Scholarpedia article on Bell's Theorem

[stevendaryl]

has been stated "correlations".
you can interpret bell in terms of shareability of correlations and abandon "local cfd" doctrine.

Maybe so, but Bell's original intention was to investigate the possibility of quantum mechanics being explainable in terms of a locally realistic theory, and for such a theory, CFD holds.

 

[stevendaryl]

What are you talking about? What did you think I was doing.

I have no idea. That's what I'm trying to find out.

 

[DrChinese]

What are you arguing for?

Bill probably wants an admission he is right and everyone else is wrong. In the years I have gone around and around with him, I have never understood where he was driving on this point either. Glad you and Nugatory are doing this with him this time rather than me.

I have an entire list of links to papers "proving" Bell is wrong. If Bill ever wrote one, I could add that to my list. Instead... this.

 

[billschnieder]

I have no idea. That's what I'm trying to find out.

No, I don't think you are interested. If you were, you would answer my simple question, which again is this:

2. The correlations predicted by quantum mechanics do not obey that inequality.

Please spell out how you have arrived at this conclusion [your #2]. Write down the inequality and write down the correlations which violate the inequality, term by term.

I'm simply asking you to demonstrate what you claimed yourself in claim #2. What are you afraid of? If you do not understand the question, simply say so and I'll explain again. Bell's inequality has 3 terms. the CHSH has 4 terms. If you claim QM violates the inequality, then you must have 3 terms from QM to substitute in Bell's inequality or 4 terms from QM to substitute in the CHSH in other to demonstrate the violation. This is not rocket science. I'm asking you to provide ALL the three terms you used for Bell's inequality or ALL the 4 terms you used for the CHSH. You can't just write one term and fold your arms. Get it?

Nobody can honestly claim I've not been very clear about what I'm saying, especially after reading post #557. It is one thing to say you disagree with the claims in post #557. It is another thing completely to pretend they are not clear. You haven't even attempted to respond to it. Despite me explaining it clearly multiple times.

 

[billschnieder]

Well, don't leave me hanging---what's the assumption? I didn't really get it from Bill's posts.

Because you did not read Bill's posts otherwise you would have seen this in post #521

In other words, if you insist on using the terms from QM and experiment to compare with the inequality, then you are making an extra assumption that the correlations in scenario X and Y are equivalent.

Now once you obtain a violation, it is this assumption that should be thrown out. As I have demonstrated already, those two scenarios are different without any non-locality or conspiracy, and such an assumption should never even be introduced if reasoning correctly.

 

[Dale]

Closed pending moderation.