Binney's interpretation of Violation of Bell Inequalities

[Derek Potter]

Anyway, fascinating as the hair-splitting about calculability and determinism may be, Binney actually does claim "Contrary to the claims of EPR, the results of Bob's measurement are consistent with the hemisphere containing the positron's spin being fixed at the outset and being unaffected by Alice's measurement."

There is no way he can make that claim unless the model allows calculation of Bob's results AND they agree with EPR/QM. The fact that the model allows some sort of results ("Binney correlations") may be consistent with determinism but EPR does not claim that all correlations are inconsistent with determinism only that quantum correlations are inconsistent with local determinism.

Binney correlations, if you do calculate them, are not quantum correlations. If you don't calculate them then his claim is meaningless.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Anyway, fascinating as the hair-splitting about calculability and determinism may be, Binney actually does claim "Contrary to the claims of EPR, the results of Bob's measurement are consistent with the hemisphere containing the positron's spin being fixed at the outset and being unaffected by Alice's measurement."

There is no way he can make that claim unless the model allows calculation of Bob's results AND they agree with EPR/QM. The fact that the model allows some sort of results ("Binney correlations") may be consistent with determinism but EPR does not claim that all correlations are inconsistent with determinism only that quantum correlations are inconsistent with local determinism.

Binney correlations, if you do calculate them, are not quantum correlations. If you don't calculate them then his claim is meaningless.

Hint: Calculation and measurement are different conceptually and practically.

 

[Derek Potter]

Exactly. I rest my case.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Exactly. I rest my case.

Technically you had no case from the start IMO, you made a straw man argument with Binney's words, he simply is not saying what you think he is saying, he's clearly on Bell's side and opposing EPR determinism.