DBB vs EPR & GHZ: Questions & Answers

[Dmitry67]

dBB, as a theory with hidden variables, must be non-local.
So there is some magic how 'particles' affect each other with superluminal speed.
I don't care about the details, I know that somehow these rules are adjusted to satisfy Bell.

My questions:
1. is dBB also 'compatible' with GHZ?
2. does it need any extra assumptions to give correct predictions for GHZ?

Then, assuming some generalization - EPR with 2 observers is EPR(2), GHZ with 3 observers is EPR(3) - and I know that EPR(3) is "stronger" than EPR(2):

3. is EPR(N+1) always "stronger" than EPR(N)?
4. is dBB compatible with any EPR(N)?

 

[alxm]

I'm disappointed. Turns out this thread had nothing to do with Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in the Gigahertz range.. :)

 

[Demystifier]

1. Yes
2. No
3. What do you mean by "stronger"?
4. Yes

 

[Dmitry67]

3. In a sense that GHZ is "stronger" than EPR
For example:

http://iftia9.univ.gda.pl/~pg/prace/2000PhRvL..85.4418K.pdf

We investigate the general case of two entangled quantum systems defined in N-dimensional Hilbert spaces, or “quNits.” Via a numerical linear optimization method we show that violations of local realism are stronger for two maximally entangled quNits (3 # N # 9) than for two qubits and that they increase with N.

Now when you answer "Yes" to the other questions you mean:
1. Non-relativistic dBB
2. Your version of relativistic dBB?

 

[Demystifier]

Now when you answer "Yes" to the other questions you mean:
1. Non-relativistic dBB
2. Your version of relativistic dBB?

Both.

 

[Demystifier]

Then, assuming some generalization - EPR with 2 observers is EPR(2), GHZ with 3 observers is EPR(3) - and I know that EPR(3) is "stronger" than EPR(2):

3. is EPR(N+1) always "stronger" than EPR(N)?

3. In a sense that GHZ is "stronger" than EPR
For example:

http://iftia9.univ.gda.pl/~pg/prace/2000PhRvL..85.4418K.pdf

In the paper above, N is not the number of observers.