Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-13-2016, 09:31 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 08:51 PM)Heinera Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

With Christian's exploding balls experiment, you obviously can observe the quadruples, so in that case it is possible to test.  Still junk science?

Is that testing local realism against quantum mechanics?  Perhaps by a long chain of reasoning since if successful, then Bell's theory is wrong.  So we make the qualification that it is impossible to test in a quantum experiment.  But I think that was obvious.

You argue that Bell's proof must be wrong, because it assumes that the quadruple (A, A', B, B') can be observed in the same run, which you claim is physically impossible.  But it's not impossible in Joy's experiment.  So according to your own logic, Bell's inequality must hold in that case.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Heinera - 07-13-2016, 10:20 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)