The discussion centers on the hidden assumptions in Bell's theorem, particularly focusing on the ideas proposed by Karl Hess, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen. Participants explore the implications of these assumptions, including the exclusion of time dependence and the nature of mathematical abstractions in the theorem. The conversation spans theoretical interpretations, critiques of existing models, and the plausibility of local hidden variables.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the validity of the hidden assumptions or the implications for local hidden variables. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing interpretations and critiques present.
Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of mathematical abstractions and the unresolved nature of the critiques regarding the applicability of the models to actual experimental conditions.
Yes.Nullstein said:In the no-BSM case, QM predicts that there is no entanglement between 1&4 in the full ensemble
No, QM does not predict this. Cherry picking "predicts" this, but I don't agree that's a valid method.Nullstein said:and that there is an entangled subensemble.
We've already been over this multiple times. The math is one thing. Claims about what the math means and what math is relevant is another.Nullstein said:This fact follows from the axioms of QM