Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(06-18-2016, 02:57 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: There are no loopholes since it is mathematically impossible for anything to "violate" a Bell inequality.  Come on folks, it is really simple math! 
For anything which has the mathematical form \(E(a,b) = \int A(a,\lambda) B(b\lambda) \rho(\lambda)d\lambda\) with \(A(a,\lambda), B(b\lambda)\in\{-1,+1\}\). But that a theory of a particular type (an Einstein-causal realistic theory) has to be of this type is something which needs a proof. Which was given by Bell based on the EPR argument.
(06-18-2016, 02:57 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Besides, "loopholes" implies that you think that quantum mechanics is not correct as far as the predictions for the EPR-Bohm scenario goes.
No, loopholes refers to the experimental tests of Bell's inequality, which are not necessarily ideal realizations of the original thought experiment. The most serious "loophole" was detector efficiency.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Schmelzer - 06-18-2016, 05:29 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)