Hi all,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm no expert in quantum mechanics by any means, but I've been quite interested in, and done quite some research on, Bell's theorem and related inequalities such as CH and CHSH. The theories all look perfectly sound, except that they all contain the "no enhancement assumption", some even in the form of an even stronger "fair sampling assumption".

Now it seems quite doable to formulate a theory that contains regular, classical hidden variables that match CH and CHSH in all correlations (ie. coincidence rate between detected photons with polarizes either set at specific angles or removed). Simply by assuming there exist hidden variables that determines the chance the particle is detected, it seems possible to match these coincidence rates that Quantum Mechanics also predicts.

I have two questions regarding this:

1. Do such hidden variable theorems exist, that are completely classical and match the coincidence rates as predicted by QM?

2. Regardless of whether such a theorem exists, why is this "no enhancement assumption" assumed to be true? What are the arguments in favour of it?

Thanks in advance,

Gespex

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Arguments in favour of the fair sampling assumption

Loading...

Similar Threads for Arguments favour fair |
---|

I The symmetry argument and expectation value |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**