Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(08-23-2016, 05:13 PM)secur Wrote:
(08-23-2016, 01:25 AM)Thomas Ray Wrote: secur wrote, "Our only real disagreement concerns the results of the exploding ball experiment. With luck someone will perform it and put the issue to rest."

A non-arbitrary initial condition, without entanglement, will put the issue to rest.  That is the point.  Understand that, and everything else falls into place.

The correlation function should be classical, and not violate Bell or CHSH inequalities. Doesn't seem to matter how the initial conditions are designed. That's what Gill's CHSH proof shows. Of course the standard caveat applies: I may be missing something!

(08-23-2016, 08:25 AM)gill1109 Wrote:
(08-22-2016, 09:29 PM)secur Wrote: Anyway, you're assuming that all four combinations of the a's and b's will occur. That happens in a typical Bell experiment, allowing CHSH inequality to be derived easily. However in Christian's case he instructs us to pick only one (a, b) then use it with each of the experimental data points to produce the script-E terms.
In his experiment, you observe N particle pairs, get N values of lambda, and then compute any script-E term for any (a, b) you like. For every (a, b): the same N particle pairs, the same N values of lambda.

Ok, now I get it - you're right.

The correlation function is classical.  Gill's correlation function is meaningless without a time parameter.  That's the whole point.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 08-23-2016, 09:15 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 35 Guest(s)