- #1

Hydr0matic

- 197

- 1

An important part is ofcourse the assumptions discussed intensively in the other thread. vanesch expressed my view about this:

Now, the assumptions are:

A: Bell's assumptions (locality, non-superdeterminism, objective single outcomes)

B: quantum theory

from A, Bell derives his inequalities (mathematically), and from B, one derives violations of those inequalities. Hence a contradiction.

Why isn't it obvious here that the mistaken assumption is within quantum theory? Is the theory so solid and consistent that core scientific principles like logic, locality and objectivity is up for grabs? What am I missing here?

When testing Bell one measures separate properties A, B and C, in which case the inequality most hold true. Personally I consider polarization a classical phenomenon, so I don't really see how measuring the polarization of a lightwave at different angles could be considered three separate properties? Clearly, if a photon has polarization α and it goes through a polarizer at angle α-45, it's new amplitude will be cos(45), and if property A = α, property B = A * cos(45). Which is not seperate.

So my point here is, couldn't it be the quantum description of polarization that is the inaccurate assumption? As I understand it, it's based on chance, right? A photon in the above setup has a cos(45) percent

**chance**of passing through? Correct me if I'm wrong...