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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cosmik debris
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bell Classical Test
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the classical Bell test as presented by Hans de Vries, specifically critiquing the interpretation of the Bell inequalities in his paper. DrC highlights a potential misinterpretation regarding the treatment of notations like B(b,λ) as individual results influenced by random factors, rather than as probabilities or expectation values. The paper is noted for its clarity but may not align with forum standards, suggesting it could be better suited for the Independent Research section. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the statistical nature of Bell's inequalities in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bell's theorem and inequalities
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics terminology
  • Knowledge of statistical interpretation in physics
  • Ability to analyze research papers in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the classical Bell test and its implications in quantum mechanics
  • Study the statistical interpretation of quantum probabilities
  • Explore the Independent Research section guidelines on Physics-Quest.org
  • Investigate the role of hidden variables in quantum theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics researchers, and students interested in the foundations of quantum theory and the implications of Bell's inequalities.

cosmik debris
Messages
734
Reaction score
172
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"

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
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"

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:
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 333 ·
12
Replies
333
Views
20K