelevant” I find completely unacceptable.

If a theory cannot answer the challenge of the Bell test, then it is simply not an answer (at least not a local answer) as simple as that.
What I find sad is seeing supporters of LHV trying to gain credibility by rejecting Bell, when it is Bell that will give credibility to a LHV, but only a correct one the meets and passes its challenge.
Well, if you are a local realist then the challenge is to dispose of Bell. In the end, local realism *and* a correct application of quantum mechanics will show why the reasoning based upon the singlet state is incorrect. This will involve an understanding of why Bell was wrong'' too. At least, that is my bet and Bell would have liked to be proven wrong.

Careful

Last edited:
DrChinese
Gold Member
ueit said:
Sure, but those requirements have to be satisfied by any theory, not only LHV ones. The known interpretations of QM are useless as they require unfalsifiable assumptions and cannot make any new predictions, even in principle (at least I didn't see anything convincing by now).
Where have you been the last 75 years? The Copenhagen Interpretation requires no extra assumptions, and in fact is the most streamline precisely because its domain of applicability is narrowed. This has been the guiding force behind textbooks for generations.

Besides: any theory which agrees with the predictions of QM is not local realistic, per Bell. So if you want to impress with your hypothesis, put forward an ACTUAL theory which contains LHV and matches the predictions of QM. Saying that it is "possible" is like saying string theory can "possibly" unify physics... maybe, maybe not.

Careful said:
Well, if you are a local realist then the challenge is to dispose of Bell.
Well that maybe the challenge and objective of some that claim to be local realist a relatively small and lonely group in science. I still have not seen that group produce an idea of a test that could rescue “local” and satisfy the non-locals that non-local is wrong.

If you like you may consider me a “real” local realist, in that I insist that Bell must be used as a tool to prove "local", not an obstacle to be discredited and rejected for the ‘local cause’. Which may put me in an even smaller lonelier group, so be it. Near as I can tell I may well be all alone, as I seem to catch flack from both sides.
I disagree with all non-locals; but of that group I accept QM, until I can really prove non-local as group incorrect.

RandallB said:
Well that maybe the challenge and objective of some that claim to be local realist a relatively small and lonely group in science. I still have not seen that group produce an idea of a test that could rescue “local” and satisfy the non-locals that non-local is wrong.

If you like you may consider me a “real” local realist, in that I insist that Bell must be used as a tool to prove "local", not an obstacle to be discredited and rejected for the ‘local cause’. Which may put me in an even smaller lonelier group, so be it. Near as I can tell I may well be all alone, as I seem to catch flack from both sides.
I disagree with all non-locals; but of that group I accept QM, until I can really prove non-local as group incorrect.
Well, the non-locals'' are as lonely as the locals'' - as I said 85 percent does not bother, and lets face it QFT is incomplete for it's lack of a local measurement postulate as long as you do not go to solipsism of course.

Concerning Bell: (a) the singlet state discription with the reduction postulate is incorrect (b) it is still possible to violate the inequalities though by a local realist theory with a clear interpretation (and no predeterminism is needed for that at all).

Careful

Careful said:
Well, the non-locals'' are as lonely as the locals''
Are your kidding (or maybe fooling yourself)??
I don’t consider even one of the subgroups of Non-local; like QM, BM, MWI, Strings, etc. as even small let alone lonely!

Careful said:
Concerning Bell: …… (b) it is still possible to violate the inequalities though by a local realist theory with a clear interpretation (and no predeterminism is needed for that at all).
Again what “local realist theory” does that? I’ve never seen one by you or anywhere else that does so unless they distort their “clear interpretation” of local to include a non-local to bell version of it in the manner of BM, MWI etc.

As you indicate ‘predeterminism’ has nothing to do with Bell. The only issue with Bell is a fixed “determined” local value, set for both photons at the time they split apart, that remains intact for each till measured at some later time far away from each other, i.e. a true LHV.
(Above edited - Thanks DrC )

2nd edit: Sorry, may have given you too much credit for being logical in the above edit. DrC responses following are fine – I’d only be redundant to try and say more; except to say that you have me convinced – logically you cannot be a local realist, what I don’t know what, but not a local realist.

Last edited:
DrChinese
Gold Member
RandallB said:
... working from a misunderstanding of ‘predeterminism’ & Bell. The philosophical ideas of a predestine future, or current result from the past, has nothing to do with Bell. The only issue with Bell is a fixed “determined” local value set for both photons at the time they split apart that remains intact for each till measured at some later time far away from each other, i.e. a LHV.
I agree RandallB, but I think Careful understood that clearly as well. His point, I believe, was that predestination had been brought up by another poster as being an additional requirement (i.e. part of local realism): it's not.

RandallB said:
Are your kidding (or maybe fooling yourself)??
I don’t consider even one of the subgroups of Non-local; like QM, BM, MWI, Strings, etc. as even small let alone lonely!
No, I think you are kidding yourself ! Actually, most physicists would say QFT is local and that the only thing it is good for is calculating expectation values of local observables ; most of them feel very uncomfortable with the idea of non-locality lurking around the corner when going to a single event interpretation and do not want to consider the problem as such. There is however a big difference between this and acknowledging local realism, that is why it confuses most.

RandallB said:
Again what “local realist theory” does that? I’ve never seen one by you or anywhere else that does so unless they distort their “clear interpretation” of local to include a non-local to bell version of it in the manner of BM, MWI etc.
True I never proposed one on this forum (I would first write it on paper ), but if you think about it, any theory containing more degrees of freedom than the ones we observe is capable of violating the Bell inequalities. The difficulty is to construct such natural theory, not to construct a theory in the first place. It is probably not necessary (and impossible) to recuperate the ideal singlet state predictions'', these are *clearly* wrong.

RandallB said:
As you indicate ‘predeterminism’ has nothing to do with Bell. The only issue with Bell is a fixed “determined” local value, set for both photons at the time they split apart, that remains intact for each till measured at some later time far away from each other, i.e. a true LHV.
(Above edited - Thanks DrC )
I think I have explained this at least 10 times to you (I even referred you to Bell's book and the Clauser Horne Shimony comments ...) but nothing seems to help. Logically speaking ueit is correct, in a deterministic LOCAL world you cannot assume the detector settings to be random, that is uncorrelated from the source. Once such correlations occur, Bell's theorem goes down the drain.

Careful

Last edited:
DrChinese
Gold Member
Careful said:
Logically speaking ueit is correct, in a deterministic LOCAL world you cannot assume the detector settings to be random, that is uncorrelated from the source. Once such correlations occur, Bell's theorem goes down the drain.

Careful
You can't be serious. The detector settings can be adjusted fully independently (and randomly) and outside the light cone of the entangled particles. The results will still violate the Bell Inequality. To suggest otherwise would mean that there are so many new and previously unknown physical effects that it is ridiculous. For example:

Have 2 radioactive samples used to provide 2 random yes/no signals (by whatever mechanism you could imagine). Each would be placed distant to the respective detectors but also away from the source (so they are outside each other's light cones). The signals control one detector setting for the entangled particles at the source, which are then adjusted mid flight. You will still get a normal Bell test result when you run the experiment. Yet the radioactive samples have no way of knowing that they are supposed to emit a pulse in such a way as to yield suitable statistics for the observed correlations... unless there are new and previously unknown physics we are not aware of. If they exist, where are they? And why do they only show up in Bell tests? How does a radioactive sample - an aggregate of many particles - manage to operate in strict concert with a similar sample far away? And in concert with photons also emitted far away?

The proposed solution - strict predestination - is beyond implausible. And it explains exactly nothing; I am not sure it can even qualify as science. As I have said before, you may as well propose that the active hand of God is manipulating the results to make it appear as if the Bell Inequality is violated.

The fact is, no local realist should EVER invoke detector-detector interaction/communication as an explanation of Bell test results. It is logically inconsistent with a belief in Einsteinian locality.

DrChinese said:
You can't be serious. The detector settings can be adjusted fully independently (and randomly) and outside the light cone of the entangled particles. The results will still violate the Bell Inequality.
The problem with you is that you cannot simply say logically it is possible'', I did not say plausible. The thing is that in a deterministic theory, randomness does not exist and two past lightcones generally intersect each other. I made it clear I think that I deem such explanation to be unlikely, but it is still LOGICALLY possible.

DrChinese said:
To suggest otherwise would mean that there are so many new and previously unknown physical effects that it is ridiculous.
Well recent detailed analyses in nonlinear classical dynamical systems do indeed reveal the possibility of large scale synchronisation. Therefore, the suggestion that we do understand non linear classical dynamical systems is ridiculous ! We are just at the beginning of understanding those...

DrChinese said:
For example:

Have 2 radioactive samples used to provide 2 random yes/no signals (by whatever mechanism you could imagine). Each would be placed distant to the respective detectors but also away from the source (so they are outside each other's light cones). The signals control one detector setting for the entangled particles at the source, which are then adjusted mid flight. You will still get a normal Bell test result when you run the experiment. Yet the radioactive samples have no way of knowing that they are supposed to emit a pulse in such a way as to yield suitable statistics for the observed correlations... unless there are new and previously unknown physics we are not aware of.
Your very reasoning strictly denies predeterminism; in the latter it would be possible that particles on the flight already knew of the adjustments to be made. Again, I do not believe'' that but strictly speaking it is possible.

DrChinese said:
The proposed solution - strict predestination - is beyond implausible. And it explains exactly nothing; I am not sure it can even qualify as science. As I have said before, you may as well propose that the active hand of God is manipulating the results to make it appear as if the Bell Inequality is violated.
That is a difficult question, but non local theories aren't science either for quite similar reasons as you are concerned with here and neither is solipsism...

DrChinese said:
The fact is, no local realist should EVER invoke detector-detector interaction/communication as an explanation of Bell test results. It is logically inconsistent with a belief in Einsteinian locality.
No, it is not logically inconsistent : it is not because you believe in locality of interaction that no large scale correlations can appear; actually there are many places in classical physics where this happens. In case of the EPR setup, it is hard to swallow, because it involves smart electrons or very delicate (read unlikely) mechanisms. But almost any solution to the EPR paradox (hereby I mean appearant violation of Bell inequalities, not necessarily agreement with singlet state prediction) will go beyond the obvious.

Careful

Last edited:
DrChinese
Gold Member
Careful said:
The problem with you is that you cannot simply say logically it is possible'', I did not say plausible. The thing is that in a deterministic theory, randomness does not exist and two past lightcones generally intersect each other. I made it clear I think that I deem such explanation to be unlikely, but it is still LOGICALLY possible.
OK, I think I follow better now. I didn't think I had misunderstood your normal position to that extent!

Well, my view is this: I often see someone say that theory AA is "possible" as a counter to QM postulate A, and theory BB is "possbile" as a counter to QM postulate B, etc. Yet AA and BB are mutually inconsistent. So to seriously advance a local realist position against Bell, you must really be able to go the entire way.

I understand that it can be postulated that strict predetermininsm means that every effect shares a common source cause. But as I say, this is hardly a theory. For it to be advanced as a theory, it must be made logically consistent AND it must agree with experiment. As you can imagine, there are many difficulties in this regard as to details.

I personally doubt that it is possible to develop a such a theory. And more specifically, it would still fall under Bell's Theorem anyway IF Bell's assumptions of locality & realism end up present in that hypothetical theory. But I guess I can grudgingly acknowledge that a theory might be possible with strict predestination IF either locality or realism are dropped as assumptions (so you are not running afoul of Bell). This might be possible if a different definition of locality were used, for example.

Please note that Bell requires: that the detector setting at one spot is independent of the result at the other spot. Presumably this is negated when there is strict predeterminism.

Careful said:
True I never proposed one on this forum (I would first write it on paper ), but if you think about it, any theory containing more degrees of freedom than the ones we observe is capable of violating the Bell inequalities.

I think I have explained this at least 10 times to you ....... but nothing seems to help.
...... Once such correlations occur, Bell's theorem goes down the drain.
Well of course none of that helps - every thing you suggest IMO ultimately comes down to “a theory containing more degrees of freedom than the ones we observe”!
At which point you are non-local and no longer the local realist you claim to be.
I find absolutely no foundation to accept “Bell's theorem goes down the drain” based on such non-local ideas.

I do like your point that a truly good proposed local idea should not be introduced publicly before putting on paper in a journal or at least under copyright. But when you are ready (is that why your grinning) to write that paper; what experimental test is there you can use to support a local theory??

DrChinese said:
I personally doubt that it is possible to develop a such a theory. And more specifically, it would still fall under Bell's Theorem anyway IF Bell's assumptions of locality & realism end up present in that hypothetical theory. But I guess I can grudgingly acknowledge that a theory might be possible with strict predestination IF either locality or realism are dropped as assumptions (so you are not running afoul of Bell). This might be possible if a different definition of locality were used, for example.

Please note that Bell requires: that the detector setting at one spot is independent of the result at the other spot. Presumably this is negated when there is strict predeterminism.
Right, why talk about it or say it CANNOT be ? Just each time someone comes by and says he I have a theory which reproduces the singlet state exactly'', then just take a look at it and see where the mistake is made. In the Petrov case, it was just too easy.

Careful

RandallB said:
Well of course none of that helps - every thing you suggest IMO ultimately comes down to “a theory containing more degrees of freedom than the ones we observe”!
At which point you are non-local and no longer the local realist you claim to be.
That is absolute B.S., such theory is local of course. In principle I can add as many new fields as I want to, as long as the coupled system satisfies hyperbolic equations of motion, I am fine.

RandallB said:
I do like your point that a truly good proposed local idea should not be introduced publicly before putting on paper in a journal or at least under copyright. But when you are ready (is that why your grinning) to write that paper; what experimental test is there you can use to support a local theory??
Of course experimentalists will have to look into the BARE data with a different bias, that is rather obvious. Well you know, this problem has beaten many prominent physicists, so I guess some time can be granted, no ? I do not feel like writing B.S. about it, neither do I approve of such papers from others, nor do I feel that some ad hoc LHV model with information loss which leads to Bell inequality violation for our observations is going to help the local realist case and neither do I tolerate dogmatic denial of some possibilities just because it conflicts some world visions. This is just a very hard problem which requires a few new nontrivial insights into nature to really solve it (of course there exists no solution yet), actually given the poor acces to databases of experiments it is even not so easy to say what the problem really is.

Careful

Last edited:
Bell inequalities don't necessarily have anything to do with questions of locality or realism ... but you are free to interpret them that way.

The inequalities do, necessarily, have to do with arithmetic properties of the lists of numbers that they deal with.

Maybe the discussions of (non)locality and the viability of hidden variables vis violations of Bell-type inequalities will eventually be discovered to have
(really) been about nothing more than some fairly simple arithmetic.

mgelfan said:
Bell inequalities don't necessarily have anything to do with questions of locality or realism ... but you are free to interpret them that way.

The inequalities do, necessarily, have to do with arithmetic properties of the lists of numbers that they deal with.

Maybe the discussions of (non)locality and the viability of hidden variables vis violations of Bell-type inequalities will eventually be discovered to have
(really) been about nothing more than some fairly simple arithmetic.
Hi,

I guess you are referring to the papers of Louis Sica here ? I have to dissapoint you, the latter contain some subtle gedanken'' errors in the way he is defining some correlations.

Careful

Careful said:
Hi,

I guess you are referring to the papers of Louis Sica here ? I have to dissapoint you, the latter contain some subtle gedanken'' errors in the way he is defining some correlations.

Careful
Thanks Careful.

I've read those papers. Can you point me to a discussion of the errors?

Anyway, my statement wasn't necessarily based on Sica's stuff ... it's just a notion that I have about the meaning of Bell inequalities when applied to experimental results ... and my notion could well be wrong.

Would you agree that the statement that "a specific orientation of a measuring device (eg. a polarizing filter) corresponds to some definite property of the disturbance incident on the filter" is an essentially meaningless statement?

mgelfan said:
Thanks Careful.

I've read those papers. Can you point me to a discussion of the errors?
I am not aware of any paper discussing in detail the error made in Sica. But you can see that -in the case of the three polarizer settings a,b,b' and three data lists of a,b,b' and identifications between a,b and a,b' (which is allowed, since we measure these things independently) - the author simply defines the identification (and hence correlations) between b and b'. The latter problem can be circumvented when working with four data lists, but then the inequality cannot be produced.

mgelfan said:
Anyway, my statement wasn't necessarily based on Sica's stuff ... it's just a notion that I have about the meaning of Bell inequalities when applied to experimental results ... and my notion could well be wrong.
It is wrong or meaningless to say the least, we all would wish it were that easy.

mgelfan said:
Would you agree that the statement that "a specific orientation of a measuring device (eg. a polarizing filter) corresponds to some definite property of the disturbance incident on the filter" is an essentially meaningless statement?
Of course I agree this is meaningless, but then you have to point out in detail where things go wrong.

Careful

Last edited:
Careful said:
I am not aware of any paper discussing in detail the error made in Sica. But you can see that -in the case of the three polarizer settings a,b,b' and three data lists of a,b,b' and identifications between a,b and a,b' (which is allowed, since we measure these things independently) - the author simply defines the identification (and hence correlations) between b and b'. The latter problem can be circumvented when working with four data lists, but then the inequality cannot be produced.
I must reference the paper(s). But, for now, I don't understand what you mean by " ... correlations) between b and b' ". I thought that the correlations refer to the relationship between the angular difference (theta) of, say, b and b' and the joint detection rate for that theta. As far as I'm aware the individual detection rates aren't correlated to anything ... they're just random.
mgelfan said:
Would you agree that the statement that "a specific orientation of a measuring device (eg. a polarizing filter) corresponds to some definite property of the disturbance incident on the filter" is an essentially meaningless statement?
Careful said:
Of course I agree this is meaningless, but then you have to point out in detail where things go wrong.
I thought I was pointing out one place where things go wrong. After all, what does a hidden variable description entail? In other words, I'm saying that any hidden variable description of quantum events is, necessarily, essentially meaningless -- simply because we don't have any way to definitively check it out.

So, in a nutshell, if we talk in terms of hidden variables, then we can calculate individual probabilities based on assumed values of the hidden variables and therefore also represent the joint probability as a product of the individual probabilities -- and then of course the resulting expectation values, while satisfying an appropriate Bell inequality, differ from those calculated with qm (and also, apparently, differ from experimental results).

mgelfan said:
I must reference the paper(s). But, for now, I don't understand what you mean by " ... correlations) between b and b' ".
This is just a shorthand for saying: if I would do an (EPR) experiment to measure the latter correlation, then I would get such and such data lists´´. Read the paper and you will see what I mean.

mgelfan said:
I thought that the correlations refer to the relationship between the angular difference (theta) of, say, b and b' and the joint detection rate for that theta.
Well what relationship, (1 - 2*x/PI) or cos(x), makes a hell of a difference you know.

mgelfan said:
I thought I was pointing out one place where things go wrong. After all, what does a hidden variable description entail? In other words, I'm saying that any hidden variable description of quantum events is, necessarily, essentially meaningless -- simply because we don't have any way to definitively check it out.
Your phrases become more and more illuminating. Perhaps we should zip you back to the times where atoms, electrons and so on were hidden variables and matter was thought of as vortices in the eather.

mgelfan said:
So, in a nutshell, if we talk in terms of hidden variables, then we can calculate individual probabilities based on assumed values of the hidden variables and therefore also represent the joint probability as a product of the individual probabilities -- and then of course the resulting expectation values, while satisfying an appropriate Bell inequality, differ from those calculated with qm (and also, apparently, differ from experimental results).
Individual probabilities huh ?! The only thing Bell did was to calculate the right results for the wrong problem. And are you coming up now with nonlocality and/or consciousnes mumbo jumbo ? Moreover you managed to contradict yourself in one message: the aim of Sica was to prove that Bell's inequalities were trivial and always satisfied in experiments (which is what you said too when claiming that they might be purely based on arithmetic), actually he somehow suggests that violation of the Bell inequalities is due to data overdetermination (in either that people would use four columns instead of three, which is trivially true but he somehow seems to think it is not).

Careful

Last edited: