gill1109 wrote:1. What do you mean by "four functions"?
Go back and read the first post. Then read up the difference between a random variable and a function. Then you might learn that a,a',b,b' are not random variables in the context of the CHSH.
2. EPR experiments do not involve any functions at all.
Sad that you have been reduced to silly nitpicking. The outcome of experiments are modeled as the result of a function of a random variable.
3. Yes the only upper bound which one can give to the value of CHSH that one can observe in an experiment is 4.
Good. Finally. But I don't see you withdrawing your baloney paper, yet. I don't see you withdrawing your claim that realism is untenable.
4. Apparent violation of CHSH does not "prove" anything
It certainly proves misapplication of the CHSH to the situation, in every sense of the word "prove".
Experiments do not violate bounds. Experiments generate results which either fit to one theory or to another theory or to neither.
Tell that to Bell proponents after you withdraw your papers claiming violation of the CHSH.
Similarly, a succesful loophole free Bell-CHSH experiment, which so far has never been performed, would be an experiment which produces results which are almost impossible if LHV would be true. Not actually impossible.
Every experiment is loophole free. Theories have loopholes not experiments. A successful Bell-CHSH experiment requires actual measurement of counterfactual results, a contradiction. A successful Bell-CHSH experiment is impossible to perform. That is an unsurmountable loophole in Bell's theorem.
By your logic, a spectator who spots a magicians trick and unravels the illusion has, a loophole.
