- #1

- 425

- 23

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Hi.

In most articles on Bell's inequalities, both the reality and locality assumptions are thrown at the reader from the beginning. DrChinese however starts with only the reality assumption and shows that it doesn't comply with QM IF it were possible to measure two non-commuting observables simultaneously on the same particle.

Since this is experimentally impossible, Bell assumed entangled particles that allow to make two simultaneous measurement. However, the price to pay is the addition of a second assumption, namely locality.

So it seems to me that the locality assumption is merely needed to make Bell's results experimentally verifiable. Can it be proven that there is no other way to do so than using entangled particles and assuming locality?

In most articles on Bell's inequalities, both the reality and locality assumptions are thrown at the reader from the beginning. DrChinese however starts with only the reality assumption and shows that it doesn't comply with QM IF it were possible to measure two non-commuting observables simultaneously on the same particle.

Since this is experimentally impossible, Bell assumed entangled particles that allow to make two simultaneous measurement. However, the price to pay is the addition of a second assumption, namely locality.

So it seems to me that the locality assumption is merely needed to make Bell's results experimentally verifiable. Can it be proven that there is no other way to do so than using entangled particles and assuming locality?