Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?

[Thomas Ray]

The Bell experiment is meaningless.

[Schmelzer]

Why? It gives results, proportional to \(\hbar\) so that it becomes meaningless if one considers the limit \(\hbar\to 0\), but we live in a world where \(\hbar > 0\), so it is meaningful.

[Thomas Ray]

How do we know we live in a world where h-bar > 0?

[Thomas Ray]

Bell-Aspect tells us nothing more than, if one assumes manifest particle reality, one gets a multiply connected space.  I suspect this is the reason Gill declines to specify a measure space -- were it made obvious, he could not escape the conclusion that there is no theoretical structure in Bell-Aspect's empirically-derived result.  

The simply-connected topology of spacetime is a game-changer.

[Schmelzer]

We know this because we use, with quite good success, for physical predictions in the quantum domain a theory, known as quantum theory, which is based on the hypothesis that \(\hbar > 0\).

I recommend you to read Bell's paper, it has nothing to do with assuming "manifest particle reality", whatever this means, or "multiply connected spaces".

[Thomas Ray]

I have read it, many times. (I assume you mean Bertlmann's Socks.)

Which is why I know that it has nothing to do with the issues of spacetime and the completeness of measurement. It assumes nonlocality from the beginning.

I recommend you read Karl Hess. A much more recent reference.

[Thomas Ray]

You simply cannot deny that Bell-Aspect assumes its own conclusions.

You said it yourself:  " ... all Hidden Variable Theories have to violate Lorentz symmetry ..." which is true with the qualification: if h-bar > 0.  How does one know?

Let's return to the metaphor of a safe with the combination locked inside.  Einstein's field theory permeates the space occupied by the safe; there is no terra incognita that prevents completeness.

[FrediFizzx]

I have read it, many times.  (I assume you mean Bertlmann's Socks.)

Which is why I know that it has nothing to do with the issues of spacetime and the completeness of measurement.  It assumes nonlocality from the beginning.

That is right and all the Bell fans also assume nonlocality from the get go. Now if you make the perfectly reasonable assumption that Nature is local and realistic, then the quantum experiments prove that Bell's argument has a flaw in it somewhere.

[Thomas Ray]

So true, Fred.  Bell's argument is flawed in its assumptions, by declining to make a closed logical judgement.

It's surprising that Schmeltzer does not know what a multiply connected space is [please learn to behave here appropriately.  Such personal attacks are inappropriate here.  Nor against participants, nor against other persons.  The name is also misspelled.] 

[Schmelzer]

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with reality. If one assumes "locality" (means Einstein causality) one can derive the Bell inequalities, and they have been empirically falsified (modulo claims for loopholes in the particular experiments).

Of course, once this is well-known and established, every reasonable person will assume non-"locality" (means non-Einstein-causality) in any other considerations from the start. But this does not change the original argument and therefore cannot make it circular.

If you continue with completely unjustified and, moreover, completely wrong personal accusations, like the completely nonsensical one that I don't know what a multiply connected space is, I have the ability to stop this.

Feel free to reformulate your points in a civilized way, appropriate for a scientific discussion.