Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[DevilsAvocado]

... So far, so good: QM and Local Realism (LR) in sync as to predictions.

Your explanation on a b c is rock-solid and crystal-clear to everyone who wishes to understand, and I guess that even a gifted 10-yearold could do it, with some help.

I don’t know how old billschnieder is, but undoubtedly he’s fishing for something else. He’s obviously scared to death by anything that looks like Spukhafte Fernwirkung, and he doesn’t care that much about the R in Local Realism.

AFAICT, the example with a b c is excellent to explain the impossibility of objects having pre-existing values (= Einsteinian Realism).

Since billschnieder now has run into the wall with his first attempt to disprove Bell's theorem by Bayesian probability + the Chain rule (claiming that the "Big Problem" is that Bell used a comma instead of a vertical bar in Bell (2)) – he now thinks he has found the "Big Flaw" in triples.

billschnieder for real thinks that Bell's theorem REQUIRES three (3) simultaneous values, and since we always get two (2) entangled values in real EPR-Bell experiments – Bell's theorem can NEVER be proven right by real experiments. billschnieder is therefore supremely convinced that he has made a new groundbreaking scientific discovery.

He "builds" this majestic "scientific discovery" solely on the Leggett–Garg inequality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggett%E2%80%93Garg_inequality"

The simplest form of the Leggett–Garg inequality derives from examining a system that has only two possible states. These states have corresponding measurement values $$Q=\pm 1$$. The key here is that we have measurements at two different times, and one or more times between the first and last measurement. The simplest example is where the system is measured at three successive times t₁ < t₂ < t₃.

And the rest of the world knows that Bell's theorem is from 1964 and the Leggett–Garg inequality is from 1985.

... pure madness ... don’t know if to laugh or weep ...


P.S. Your Swedish footnote is cool! "Others" did not have the same luck with Google Translate and I’m laughing hilarious tears.

-----------------------
Почему 100? Если я ошибся, один было бы достаточно.

 

[DrChinese]

Your explanation on a b c is rock-solid and crystal-clear to everyone who wishes to understand, and I guess that even a gifted 10-yearold could do it, with some help.

Thanks, in fact *I* am a gifted 10 year old. In a slightly more used body, however.

One of the things that it is easy to lose sight of - in our discussions about spin/polarization - is that a Bell Inequality can be created for literally dozens of attributes. Anything that can be entangled is a potential source. Of course there are the other primary observables like momentum, energy, frequency, etc. But there are secondary observables as well. There was an experiment showing "entangled entanglement", for example. Particles can be entangled which have never interacted, as we have discussed in other threads.

And in all of these cases, a realistic assumption of some kind leads to a Bell Inequality; that Inequality is tested; the realistic hypothesis is rejected; and the predictions of QM are confirmed.

None of which fits with our "common sense" view of the moon being there when not observed. And yet every variation shows the same result. You have to respect nature for being so consistent.

 

[questionsyes]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

The math says not(?)

It's impossible to prove it did(?)

Should we "just stop worrying and calculate"?

...or has the tree just hit me?

 

[DrChinese]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

The math says not(?)

It's impossible to prove it did(?)

Should we "just stop worrying and calculate"?

...or has the tree just hit me?

Welcome to PhysicsForums, questions,yes!

Impossible to prove it did make a sound, I say. And the tree hit me on the way down too!

 

[skippy1729]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

My favourite answer to this question:

"What is observed, certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. This freedom is then used to avoid paradoxes."

von Weizsäcker, C. H., 1971, in Quantum Theory and Beyond, ed. T. Bastin, (Cambridge University Press, London) page 26.

Skippy

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Thanks, in fact *I* am a gifted 10 year old. In a slightly more used body, however.

You are welcome. Why do I feel some entanglement here...?? Especially the body part... The critical difference must be that some suspect I have only one brain cell. But what do I care; I’m only a layman here to learn, not a pseudo professor trying to run over Nobel Laureates.

And in all of these cases, a realistic assumption of some kind leads to a Bell Inequality; that Inequality is tested; the realistic hypothesis is rejected; and the predictions of QM are confirmed.

Excellent explanation again! For a 1-brain-cell 10-yearold like me; could we say that a Bell Inequality is like a "speed limit", if we exceed (violate) this "speed limit" we are caught with something that doesn’t fit our everyday experience.

Like driving a Volkswagen Beetle 400 mph on Autobahn, and then being stopped by the Autobahnpolizei to deliver a "realistic hypothesis" for the car and the speed.

If this is correct, then there is nothing "spooky" about a Bell Inequality – it’s the violation of this inequality that mess up our classical conception about the (microscopic) reality, right?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

Welcome questions,yes

Sometimes it’s hard to hear the wood for all the falling trees... how about a good old tape recorder...

(struck by the whole wood, one brain cell left...)

 

[questionsyes]

... how about a good old tape recorder...

Presumably that would qualify as "hearing" it?

Has acausality been ruled out?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Presumably that would qualify as "hearing" it?

Yeah, I know... but the funny thing is: How does the tree know if the tape recorder is on or off, or if the tape is damaged, etc?? The tree must know all these things before it starts falling...

 

[DougW]

There is no such thing called the "MU theory", unless you just made it up. Are you talking about the Many-worlds interpretation (MWI), or the Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis?

I hope you do know the difference between theory/hypothesis/interpretation?

Sigh... MU was just shorthand for Multiple Universe, which I had written a few times earlier in the post. I had also mentioned David Deustch by name, so I assumed you would get what I was saying.

 

[ThomasT]

Sigh... MU was just shorthand for Multiple Universe, which I had written a few times earlier in the post. I had also mentioned David Deustch by name, so I assumed you would get what I was saying.

I've been reading (at least trying to) Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality". It might take me months (or even years) to honestly agree or disagree with his contentions. He's a genius of sorts. Adept at seeing connections that most of us don't see. But, I think that there might be a simpler reason for not assuming nonlocality (even though I like the idea of the SE and resultant wavefunctions as approximating the underlying reality) than the MUI or MWI represent. Anyway, it's fascinating reading.

Check out my subsequent postings for some rather more 'down to earth' reasons why violations of BIs don't imply nonlocality (or anything else about nature).

 

[ThomasT]

Show us a dataset.

It isn't clear to me what you mean by this 'dataset' of yours. Models/theories of entanglement (including QM and LR models) predict rates of detection, not datasets. So where does this dataset come from? What are you talking about?

 

[ThomasT]

billschnieder's recent arguments are based on the papers cited below:

Possible Experience: from Boole to Bell
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0767v2.pdf
Published in: EPL, 87 (2009) 60007

Extended Boole-Bell inequalities applicable to quantum theory
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.2546v2.pdf

The second paper, still in the works, on the extended Boole-Bell inequalities, provides a detailed account of why BIs are violated and why their violation doesn't imply nonlocality in nature.

While we love them both, I doubt that DrC understands these arguments, and I know that the wild and wacky DevilsAvocado doesn't. So, erstwhile reader, as you're vacillating between believing that violations of BIs 'prove' nonlocality or not, consider this -- the authors of the above papers are established, well respected, and bona fide professors in their respective fields. Hess is a well known and well respected physicist. On the other hand, the people arguing in favor of nonlocality are DrC, who is a computer programmer of unknown competence, and DevilsAvocado (he isn't even confident enough to reveal his real identity) an admitted physics novice and amateur.

The only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature.

If you have the expertise to follow and render opinions regarding the above-reference papers, then render them. If you don't, then wouldn't it be wise to follow the conclusions of the professionals who wrote those papers?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that this thread now is "gifted" with two (2) intellectual swindlers:

When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview. There is a proper subset who believe this change will be related to the unification of QM and GR :-)

Science has not proven nonlocality. I'm a physicist who believes the Bell experiments are legit, but these experiments don't prove nonlocality; they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability. So, it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality.

(And it’s of course not RUTA.)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Sigh... MU was just shorthand for Multiple Universe, which I had written a few times earlier in the post. I had also mentioned David Deustch by name, so I assumed you would get what I was saying.

I know. It’s the theory in "MU theory" that caught my interest. David Deutsch calls it multiverse hypothesis, which is something else:

"Wikipedia - A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."​

This is one of those "little things" that our two intellectual swindlers in this thread would exploit to bamboozle the "casual reader".

 

[ThomasT]

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that this thread now is "gifted" with two (2) intellectual swindlers:

DA, we all know that you're a novice and that you don't understand, well, pretty much anything. So, this might be a good time for you to take a break. No ... really. I mean it. Just ... have a time out or whatever they have you do in school when you're naughty. Do that.

For anyone else: I said that "the only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature."

Here are some RUTA quotes provided by, yes that's right, the DA itself:

When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview. There is a proper subset who believe this change will be related to the unification of QM and GR :-)

Science has not proven nonlocality. I'm a physicist who believes the Bell experiments are legit, but these experiments don't prove nonlocality; they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability. So, it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality.

Let's see now, RUTA says that "science has not proven nonlocality", " [Bell] experiments don't prove nonlocality", "it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality", and, guess what, RUTA has co authored a theory in which quantum entanglement is depicted as a nonseparable, local phenomenon.

So, I must thank the DA for supporting my contention regarding RUTA (the ONLY ...the ONLY? ... yes, the ONLY working physicist who has contributed to this thread).

 

[DougW]

I know. It’s the theory in "MU theory" that caught my interest. David Deutsch calls it multiverse hypothesis, which is something else:

"Wikipedia - A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."​

This is one of those "little things" that our two intellectual swindlers in this thread would exploit to bamboozle the "casual reader".

LOL, you're right, I have noticed how some people will beat down discussion with umimportant details like that. The point I was trying to make was simply this:

The movement of the sun, moon and stars could not be truly understood (or predicted by mathemetical formulas) until someone took the leap to consider whether they might not be orbiting around the earth. Likewise, when Galileo dropped his two balls from the top of the tower of Pisa, he was making a move away from a framework of assumptions about the universe that allowed us to come up with new experiments, make new predictions and ultimately 'discover' new laws of physics.

For some reason, many people assume that there are no more leaps of that caliber left to be made, that we understand all there is to understand about the universe. So when a quandry like 'spooky action at a distance' comes up, we want to explain it only within the framework of what we have previously labeled 'the known universe'. And what we are missing is that this may simply not be possible.

It may be that under specific local conditions that C is a fixed velocity, but when viewed from a different framework (other dimensions? warped timespace?) it may be possible to exceed that limit. The most interesting things being done in physics today concern areas where the limit of our understanding is being expanded: Information Theory, Brane Theory, the Study of Complexity, Quantum Computing, etc.

The role of physics in this is to find ways to disprove these theories, discard those that won't stand up to experiment, and then make deeper assumptons (based on logic, not wild flights of fancy like 'spirits' in plants giving them healing properties) and develop new experiments to attempt to disprove these additional assumptions.

As for this forum, it's good to see that there are at least a few people who are courteous enough to treat everyone civilly. It would be pretty sad to think that this forum's reason for existence is so that a bunch of really smart people could remind themselves how much more they know than everyone else...

 

[DougW]

DA, we all know that you're a novice and that you don't understand, well, pretty much anything. So, this might be a good time for you to take a break. No ... really. I mean it. Just ... have a time out or whatever they have you do in school when you're naughty. Do that.

For anyone else: I said that "the only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature."

Here are some RUTA quotes provided by, yes that's right, the DA itself:


Let's see now, RUTA says that "science has not proven nonlocality", " [Bell] experiments don't prove nonlocality", "it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality", and, guess what, RUTA has co authored a theory in which quantum entanglement is depicted as a nonseparable, local phenomenon.

So, I must thank the DA for supporting my contention regarding RUTA (the ONLY ...the ONLY? ... yes, the ONLY working physicist who has contributed to this thread).

Wow, I hope you had an adequate supply of kleenex handy after that post...

 

[ThomasT]

Wow, I hope you had an adequate supply of kleenex handy after that post...

OK Doug

 

[DevilsAvocado]

DA, we all know that you're a novice and that you don't understand, well, pretty much anything. So, this might be a good time for you to take a break. No ... really. I mean it. Just ... have a time out or whatever they have you do in school when you're naughty. Do that.

For anyone else: I said that "the only working physicist (RUTA) who has contributed to this thread is decidedly against the idea that nonlocality is a fact of nature."

they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that the two (2) intellectual swindlers follow the same pattern over and over again. When proven wrong in simple English, understandable by a 10-yearold, they turn into personal attacks and name calling, in lack of any real arguments. We have seen this number of times by now.

The funny thing is that they accuse others for being "drama queens" and "liars", etc. What can one do but laugh.

I can’t wait for RUTA to comment on this deliberate corruption of his scientific position in EPR-Bell. It will be pure entertainment.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've been reading this thread, but fellows, if this insulting keeps up I doubt it will go on. Please, go back to an exchange of ideas and not vitriol.

 

[DrChinese]

It isn't clear to me what you mean by this 'dataset' of yours. Models/theories of entanglement (including QM and LR models) predict rates of detection, not datasets. So where does this dataset come from? What are you talking about?

Read EPR. According to EPR, there are elements of reality to values which can be predicted with certainty. That would be, per their definition, values for any angles a, b and c I care to chose. If they have those values, what are they? Any local realist should be able to provide an example dataset. I have provided my own, for example, and demonstrated that it leads to outcomes which are inconsistent with observation. LR is inconsistent, QM is not.

Ergo, those EPR elements of reality don't exist.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I've been reading this thread, but fellows, if this insulting keeps up I doubt it will go on. Please, go back to an exchange of ideas and not vitriol.

I agree. But what’s your advice when some people in this thread deliberately try to delude the "casual reader"? Should we keep quiet?

Please reply to my specific questions.

You stated that Kracklauer's "statistics assumed information concerning the detector settings at all sites was available at all sites." Isn't it true that at the conclusion of a run this info is available ... to the global observer, the experimenter? So, I'm suggesting that maybe Kracklauer's objection to your criticism was valid.

As I've asked, if you can point out the specific error in Kracklauer's analysis, then that woud be appreciated.

That the information is available AFTER the fact doesn't bear on a possible CAUSE for the correlations. The point is that the detector setting at site A is NOT available to site B BEFORE the detection event occurs at site B. If this information is available prior to detection, the correlations in the outcomes can be orchestrated to violate Bell's inequality. No one disputes this fact -- you have to keep the outcome at each site dependent ONLY upon information AT THAT SITE to have the conundrum about their correlations.

Thus, there are generally two ways to account for EPR-Bell correlations. 1) The detection events are separable and you have superluminal exchange of information. 2) The detection events are not separable, e.g., the spin of the entangled electrons is not a property of each electron. The first property is often called "locality" and the second property "realism."

Kracklauer's statistics simply assumed detector setting information was available at each site prior to detection outcomes. When I discussed this with him at a conference, he was adamant that the outcome at each site was contingent upon outcomes and settings at other sites so the "proper" statistics had to contain this fact. His whole argument was that we needed to use the "proper" statistics and the mystery would disappear. His "proper" statistics just assume global knowledge of detector settings. But, unless he has a proposal for how this information is available, he has done nothing to resolve the mystery. How is this information available? FTL signals or nonseparability? Or both? What is the mechanism? All he had was a statistical counterpart to the mystery, although it could be published if no one else had pointed this out. But, nothing was "resolved."

Personally, I will focus on the interesting facts concerning EPR-Bell, and maybe someone else can act "swindler cleanup", and chase scams like this one:

On the other hand, the people arguing in favor of nonlocality are DrC, who is a computer programmer of unknown competence, and DevilsAvocado (he isn't even confident enough to reveal his real identity) an admitted physics novice and amateur.

Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree. But what’s your advice when some people in this thread deliberately try to delude the "casual reader"? Should we keep quiet?



Personally, I will focus on the interesting facts concerning EPR-Bell, and maybe someone else can act "swindler cleanup", and chase scams like this one:

I'm a casual reader, and I've already formed the opinion that DrChinese is very knowledgeable, you are in the process of learning and are very curious and willing to admit your faults, RUTA has some real experience, and ThomasT is cracked. Don't worry, the text speaks for itself.

 

[ThomasT]

I've been reading this thread, but fellows, if this insulting keeps up I doubt it will go on. Please, go back to an exchange of ideas and not vitriol.

I agree. But what’s your advice when some people in this thread deliberately try to delude the "casual reader"? Should we keep quiet?

I thought we were just having some fun. Sorry if I hurt your feelings DA. Hey, I don't even know what 'vitriol' means.

Well, I have to inform the "casual reader" that the two (2) intellectual swindlers follow the same pattern over and over again. When proven wrong in simple English, understandable by a 10-yearold, they turn into personal attacks and name calling, in lack of any real arguments. We have seen this number of times by now.

Uh oh. I sense vitriol.

The funny thing is that they accuse others for being "drama queens" and "liars", etc. What can one do but laugh.

Indeed. I'm glad you're such a good sport.

I can’t wait for RUTA to comment on this deliberate corruption of his scientific position in EPR-Bell. It will be pure entertainment.

It's times like this that one lives for. Eh? Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some intellectual swindlin' to do.

 

[ThomasT]

According to EPR, there are elements of reality to values which can be predicted with certainty.

Ok, the 'certain' prediction would be the deduction following the application of, say, some conservation law. All this says is that if we can make an accurate prediction by deduction, then we can assume that there was in fact 'something' propagating between the emitter and the detector, and that it had some definite value of a conserved property which caused the detection and allowed us to correctly predict that detection via deduction. The conservation law just specifies a relationship between some property of the co-emitted disturbances. But that doesn't give us any clue about what the precise values of the disturbances incident on polarizer a and polarizer b are.

That would be, per their definition, values for any angles a, b and c I care to chose. If they have those values, what are they? Any local realist should be able to provide an example dataset.

This is the 'unrealistic' requirement that an LR model predict a particular dataset. However, it's the experiments that produce the datasets, and there are LR models of entanglement which correctly predict the rates of detection, but they can't predict the datasets any more than qm can.

I agree that if you try to model entanglement in terms of 'instruction sets', or Herbert's 'coded messages', or just definite values for some property of the polarizer-incident disturbances, then you get inconsistencies. But these aren't the only ways to construct an LR model. That Bell's LR formulation follows the nonviable course means that the violation of BIs rules out the sorts of LR models that follow that prescription, or proscription. You've been presented with LR models wrt which your dataset requirement doesn't apply. I would hope that somewhere along the line you would actually look closely at them. Maybe you'll decide that they aren't local or realistic for some other reason.

Before that however don't forget to read the papers I linked to in post #1098. They're relevant to the argument that billschnieder has been presenting recently.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I'm a casual reader, and I've already formed the opinion that DrChinese is very knowledgeable, you are in the process of learning and are very curious and willing to admit your faults, RUTA has some real experience, and ThomasT is cracked. Don't worry, the text speaks for itself.

Thanks nismaratwork, good to know that I didn’t scare you away.

I think we should add that JesseM has real solid knowledge, and a very fine ability to pinpoint the hilarious character of our good old swindler:

[ThomasT] You are simply wrong here (and given your own lack of knowledge of physics, it's ridiculous that you act so confident), the mainstream view is that the "totality of local realistic conceptions" have indeed been shown to be incompatible with violations of Bell inequalities.

 

[DrChinese]

Regarding the issue of the EPR elements of reality:

Suppose you look at the most basic interpretation: If you can predict only 1 attribute at a time, then there is realism to that attribute. Under that restrictive requirement, QM and LR would agree, and a dataset might look like this:

Alice:
a
+
-
+
-

Because we had Bob as:

a
+
-
+
-

Now suppose we had the idea that there was simultaneous reality to both Alice a and Bob b (by hypothesis):

Alice:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Bob:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Who could say this wasn't feasible for both QM and LR? This was the situation EPR envisioned. And it is not clear a Local Realistic theory - one more "complete" than QM - might not exist in this scenario. In the above case, the coincidence rate of 25% is as QM predicts when a and b are 120 degrees apart.

But when you take it a step further - as Bell did - it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

 

[DrChinese]

I thought we were just having some fun. Sorry if I hurt your feelings DA. Hey, I don't even know what 'vitriol' means.

Indeed. I'm glad you're such a good sport.

I like the kinder, gentler ThomasT.

 

[nismaratwork]

Regarding the issue of the EPR elements of reality:

Suppose you look at the most basic interpretation: If you can predict only 1 attribute at a time, then there is realism to that attribute. Under that restrictive requirement, QM and LR would agree, and a dataset might look like this:

Alice:
a
+
-
+
-

Because we had Bob as:

a
+
-
+
-

Now suppose we had the idea that there was simultaneous reality to both Alice a and Bob b (by hypothesis):

Alice:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Bob:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Who could say this wasn't feasible for both QM and LR? This was the situation EPR envisioned. And it is not clear a Local Realistic theory - one more "complete" than QM - might not exist in this scenario. In the above case, the coincidence rate of 25% is as QM predicts when a and b are 120 degrees apart.

But when you take it a step further - as Bell did - it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

Isn't it correct to say that this is the commonly accepted view in this matter? There may be no ontology to replace local realism that feels god, but the math and experiments speak for themselves... unless someone believes in superdeterminism heh.

 

[ThomasT]

... it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

Theories don't provide datasets, they predict rates of detection.

If you consider detection attributes as being in one to one correspondence with an underlying reality, then of course you'll get inconsistencies. This is clearly illustrated by GHZ as well as Bell.

But this tells us nothing about reality, because it isn't required that detection attributes be in one to one correspondence with an underlying reality.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm a casual reader, and I've already formed the opinion that DrChinese is very knowledgeable, you are in the process of learning and are very curious and willing to admit your faults, RUTA has some real experience, and ThomasT is cracked.

So you start out by calling people names? What happened to all that stuff about "an exchange of ideas not vitriol".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

But when you take it a step further - as Bell did - it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

Thanks DrC, for bringing this down to Earth again.

I’m trying to get this into my little 1-brain-cell-head, and you know I like it simple.

Could a analogous view on the situation EPR envisioned be that if the polarizers a & b are aligned parallel (0º,0º / 0º,180º) or perpendicular (0º,90º) – it is not possible to violate Bell's Inequality, and the Einsteinian Local Realism (LR) still holds.

The genius move of John Bell was to extend the 'test' to all possible relative angles (0º-360º) between a & b, and by this he did violate Bell's Inequality, thus proving that nonlocality and/or nonseparability is a fact.


(One thing that still puzzles me: Why didn’t Einstein or Bohr think of that...??)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I just did a miraculous scientific discovery! I made my own little "theory" by assigning Malus' to both (not entangled) Alice & Bob, and guess what?? IT DID PROVIDE ME WITH A DATASET! OH MY GOD!

[B]Angle	Malus'	Alice	Bob[/B]
------------------------------
0º	100%	111111	111111
22.5º	85%	111110	111110
45º	50%	111000	111000
67.5º	15%	100000	100000
90º	0%	000000	000000

 

[DrChinese]

If you consider detection attributes as being in one to one correspondence with an underlying reality, then of course you'll get inconsistencies. This is clearly illustrated by GHZ as well as Bell.

But this tells us nothing about reality, ...

According to EPR, it does. The realism assumption is directly deduced from that. The question is whether or not the requirement the elements of reality be simultaneously predictable is reasonable. EPR thinks NO, they do not need to be simultaneously predictable.

You, on the other hand, think they should be simultaneously predictable because otherwise there is nothing but the results of measurements. That would put you squarely in the quantum mechanical camp. According to standard QM, there is no deeper reality than what can be observed (i.e. nothing deeper than the limits of the HUP). Glad to see this more sensible side to this discussion from you. You can call officially yourself a Bohr Local Realist.