Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
#17
(06-06-2016, 07:15 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-06-2016, 05:03 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: If nobody has been interested in that inequality, then why is it that it is the one that QM and the experiments all use?
Nobody uses it. What is used is the CHSH inequality which is \(|S|\le 2\). Which can be derived for Einstein-causal realistic theories.

(06-06-2016, 05:03 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Anyways, you should just admit that you can't demonstrate exactly how QM or the experiments violate any of the Bell inequalities. It is quite simple math to show that it is impossible for anything including QM, experiments and LHV models to violate the Bell inequalities.
What? It is sufficient to compute the QM predictions for the particular experiment. Or to use the experimental results. Of course, they violate the CHSH inequality \(|S|\le 2\), not the trivial FrediFizzx inequality \(|S|\le 4\).
They do use the inequality with the bound of 4. And since it is impossible for anyone to show that Bell's inequalities have ever been violated, it is easy to prove that the inequality with a bound of 4 is being used. Just look at the Wikipedia entry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_t...redictions

When they do the final calculation for the CHSH string, each expectation term is independent. Thus they are using the inequality with the bound of 4. If those expectation terms are dependent on each other like in the Bell-CHSH inequality with a bound of 2, it is impossible to get anything greater than 2. It really is just simple mathematics.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by FrediFizzx - 06-06-2016, 07:50 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)